User talk:Goethean

Archives: 2004 2005 2006

goethean

goethean, I am not harrassing you, please stop making such abusive remarks about me or my character. I am learning how to edit, so yes I make mistakes, sorry I can't be perfect. So actually, you please leave me personally alone. I will only talk to you on relvant wikipedia issues and edits. I am free to do so, this is wikipedia?? Clearly on your own user talk page, there is a history of antagonizing fellow wiki editors adding to the fact u have been partied to many arbitrations and revert edit wars...ForrestLane42 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

User:ForrestLane42

I've noted that you accused ForrestLane42 of harassment for going through several attempts to have Chicago Humanities Festival deleted. I know that you and ForrestLane42 don't exactly agree on the topics you share knowledge of, but I must advise you to assume good faith. It's not as if ForrestLane42 was attacking other articles that you might have created. He initially took the opinion that Chicago Humanities Festival was worthy for deletion; then he seemed to have trouble figuring out how to get it deleted. His steps—from blanking the page, to tagging it for speedy deletion, to listing it on AfD—seem to simply be a fairly inexperienced editor getting his bearings regarding how Wikipedia works.

You may or may not disagree with my assessment. However, I will advise you to be less confrontational in the future. Cut down on the accusations and concentrate on rational discussion. If ForrestLane42 does something similar in the future, refute his arguments with solid facts and rational points. If his motive is indeed harassment, this will quickly become apparent, and other editors will side with you. However, if you continue confront him every time he makes an edit, you may begin to come off as something of a jerk, even if you are entirely correct in your actions. Take the high road.

On the other side, I am advising ForrestLane42 to employ talk pages far more often, keep his cool, present his arguments clearly and completely, and to make inquiries when he has questions about Wikipedia procedures, so as to minimize misinterpretations of his actions. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, you seriously have to chill out. Even if ForrestLane42 did intentionally look through your contributions and choose Chicago Humanities Festival to pick on, there really is no way to prove this. Action taken upon one article does not constitute harassment. In addition, he seemed to honestly think that the article was unencyclopedic; this does not appear to be intentional disruption. Further actions on articles that you are involved in may qualify as such, depending on the circumstances.

Putting the everything else aside, you have done nothing so far to mitigate the dispute. While ForrestLane42 has at least accepted my suggestions on improving his editing, you seem to be intent solely on proving ForrestLane42's malfeasance. This is hurting Wikipedia more than helping it. He may or may not be harassing you, but until it can be proved, cease accusing ForrestLane42 of wrongdoing. There is next to no evidence for it, and you are just being uncivil and creating an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion.

I will be advising ForrestLane42 to forgo his desired "apology."

Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He may or may not be harassing you, but until it can be proved, cease accusing ForrestLane42 of wrongdoing.

That is why I asked User:ForrestLane42 a simple, civil question: How did he happen upon Chicago Humanities Festival? He could easily have responded with a simple answer, confirming or disconfirming my suspicions, or he could have ignored the question. He chose instead to evade, and to disingenuously claim that the question was an attack on his reputation. Unfortunately, you, User:Larry V, seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between incivility and a simple, ordinary, quite obvious question. This is potentially about a user nominating an article for deletion in retaliation for me making edits that a user didn't like. It is extremely unfortunate that you feel that the best response is to scold me. — goethean ॐ 21:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I "scold" you only because you are the far more experienced editor (over three years of experience), who should know better than to continue "feuds" like this. I'm not sure that ForrestLane42 knows any better, having only a month of experience on Wikipedia. I can see that your question was intended to make a simple query, but I can also see how an agitated, distressed editor such as ForrestLane42 could misinterpret its somewhat pointed style as indicative of a bad-faith accusation. I can also see how an inexperienced editor could perhaps attempt to delete an article in retaliation, ignorant of the explicit Wikipedia policy against such actions. Then again, one doesn't have to know Wikipedia policy to figure out that such an action would be somewhat unethical in any sense, so that wouldn't really be excusable, if it were the motive.

In any case, I'm not trying to blame either of you; I'm trying to mediate this conflict, and all I'm asking is that you, as the senior editor, provide an example by not escalating it. I'll be asking other editors for their views of the situation in an attempt to get a better view.

Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your candor. — goethean ॐ 17:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonviolent Communication

I noticed that you contributed to the Nonviolent Communication article at some time. A friend just recommended NVC to me because I am trying to mediate for Sri Lanka related articles. I really love it - I'm just devouring the eponymous book, but I am still very inexperienced. Moreover, applying the techniques to Wikipedia-style communication has its own challenges. Therefore, I could use some help from people who have more experience with NVC. You could help Wikipedia, Sri Lanka, the nonviolence movement and me greatly by looking at some of my edits and giving me honest feedback on User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC. — Sebastian 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"butchered" SQL entry

Actually, I'm fairly comfortable with removing the SQL entry on the grounds that it isn't really a misnomer. But as it stood, if "butcher" means "bring in line with known facts", it needed butchering. -Dmh 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Epic of Evolution

Hi Goethean,

Why have you removed the article on the Epic of Evolution? I am new to Wikipedia and don't understand the process of it's deletion. 67.174.179.59 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Momosean 05:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

i again. I looked over what happened. It seems that at 17:06 on Dec. 20, you proposed the article be deleted. 5 minutes later you deleted all but a stub. 4 minutes later you rewrote it into something that was vastly different that the original. Then, with this totally different version, 2 others voted to delete because it wasn't notable. One said it was neutral and one voted to redirect. These comments were made after your edits created a non-notable stub. Their tone also sound like they were based on major revision of yours and not on the original article. Is this what happened?Momosean 07:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zen, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

reverted your edits on Zen

Freedom skies has reverted your edits on zen by the way Kennethtennyson 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Reverted Goethean's apperent vandalism"

political bias and wikipolicy

(Personal attack removed)

Why would you retract what that person has confronted you with? Afraid of people seeeing it. ForrestLane42 06:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Hy po cr i te . — goethean ॐ 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we are all hypocrites, are you just content on wasting your time on harassing me and showing my errors? The difference in why I removed those edits, is that they are irrelvant and were sent as advice on what not to do, the question still remains why you afraid of people seeing it? Should I just post it for you? ForrestLane42 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Thank you for his blog, I intend to look at it myself. I can certainly sympathic to your cause. ForrestLane42 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I just took a glance at his blog, which shows for the first time, something we seem to have in common which is our political views. Who would have guess? But regardless, political POV should not be included in any wiki articles. ForrestLane42 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Yes, its true, but he can't go on abusing this. Bring it to the attention of LarryV, sys adminstrator beore he does it to you and me. ForrestLane42 19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zen. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Zen

The Bodhidharma paragraph is mutually agreed upon after extensive discussion and though I would like to have a stronger mention I'm content with the neutral version of the paragraph. I'm sorry for reverting your edits and my apologies if you took offence. _{Freedom skies| talk}  16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I became involved after objections from other editors on the misleading introduction. The Taoism introduction was misleading, my friend. I incorporated Duomlin's paragraphs in the article and mentioned Taoist influence. I even refrained from the mention of Hinduism to accomadate the other party. The mention of Bodhidharma was crafted and modified by neutral third party after a full scale dispute on Bodhidharma. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kenny vandalized the Indian martial arts and Bodhidharma articles. His past actions and intentions are covered in detail on the Indian martial arts talk page and the Bodhidharma talk page. Kindly do take a look for yourself. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reopening of arbitration

I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL

Does this violate WP:CRYSTAL? What evidence do you have that he will announce on this date, because it is highly likely that the article will be speedied. Real96 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget this as well...WP:NOT#SOAP This article should be deleted as is is just a bold face political advertisement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.44.39.2 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

RFC Link

On the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page you pointed the link for ForrestLane42's RFC page at JJay's RFC page by mistake - it's fixed now. exolon 00:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anatta

Thanks for your help reverting the aggressive changes to anatta lately. This is the work of User:Attasarana, who usually edits under a variety of IP addresses beginning with 4. He's not generally worth paying very much attention to, due to a casual disregard for civility, 3RR, and other community norms, and due to the fact that the sources he cites tend to be questionable (such as in the examples I mentioned on Talk:Anatta). I'm going to go on a wikibreak for a while，so I'd appreciate it if you could check his contributions now and then if he pops up—he concentrates mostly on anatta, but sometimes also targets other pages too. It would be great if you could help keep an eye on that. Cheers, Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC/ForrestLane42

Dear Goethean, I made a commentary of sorts here, and I hope it may prove useful and propitious. — ignisscripta 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roskam/Hinnen

I've had it. I'm out of there. Let this nut WP:OWN the article for now. I'll be back after he is banned. --BenBurch 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I notice that you weren't gone very long, Ben. And I haven't been banned ... at least not yet, despite the relentless baiting and Wikistalking. I just went ahead and formed a consensus that did not include the two of you. Let's see how the Good Article Review turns out. Will the two of you agree to accept the result? Dino 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind words. --BenBurch 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

re:dallman

I am not sure if you gave me the right link, it seemed to be a discussion about Obama and his comment on wasted lives. While I know its not PC for what he said, I personally feel that we have wasted precious lives in an effort to destabilize the Middle East. But all in all the blog exchange was amusing. But was the alleged intregal blogger u were mentioning? ForrestLane42 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Barnstar

• 
  I award Goethean barnstar in appreciation of contributions to article related to India--Pinecar 05:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Anatta

Hi there. When you're in a content dispute with other editors, please don't write "rv v" as your edit summary. This implies that the other users' edits are vandalism. Content disputes and vandalism are two different things, and calling another user's edits vandalism is uncivil. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 05:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have reminded you goethean, dont make revisions without substantiations, you have not given evidences here in talk but reverted anatta countless times. Whereas myself, I have given more than ample logic and citations. That you rather "dispute content" must be substantiated, further 'rv-ing' of Anatta is a commision of vandalism by yourself.- User Attasarana

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Wilber. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies

Hello,

I've requested an arbitration regarding the conduct of Freedom skies and listed you as a party because of your involvement at Talk:Zen.

Can I trouble you to write a brief statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies about your impressions of Freedom skies' edits and conduct?

Thank you.

JFD 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Books by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Hi, the situation as I found it was all number of different types of "work" by Goethe was lumped together as "Works of .." which normally would be under the main category "Works by artist". However they were under "Books by author" which didn't apply to maybe half of the work if I recal correctly. I could have just moved the "Works of ..." to place it under "Works by artist". But that would have meant that true "Books" by Goethe would not have appeared directly under that category. So hence the split. They could be merged again, but already some discussion has suggested some support for the split (somewhere under "Categories under discussion"). All I would ask is that we don't go back to exactly the way it was. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Wilberian edit

I see your point goethean, but I dont think "drawn on" a variety of disciplines makes sense. I think it can imply that Wilber has a good grasp of each of the listed disciplines, it gives the reader the false impression that he is in command of these disciplines which I think is far from true. While my use of "interpretation" might not be good as well I think something should be added or reworded to emphasize that the fact that Wilber is taking bits of info from different discipline to make his "integral theory of consciousness." Can we come up with a solution? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForrestLane42 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Well as usual, I beg to differ.... with your reference to Adi Da, I actually thinks fit a little better to the wilber line in question; I say that because it gives more accurately the impression that he is drawing from pscyhology, etc rather than adding disciplines which to me implies an expertise on the matters listed. In reference to open to other compromises, what exactly are you implying? ForrestLane42 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

From your comments on talk page, what do you mean "I will consider it." Are you implying that you have control over the editing? I just would like clarification since your wording seems to imply ownership?... ForrestLane42 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Gotcha, be careful with your wording; it easily could have been misconstrued happy trailsForrestLane42 21:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

List of pubs

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quadrupel

Hi, buddy, how are you? I saw you put a "citation needed" on the quadrupel page. Cool idea, but maybe you need to look up the meaning of the word "references". Have a nice day, buddy. Mikebe 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Buckminster Fuller

sorry dude...i had to revert your bibliographic entry, because it was not formatted per mos guidelines with the all caps and malformed citations. i've found using template:cite book to be really helpful when adding that much data. check out Star Trek#References for an example. --emerson7 | Talk 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Integral theory talk page

I am a little confused as to why the talk page for Integral theory is redirected to Talk:Integral thought. Do you remember why you did this? The discussion at Integral thought doesn't explain why Integral theory doesn't have its own talk page. --Blainster 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but shouldn't the theory article have its own talk page? Would you object to dropping the redirect? --Blainster 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied before I saw your second message. --Blainster 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Freedom skies is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• Freedom skies shall select one account and use only that account. Any other account used may be indefinitely banned. Pending selection of an account Freedom skies may not edit Wikipedia.
• Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period of time. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Goetheanum

Hey Goethean, building such a large and significant structure as a memorial to Goethe seems important enough to me to put it in the Wiki about J.W. von Goethe; could you explain to me why not? Lkleinjans 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The relative historical importance of Steiner's building is a matter of opinion. And it is an issue on which the opinion of Steiner advocates differs greatly from the rest of society. That said, I have added a reference to the Goetheaneum into the article. But honestly, I'm not sure that it improves the article. — goethean ॐ 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it does. Lkleinjans 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pekingthr.jpg

Hello Goethean, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Pekingthr.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Goethean/Human8. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

George Soros page

I do not appreciate your revert.

And since you are such a champion for WP:BLP I challenge you to remove a statement on George W. Bush's page that is, as Goethe would say, archetypally identical to the one you removed from George Soros's page.

Here's the statement so that you won't have to look for it:

"Activist and filmmaker Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, making a plethora of accusations against Bush, most notably using public sentiments following 9/11 for political purposes, financial connections between the Bush family and the prominent Saudi Arabian families such as the royal family and the Bin Laden family, and lying about the cause for war in Iraq."

It'll be interesting to see what you do here.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that you didn't actually believe in your own interpretation of WP:BLP and I was correct. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You demand that I edit a particular article and when I ignore you, you accuse me of bad faith? Please stop trolling my userpage. — goethean ॐ 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't post on your userpage anymore, but I am not going to sit still while you reduce what I'm doing to trolling.

I want to point out to you that you twist policies to fit your agenda and revert my edits. All I did was call you out on it. I wanted to show that you don't seem to care for Wikipedia's best interests when it conflicts with your personal beliefs. I apologize if I hurt your feelings in doing so, but I simply don't like to be reverted by editors who have an obvious bias. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No one can make you look like a troll except yourself. Please go tell someone else which pages to edit. — goethean ॐ 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that you want your way on Soros's page despite any amount of policies or reasoning. I told you a long time ago that I lost good faith and your latest revert, despite proof contrary to your reasoning, is what I'm talking about. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)