User talk:Goethean/Archive 7

Doniger

Mr Goethean: There are 191,000 pages on Google connecting Wendy Doniger and Sarah Palin. There were articles not only in Wall Street Journal and National Review but dozens of other journals and blogs and I remember this as a major thing on TV in late 2008. Why doesn't that make it a big controversy?

I am going to restore my edit on Wendy hoping that this clarification will satisfy you. Roberto25 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies including WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:EW. Under Wikipedia policy, the Google hit numbers that you mention do not count as a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is a partisan source, as is the National Review. They are reliable only for the opinions of their authors.

What you need is a reliable source which says that Doniger's statement about Palin was controversial or significant. Until you cite such a source, I believe that Wikipedia policy dictates that your proposed addition stays out of Doniger's article. — goethean 17:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Friends of Hamas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Friends of Hamas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Hamas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Soman (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Kaufmann (philosopher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Encounter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

An RFAR has been filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 06:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed in your statement you referred to me as a "high profile admin". Am I really that high profile? I guess I just don't think about it, but now you've mentioned it, I'm wondering. KillerChihuahua 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

KC

saw your banner you left on the KC talk page .. even got the right picture. Amazing and wonderful gesture. Truly impressive. — Ched :  ?  00:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. — goethean 00:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was amazing. Well done you. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larry Arnhart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jonathan Wells, John West and History of political philosophy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Say what?

Goethean, I just noticed your edit summary. [1]. If you review my edit, you'll see that my edit summary begins by referring to the removal of teaparty.org which is not notable and comes from a primary source. It has nothing to do with the NYTs. There's no NYTs source for that edit. As for the Al Hunt edit, I don't see anywhere in my edit summary that I claim to be calling the NYTs not notable. If you examine the Al Hunt edit it is essentially unchanged except for correctly identifying it as a column and that it is published by the IHT. I don't see how you were able to read it as my calling the NYTs not notable. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I realized that after I made the edit, and admitting my mistake in a comment[2]. I couldn't change my edit because I would have been accused of violating 1RR. In the past, I have been falsely accused of violating 1RR by the conservative editors at the article. — goethean 13:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your post at the ArbCom evidence page is really good. It's focused and doesn't cherry pick diffs. Well done you. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! — goethean 17:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hey, one thing I just noticed, on the exchange we had about the fork, on my second comment, could you put in Malke explains, rather than just another Malke says it wouldn't be a fork? Appreciate it. But otherwise, that is the best post there. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I used "says" to describe most of the comments, so I think I'll just leave it. Thanks again. — goethean 17:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, okay. But you could say, Malke says why it's not a fork, lol, but do as you want. It's your post. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Great work there, I can imagine it was tedious. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Add diffs

To your statement here. Even if they're already in evidence, it will help the arbs so they don't have to dig through the evidence page to locate what you're referring to. KillerChihuahua 13:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding that same statement, [3], don't forget to go back and strike through Malke 2010 since I never participated in that discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a diff that shows me "joining this effort," please strike your comment. Thank you. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A fair point; most of your contributions to that discussion, like most of your contributions to the page, were irrelevant off-topic non-sequitors[4] that could be removed as chat. — goethean 14:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

then perhaps you could supply a dif of my off-topic, otherwise, plz strike that as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I just did. Now please stop wasting my time. — goethean 15:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

please add it on the page where you made the allegation as well as difs for the others you mentioned please, thanks! asking for difs is not wasting time, you can retract that also please. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:VA

There are a number of discussions occurring at Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded that may be of interest to you pbp 19:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of NPA

I refute that I made a personal attack against Specifico. He made an analogy that gun control was an unrelated topic to Nazi atrocities, and that discussing Hitler's Mayonaiise choice is an argument of equal validity. I called that trolling, and I stand by it. The statement is not about Specifico, but about his argument, which is not a PA. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That gun control is related to Nazi atrocities is an argument — and a highly contentious one — made by editors who dislike gun control. Saying that your opponent's argument (which happens to be the mainstream, neutral position) on gun control is "beyond the pale" and "reeks of holocaust denial" is a personal attack. You should be warned for attacking fellow editors, and a repeat should result in a block. In my opinion, if there were any accountability at all for one's actions at Wikipedia, you would already be indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing. — goethean 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about gun control. Historical misuses of gun control is a perfectly valid subtopic on a gun control article. There are NUMEROUS primary and secondary sources making the link. That is not in any way controversial. The most pro-guncontrol anti-gun people in the world agree that gun control was used as a tool by the Nazis. The holocaust had many tools and methods used to implement it. No single tool was necessary, and no single tool was sufficient. That does not mean that you cannot mention the link on pages discussing those tools/methods in their own larger context. I admit the comment was uncivil, but not that it was a personal attack. If you think an uncivil comment should result in an indefinite block, I am very glad you aren't in charge. focus on the article not a comment made in passing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun control didn't start with the Nazis. But on Wikipedia's non-neutral, NRA-inspired, piece of shit article that you are defending, it does. Why would one start a history of gun control with the year 1935? There is one, and only one, reason why one would do so. The reason is that one wants to associate gun control with the Nazis in order to prove a political point, and one is willing violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy in order to do so. The fact that you are willing to say that people who oppose your clear and repeated violations are Holocaust deniers, is...well, it is unfortunately typical of contemporary right-wingers. — goethean 23:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the PA. My "attack" was NOT about ANY position of gun control. Specifico said that " Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage." That is trolling. I stand by my statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin you have consistently misrepresented my remarks about Mayo. Please review them by searching the article talk page for mayonnaise. I was referring to the way in which facts are used in WP articles -- not that your statements are not PA on their face, regardless of the context. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, the mayo thing is going right over their heads. — goethean 23:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mayonnaise is complicated stuff. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

on the contrary, I understand perfectly. The Mayo argument is that something that merely being true is not necessarily relevant. Its a fair argument, except for the multiple contemporary newspaper articles, diary entries, telegrams, etc all discussing how confiscating guns from the jews was beneficial to the Nazi efforts. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Per the suggestion of an admin, I have moved the discussion to the appropriate venue. Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting_self Gaijin42 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

revert

I saw your re-add, which I am fine with, although I moved it to a more appropriate location in the section (IMO). Question : I got notified of a revert, but it seems that you did not actually revert. Did you manually notify me in some way? Or did you click revert and then somehow edit the revision to change the edit? Just curious on how the new notification system is working. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I clicked undo and then changed the edit summary. The source had been used in a way which was misleading. — goethean 18:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I don't disagree with your edit. The counter-opinion of the ADL is relevant, and I do not know where it was lost. When you clicked undo tho, it didn't just undo my edit tho (removing the count) it went back to an earlier bit of text that included the ADL opinion. Did you manually copy that bit back in as part of the undo? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I clicked undo to retain the ref and then re-wrote the content using the source. — goethean 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

3rr

By my count you are at 5rr. I think there has been enough beurocratic wikilawyering on this article, so I am not going to report you, but you might want to take care of ti, since I have done an FPP request, so admins will be looking at the history. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

dispute resolution

[5] you are mentioned here. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

Would care to explain why you feel those two minor issues, which have very little to do with Cheney are necessary and why you removed the see also to the Iraq War? I started a section on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lincoln (2012 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lebanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Southern nationalism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Southern nationalism. Since you had some involvement with the Southern nationalism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Thomas Nagel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Subjective, Third-person, Objective, First-person and Dissociation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Goethean/Malke2010

User:Goethean/Malke2010, a page you substantially contributed to, 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/Malke2010 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Goethean/Malke2010 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

off talk compromise proposal

Would you accept the following situation

• Gun control around the world/by country (moving the existing gun politics article to handle this)
  • Probably broken out into per-country articles for any countries with significant detail
    • Current state of gun control in each country
    • History of gun control in each country
    • Major political debates/opinions for that country
• Gun control as an independent article discussing gun control as a general concept
  • Associations with authoritarianism section under Opinions
    • That states the use of gun control by those regimes as an objective fact
    • But that leaves the importance or non importance of those facts, and relevance to modern debate as opinions (with harcourt vs halbrook (or whoever) as the voice of those opinions)
    • Depending on length of that section, a standalone "associations with authoritarianism" article, with a 1 paragraph summary and hat-tip link in the above two locations.

There would be some overlap in this situation between the "Gun control in the US" article and the overall gun control article (in particular this disputed content), but I believe the meme is notable enough for (some) coverage in both locations. If the back and forth opinions gets lengthy, that can be shuttled off to the standalone article, with just the high level summary indicating that there is such a debate etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Corporatism New Deal

I don't know about that article. Are you suggesting that its ok and needs improvement or do suggest it should be deleted?Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I see now you proposed deleting it.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Chieftains, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derek Bell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case resumed

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has decided to resume the Tea Party movement case, which currently is in its voting stages.

Regards, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Take a read. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is spam, and you are a spammer. Spam is defined as off-topic messages. Your message is spam. The fact that you have resorted to spamming 9 talk pages in a desperate attempt to find support for your garbage RFC should tell everyone exactly what they need to know about you, your RFC, and your agenda. — goethean 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I filed a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I filled a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I would ask that we put the past behind and come to some comprise language where there remains disputes. The link to the discussion is here. Casprings (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong link to the discussion. It is here. Casprings (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin marriage

Are you seriously asserting that Brett Kimberslin isn't married? They're currently filing legal papers on each other right now so I've been trying to keep the cite used in the actual article a neutral one. Alternatively, as per talk, I'm perfectly fine with moving it to a different section. If you have a specific objection that is unaddressed, please outline it on the article talk page. TMLutas (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS. WP:BLP. Non-negotiable. — goethean 17:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to explain why the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette is not a reliable source for the fact that Brett Kimberlin has a wife and kids, especially since they're currently filing papers on each other in Maryland court which mention the two children. I can understand the sensitivity of court filings being used which is why I just used the Journal Gazette and not the more incendiary stuff from the court, but that doesn't mean that we have to be idiots and pretend that the other stuff doesn't exist.

The second edit on Kimberlin's early personal life needs to start off with a challenge from you that you do not think that something is accurate. If you do not disagree on the accuracy of anything then there is no actual controversy. You're just being obstructive in that case. On the RS front, are you challenging the RS value of the book Citizen K? If so, on what grounds? I also asked for your actual challenge to this edit on the BK page so feel free to answer there. TMLutas (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Brett Kimberlin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please dial it back a bit

I have been interacting with you for several years and know that one of your main ways of further your POV is to continuously falsely accuse editors with opposite viewpoints of a whole range of sins. But such has reached a new roar at the Gun control article. In all of the spit flinging you have even given me viewpoints that I don't have, which leads me to think that some clarity there (vs. the bomb throwing) would be promising. My style is to candidly/bluntly discuss things with people rather than to try to get them into trouble. I have only seriously reported one person in my whole wiki-history and you are getting close to forcing me to making you the second. If so it would be thorough. Could you dial back the assaults and accusations a bit and focus more on a sincere discussion to try to reach a resolution of the issues at hand? You don't have to accept any of the wording that I just used, in fact I'll assume that you reject all of it. I just am asking that you dial back on the insults & accusations a little. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering the personal attacks and harassment that you have engaged with total impunity, I'm afraid that the Wikipedia policy against incivility is completely toothless. When your edits disregard the Wikipedia NPOV policy, I reserve the right to observe that fact. — goethean 22:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I expected more of I described (continuously falsely accuse editors with opposite viewpoints of a whole range of sins in order to gain an upper hand in your battling) in your response here. And maybe it will help you someday realize that spending most of your Wikipedia life throwing nasty punches is a waste at best. But the best I'm hoping for (and expecting) at the moment is dialing the nastiness back a notch. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013

I appreciate your ability to rhetorically take the upper hand by accusing others of the exact same bullshit that you engage in regularly. — goethean 00:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

'Nuff said. No use repeating or going in circles. North8000 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control DR

There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Le Donne, Aslan 2013

[6]

Could you explain why the Le Donne source is not reliable? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a blog? — goethean 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you still think the Le Donne is not reliable? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There are non-blog reviews available[7], so policy would dictate using those instead. — goethean 21:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which policy dictates that? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:NPOV. — goethean 21:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS does not seem to be a policy at all, rather it is a content guideline. It says that blogs are examples of self-published sources and largely not reliable. But then it also says that "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." And that is exactly what Anthony Le Donne is.

What in WP:NPOV is relevant to the matter? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the policy pages linked to above. If you still have questions, read them again. — goethean 22:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have read and I have read them again. I don't see where the one policy and the one content guideline you cite either individually or mutually dictate that when non-blog reviews are available then any review on a blog cannot be used. Do you still think this is the case? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've brought the matter up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Anthony_Le_Donne.3B_Reza_Aslan.2C_Zealot for wider community response. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Penn State University, Dickinson School of Law may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and hosts visiting scholars. The school offers a joint MBA/J.D. with the Smeal School of Business], as well as joint degrees with dozens of other Penn State University programs including the School

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel bibliography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Kaufmann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Lingam

STOP reverting edits on "Lingam". If you have concerns, discuss in Talk. I have not removed any well-sourced material, rather removed unnecessary repetitions and biased opinions. Apalaria (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard

Hey, here is the entire ball of wax [8]. Rothbard uses footnotes throughout his book and they are posted at the bottom of each page. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it. The footnotes are irrelevant. Texts are always quoted without footnotes, and authors know that. That's why they place material of secondary importance in the footnotes. It is presumable that Rothbard was familiar with these practices, which are common throughout the world. Footnotes are not a meaningful part of the quoetd text, and should not be inserted into the quoted text. To do so smacks of WP:OR and spoon-feeding the reader. — goethean 15:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case the context of what Rothbard was referring to is important, and the omission of that context leads to BALANCE problems. The discussion (and editing) of this piece is dynamic and I'm sure all editors are working towards a solution. What disturbs me was the inclusion of half a paragraph from one chapter of a 300+page book. Why was that particular portion selected and how does it help the reader? More work is certainly needed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. As a reader of the article, the quoted text does help me to understand Rothbard's position. Rothbard is basically an extremist for individual rights and individual freedoms. That's a philosophical position. Describing his position on children and parental rights does illustrate clearly (to me) his philosophical position. Maybe you could explain why selecting his stance on this issue is misconstrues or obscures rather than clarifies his philosophical position. — goethean 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the article does need better explanations as to Rothbard's overall extremist individual rights and liberties philosophy. What happens, though, is editors find polemic/controversial/outlandish thoughts (some of which are expressed rhetorically and/or as a stage in a longer discussion) and post them with prominence. (Chapter 14 goes on to decry the violations of basic civil rights for children. Why hasn't that been posted in the article? (Yes, perhaps I should do so.)) A lot of it is pushing on the WP:POLE, which I really don't mind because it makes for interesting & challenging discussions. (Please note I say POLE-pushing, not POV-pushing.) And more of the POLE-pushing is to be seen in other articles. User:RL0919 has been advocating, rightly, for more balance. My edits have been gnomish and usually deletionist when I see violations of editing guidelines. (E.g., I think and hope my posting of stuff has not been promotional of Rothbard and his crew.) I've suggested that other editors try writing up stuff à la Ideological Turing Test, but haven't seen anybody take up the challenge. This stuff about the "fake" footnotes is but one verse in the on-going epic poem. Again, I thank you for your edits, thoughts, and this opportunity to ruminate. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page

Thanks for the tip re: not responding to PAs. Sometimes that takes more discipline than I have! I very much hope you continue to contribute to the Rothbard article, which desperately editors who are not also Rothbard's fellow travelers. Steeletrap (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hegelian dialectic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your Lead section edits for Harold Bloom

Could you look at the Lead section of the Harold Bloom page which you had edited two weeks ago. 76.193.171.245 (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. — goethean 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For me your edit looked very good, even generous, but it has been tainted once again by the same person/editor. Possible vandalism? (Edit history looks like he/she is at 6RR.) 99.140.190.185 (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Same user who altered/distorted the Lead section is now moving to your edits in the Criticism section, and manually again removing all positive references and citations to Bloom. Is there a POV issue in the Criticism section now? 76.237.180.64 (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

New Comment: Don't know what to think of this new edit on Bloom page which appeared in the religion subsection. It mentions his book Agon as making a passing reference but gives only an inadequate two word quote to make its case. It seems to have more to do with the other authors it mentions rather than Bloom. When I looked up the contrib name, this came up:

Aaronheller (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (38,824 bytes) (+637)‎ . . (→‎Religious criticism: some major ideas about Gnosicism and gnosis in Agon) (undo)

Its a new account, with one single contrib, this one, on Bloom. Anecdotal, or subject for full delete? 72.68.5.132 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harold Bloom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Psyche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of German Idealism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies

Sorry, I did not realize that you had restored your comment the minute before I made my attempt to fix the page. And I was composing a reply that would have included SPECIFICO's comment when another ec interfered. Ahhh- the joys and follies of editing WP! – S. Rich (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No sweat. — goethean 21:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so very much!! – S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:RealClearPolitics. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — v/r - TP 20:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Integral psychology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Integral psychology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral psychology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thom Hartmann may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Prophet's Way}}</ref> In 1971 he was ordained as a Minister with Coptic Fellowship International]. He has been a keynote speaker at many Coptic Conferences nationally. In 1973, Hartmann returned

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yelp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for persevering, and for being a good editor.

FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johann Jakob Bachofen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erich Neumann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You are no longer welcome on my talk page

For use of profanity I am asking that you don't harass me on my talk page again. You no longer have permission to post on my talk page. The exchange is recorded below for the record. Have a nice day. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Newsflash. Removing bullshit NRA propaganda from Wikipedia articles is not vandalism. Rather than throw around accusations that you know are bullshit, go talk to an administrator. Please go ahead and tell someone that I am vandalizing the gun control article. Start a thread at WP:ANI. Go ahead. You won't, because you know that you are full of it, and you know that you are spouting bullshit. Prove me wrong or shut up. — goethean 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Use profanity on my page again and you will lose the privilege and courtesy of using my talk page. You have been warned. Your summary removal of 4,000+b of content that has been there for some time and added by established editors without first discussing and gaining consensus on talk is inappropriate. Please don't vandalize the page. Please be civil. Please get consensus on the talk.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Enough warnings. Start a thread about my vandalism or STFU. — goethean 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't post on this page again. Your profanity is not welcome. If you do, I'll have to report you for personal harassment.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Report me. — goethean 16:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Stuart Davis (musician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sting, Dido, Ethereal and Richard Thompson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

a kitten for you

Justanonymous has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

I know it's been a tough few days at Gun control and at ANI. I support and respect you even if we might not always agree! I know that you're dedicated to make Wikipedia better! Justanonymous (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, perhaps I was a bit harsh in my reaction to your "plain English style on my talk." In good faith, feel free to use my talk page if you need.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi Goethean. The "such as yourself" portion of your edit summary here moved it into being a personal remark about an editor mentioned at Edit summary dos and don'ts. I looked over your recent edit summaries and do no see them as a as concern, but please try to not use words such as "you", "your", "yourself" in edit summaries. It tends to alienate editors or put them in a defensive/offensive position. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Administrators should be more concerned about article content that flagrantly violates Wikipedia core policy, and has so for months and months, than about an unladylike edit summary. — goethean 16:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

When reverting

It really helps to see why the edit was made. I fear MilesMoney might have made his revert not based on looking at the reason for removal of a duplicated wikilink which was inserted contrary to policy ("see also" is not intended to duplicate links), but on his seeking to follow my edits :( and seeing what he thought was a neat opportunity to simply annoy me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to say to you. — goethean 14:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tragedy and Hope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Facts unspoken are still facts

Article talk pages are not the best place for comments like this. The comment is factually correct, but doesn't address content, and will be used against you by those who judge you as "the enemy." Worse, it may be held against you if ARBCOM becomes involved. Not good. Always assume other editors are acting in good faith, even when they are not (obviously this is not a death-pact, but it is best if you allow outside entities to determine when things have gone to far). Focus on content and research good sources. Stay frosty and don't swallow any WP:BAIT (it's spiked with razor blades). Use the proper wrench for the nut; do not use pliers. This advice is free and might be completely worthless...or not. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As a rule I try to limit giving unsolicited advice to once a year. However, I do have one more piece for you. Ping me on my talk page if you'd care to hear it. Enjoy, and Happy New Year. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

How things will go down

Your methods are not working. Currently there are several very experienced editors trying to figure out a solution to the problems on that article. Responding to almost every post with a confrontational attitude, even if you are right, is degrading the flow of the conversation and the quality of communication.

Here is exactly what will happen if you continue:

1. The experienced editors will walk away because rational discourse is impossible.
2. The article will stay the same or, more likely, get much worse.
3. Your level of frustration will increase.
4. All of your edits will be reverted because they lack "consensus."
5. You will violate 3RR. You will try hard not to, but you will make a mistake.
6. You will be blocked for edit warring.
7. You be taken to AN/I for personal attacks.
8. Steps 5, 6, and 7 will then be repeated.
9. After Step 8 has occurred between 1 and 5 times you will be blocked for an indefinite period of time.
10. The article will not have been improved.

This is not free advice. This is a guarantee.

It is not about what is Right, or True, or Just. It is about improving this Encyclopedia and nothing else. Please take some time to evaluate the options before you choose your path. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. We'll see. — goethean 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration case notice

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Clarification request notice

I've requested clarification from ArbCom regarding Gun control and that article's possible inclusion in the Tea Party movement topic ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)