User talk:Goethean

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. If you need to do it again, there are some tips at Wikipedia:revert. Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 21:35, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Ken Wilber

I'm fairly sure it has not been rewritten enough so I've removed it for now. It needs to be significantly different from the original to prevent it looking like plagiarism. I've noted this on talk:Ken Wilber too. Angela. 21:56, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Gandhicon

Just a heads-up, Gandhicon has been moved to GandhiCon. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:26, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Snide, me?

Ouch ... but I'm afraid you're right. Time for me to detox from New Page watch for a while, where wallowing through the vandalism, half-baked non-ideas, and "XXX is gay" rants can sour even a wiki-optimist. I'll only work on creating or improving *good* pages until I'm my old sunny self again. - DavidWBrooks 16:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ID

Thanks from one zen practioner to another. Stirling Newberry 22:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary_Philosophers

I deleted Category:Contemporary_Philosophers as requested on the Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). You can also add {{db|Explain why here}} for a Wikipedia:Speedy deletions for cases like this. More controversial deletions have to go through Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. BTW, do you know that you can sign your edits with ~~~~? Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 07:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen

What was wrong with just reverting it to the non-violating version of 18:34, 2004 Sep 21 by Andries? Surely that would have been preferable to what is now in the rewrite at Andrew Cohen/Temp? Now we're going to lose all of that work. Uncle G 20:28, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

• I believe that the verbiage at Andrew Cohen/Temp is another copyvio anyways. So now I have reverted to Andries' version, which I must have missed first time around. --Goethean 20:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That was my belief, too. ☺ I've marked Andrew Cohen/Temp as a speedy deletion candidate. Uncle G 20:52, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
    • Did you see the author's comments at Talk:Andrew Cohen? --Goethean 20:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FACTS VfD

I am no longer participating in Wikipedia. Stirling Newberry 04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human

Goethean, could I ask you to consider working with us at Talk:Human to come up with a consensus version we can all live with? Quite a few editors object to the old version, and around the same number to the new version, so the best thing is to start from scratch and build it up slowly, which is what my compromise suggestion intends. Please do make suggestions for what you'd like to see added, or make the additions yourself. I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views. Then once we have a working model up and running, we can compare it to the old and the new versions, and see what the overall consensus is. Would that work for you? Best, SlimVirgin 08:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I want the wikipedia to acknowledge multiple points of view, and you want it to claim that all points of view except for reductive biologism are illegitimate. I don't see room for compromise there. --Goethean 14:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What was wrong with the version of 1 March 2005? --Goethean 14:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alien Point of View

Hello!

On Talk:Human you say: "The scientific viewpoint should be noted as such. There is a difference between the beliefs of biologists and reality".

You might find this odd, but I must confess that I am utterly bewildered by this comment! It is very alien to me, right down to the use of english. I'd like to understand what your POV is so I can understand it better.

If it helps, I'll go first:

I'm (officially almost) a biologist and hmm, well, from my point of view:

• I don't hold beliefs wrt biology (well not wrt the scientific part of it)
• the whole point of science is to discover what reality is.

So basically a scientific statement made at any one time is supposed to be the best representation of reality that you are going to hear at that point in time.

So that really differs with what seem to be a number of assumptions/beliefs/ideas that are behind your statement. If you might, would you care to grant me some of your time and enlighten me as to what those are and why you hold them, please?

Thanks very much if you do! :-)

Kim Bruning 22:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My views are very similar to those of the philosopher Ken Wilber -- I wrote the article on him. Yes, your views are what you concieve as reality, but so are the views of religious adherents. Science should be privileged above the claims of narrow religion --- see my contributions to Talk:Intelligent Design for my ferocious attitude towards creationists. This is because science is formalized observation, while dogmatic religion is sort of pre-formalized. But that doesn't make religion pure fiction. It is sort of distorted observation. And science is less distorted, but not undistorted. The conclusions of science are not the end of the story. Thus, a balanced view goes as follows: science says x, religions say y, z and q. This is not to pit science against religion, it is to try to achieve balance by giving each its due. After all, this is a better outcome than a continual edit war between science and religion, and that's sort of what you have in the American "culture wars". The ultimate goal is to achieve an integrated or holistic viewpoint that accounts for how some responsible observers can reach the conclusions of science, while other responsible observers can reach the conclusions of religion, and still others can reach other conclusions. Wilber has written a book on science and religion called "The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion" --Goethean 23:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Let me think about your answer for a while. If I have any questions later, I hope you don't mind if I come back? :-) Kim Bruning 23:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are always welcome. --Goethean

NPOV: revolting?

Hope you two don't mind if I butt in here. Actually Rednblu, I think that NPOV is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept. It's just not being followed on the Talk:Human page. --Goethean 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, hello, Goethean. Good to have you in all of the conversations on the many pages. 8)) I guess I wrote carelessly on User talk:Hawstom without thinking enough how it would "sound." I agree wholeheartedly with you--that 1) NPOV is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept and 2) NPOV is not being followed on the Talk:Human page. The rest of what I said has some faulty Boolean logic. 8)) As you point out, obviously some people "who know in their heart with certainty unquestioned that Religion is wrong" are insisting that NPOV in its unsurpassingly beauty should be respected. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I am learning a lot from you. Please see my talk page for some thoughts on Rednblu and NPOV. Tom Haws 19:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism: God and Man

Goethan, here are my thoughts. Hinduism is not one religion but four religions, Smartism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Saivism. This is not suprising as the religion is over 5000 years old. Just as Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God but slightly differ in conceptions of God, Hindus all believe in one God but differ in their conceptions, the major difference between conceiving of God as Vishnu or Siva.

Basically, God is conceived as Vishnu or Shiva (Vaishnavism , and [Saivism and Shaktism] separately, and Smartism which considers all forms of God the same and a semantic difference. Smartism closely followed Advaita philosophy. The belief that man is essentially identical with the eternal immaterial spirit is only true of Advaita which stressed the impersonal Brahman and not a personal God unlike Ramanuja and Madhva who stressed a personal God like the Judaeo-Christian religions: The following web sites will give you a good overview of the relationship between Man and God. http://www.nalanda.demon.co.uk/vedanta.htm#The%20Theist%20Revolt and http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_93

The major philisophical school is Vedanta which is divided into Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita "iritual experiences. Dualism, Qualified Monism, Pure Monism—all these culminate eventually in the Advaita Vedantic realisation of the Absolute or the transcendental Trigunatita Ananta Brahman. Sivananada said the following: Madhva said: “Man is the servant of God,” and established his Dvaita philosophy. Ramanuja said: “Man is a ray or spark of God,” and established his Visishtadvaita philosophy. Sankara said: “Man is identical with Brahman or the Eternal Soul,” and established his Kevala Advaita philosophy.

A Dvaitin wants to serve the Lord as a servant. He wishes to play with the Lord. He wishes to taste the sugar-candy. A Visishtadvaitin wants to become like Lord Narayana and enjoy the divine. He does not wish to merge himself or become identical with the Lord. He wishes to remain as a spark. A Jnani merges himself in Brahman. He wishes to become identical with Brahman. He wants to become the sugar-candy itself." Hope this helps. Raj2004

Goethan, read this link, Question #7 in http://www.ssvt.org/Education/Hinduism%20FAQ.asp#What%20are%20the%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20What%20is%20their%20basis%20to%20be%20called%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20Are%20they%20important%20to%20understand?%7CDifferent Please read question #7. Raj2004

Martin Heidegger quotes

Hi, the reason givenfor deleting all your quotes from this article was that most of them were unreferenced. Could you provide the source of each quote, that is, the work of Heidegger in which it appears, please? And if possible the edition and page number. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Human

The info is valid, however after removal of the sentence that it commented, I removed it because I did not see it relevant to discussion anymore. If you insist, I'll just rewrite it and leave it there. --Eleassar777 18:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh...I didn't know that the sentence that it commented on had been removed. Sorry. --Goethean 18:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"involutions", not "involution"

Please. The article titled involution is not about "involution in mathematics"; it's about involutions (plural!) in mathematics. Michael Hardy 23:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Holistic science?

Hi. I found you in the history of the Ken Wilber article. I recently picked up the orphaned Holistic science page and I'm floundering around looking for other people who might be interested in the subject. I am extremely lacking in knowledge of the subject, but find myself drawn to it nonetheless. Therefore I would appreciate the opportunity to interact with people who are more knowledgeable. The first question I wanted to ask was: Are you in favor of having an article with the title Holistic science? I have also created "Non-reductionist science" as a redirect to it. --Smithfarm 13:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a couple of responses. One, there is clearly a methodology that Sheldrake and others use, and skeptics cannot tenably argue against accurately describing that methodology. Maybe it should be called something other than holistic science, although I see nothing wrong with that name. The simple fact is that there are several scientists and theorists who call themselves holists. One wonders what possible objection there would be to calling their activities "holistic science." Especially when "holistic science" brings up 10,000 google hits. Hello!

Ken Wilber talks frequently about "narrow science" and "broad science." In his usage, the latter is what he is doing, and includes, for example, the testimony of mystics, which would be ignored or explained away by "narrow science." I havent read Wilber's book on science, but I have read his more philosophical works which do touch on the subject. Here is another good reference. Sheldrake seems to call his scientific methodological paradigm "holism" or "organicism."

Two, I'm not sure whether "Goethean methodology" refers to the method of Goethe's Theory of Colors, or to Rudolf Steiner, or to both. I am familiar with the Theory of Colors, but not with Steiner. Perhaps M Alan Kazlev (who maintains an enormously informative website on New Age ideas) could hep us with the Steiner aspect.

Three, perhaps the article should be re-written (again), in response to the complaints of skeptics. Simply asserting that the methodologies of Goethe, Steiner, Sheldrake and Wilber diverge from that of reductionistic or physicalistic science seems like a pretty uncontroversial claim. I'm not sure if we can include Wolfram in that group, however. --Goethean 16:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm completely in favor of any attention (up to and including complete rewriting) you care to give to the page. I haven't had the opportunity yet to read any of the books you are referring to, or that I have linked to on the page - I was just shooting in the dark from stuff I found while Googling. So if any are inappropriate (Wolfram?) then I would suggest they be removed. The Goethean methodology is something I inherited from an earlier, somewhat incoherent version of the page. Maybe it, too, can be simply left out. Anyway, would you mind if I copied my question and your answer over to the Holistic science talk page? --Smithfarm 20:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. --Goethean 22:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

216.45.221.155/Paul Vogel

It's been determined that 216.45.221.155 (talk · contributions) is in fact Paul Vogel. I've banned 216.45.221.155 for an initial period of 24 hours until I can ascertain the proper procedure with an IP-address sockpuppet of a banned User. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greetings

Sorry I was not around for the VfD on Facts, but after increasing levels of right wing hostility and the corruption of the judicial process on wikipedia, I have decided to focus on my professional writing, instead of dealing with the constant threats and unpleasantness that seems to attend working on wikipedia. Stirling Newberry 18:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ID

Editorial, yes, pov, no. A fact is presented, and then a comment (albeit a rather leading comment) is made. I would have a hard time calling it pov. Not to mention, that your promise to remove pov contradicts the Sanger quote on your user page - Sanger said present all povs. I think I good case can be made for rewording that sentance, but on a page like this it would be much better done on the Talk page. In addition, your edit summary was misleading. Guettarda 18:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That "M Document" at Gospel of Matthew

This seemingly very knowing reference was added by a discontented Christianist a while back. No information. Does it mean anything to you? See my note at Talk:Gospel of Matthew. Thanks! --Wetman 20:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human

I think the current issue is an acceptable compromise for now. I would prefer that the paragraphs after paragraph one would begin:

Biologically, ...

Behaviorially, ...

Spritually, ...

And that the paragraph be a little different - however, I don't think it warrants a totally disputed tag. I have read your comments. Trödel|talk 20:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

clarification: The Vedas and the Upanishads which follow are anonymous because they are considered to smrti or revealed scripture, the word of God, in Hinduism, which has no author, in contrast to shruti, what is remmbered, and is written by man. See Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita is in fact transcribed down by Vyasa

Raj2004

"Wholism"

I see what you mean. I've followed your example, and made it a redirect. By the standards of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion it could be simply deleted, in fact. Let's see what happens next. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guru

hi Goethen, Thanks for your invitation to view on the article on Guru. I dont think i can make much contribution to the article in its present stage. There is a lot that can be added - difference between acharya and Guru, guru-geeta etc. Ramashray 05:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Integral Wiki

hi Goethean

I was very interested by your suggestion of an integral wiki and had a look at that site, but there doesnt appear to be much there, and the articles that are there are mostly pretty brief. An Integral Wiki project would be a very interesting and worthy ideal, but it would be extremely tedious to have to rewrite everything from scratch. Why doesnt the integral wiki use the same GNU open source licence as wikipedia? If it did we could just copy over relevant articles from the wikipedia, and then develop them along integral lines. By the way, have you seen the Wisdom Wiki? Covers pretty much the same ground, but has longer entries. -M Alan Kazlev 07:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention!

Yes, I am following GURU article with interest. Yet reading all those controversial points makes one exasperating. Let all this cool down. I am thinking of making some additions here and there after due pause. Thanks for drawing my attention.

• VMO 05:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not make edits in bad faith

You may consider my edits against in guru against NPOV but I sincerely believe that I make good edits. Why is it so difficult to accept different perspectives in the article on gurus? The Hindu view on gurus is just one of many possible. Andries 20:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I told you that I was done with this conversation. You believe that the article on gurus should be at least 50% criticisms of gurus. I believe that gurus are an integral part of Eastern religion and the article should discuss the concept as a part of Eastern religion. You are only interested in using the article to broadcast unsubstantiated allegations. I consider that writing in bad faith. You cannot be reasoned with. I am through wasting my time with you. --goethean 21:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Guru#proposal

Wow, you sound great! I'd be glad to help you put a POV header on Human, if you explain precisely how it discriminates against religion. Sam Spade 17:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hows this? Sam Spade 17:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Gonzales

Thank you — I aim to please. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Quantum reverts

Hi, please don't revert the categorization of Bohm interpretation. The category Category:quantum mechanics had an excess of 200 articles in it. I attemtped to solve the poor organization by moving approx 30 articles to category:quantum measurement. Please don't revert without discussion. Yes, I agree that category:interpretations of quantum mechanics may have been a better name for this category, in retrospect. linas 03:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Rick Ross

Have a look at Talk:Rick Ross. --Zappaz 20:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Esotericism WikiProject

hi Goethean,

I've been thinking what we need is an Esotericism WikiProject. The idea would be to work out things like templates, a uniform format, and so on, for esotericism wikipages. This could even include or be organised according to a classification of esoteric topics, if such can be agreed. Anyway if you and some of the other folks who post here are interested, then I'd love to get involved. But it's not something I want to do on my own (i'm spread too thinly as it is!)

M Alan Kazlev 10:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

POV Removal of Ramakrishna NPOV?

I notice that you have taken it upon yourself to remove the NPOV from the Ramakrishna article, in spite of the fact that you did NOT put it there (I know, I did...) and in spite of the fact that anonymous users continue to remove anything dealing with Dr. Jeffrey Kripal's scholarship...and you allowed their vandalism to go on un-checked. Well, I'm back, and watching the article again. I've reverted the vandalism, and if it continues I will slap a NPOV on the article once more. Your edits seem rather benign (though partisan... I detect a definite POV), but if it goes over the line, back into hagiography, well, you know what will happen. We are very capable of expanding the bibliographic footnotes in to whole paragraphs, into entire articles detailing the controversy. Do you want it to explode in that manner? Let's leave well enough alone and stay true to the Wikipedian ideal, no? All the best, Emyth 21:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Integral Template

Very good idea (Template:Integral). The only thing I would question is putting the states of consciousness here as a separate group rather than one of the ideas. There is no consensus on these categories. Even Wilber himself uses various names for these, so I think that while there is no question of the importance of the concept, the variablitiy in descriptions of them suggests they do not yet merit a primary place on the template. --Blainster 20:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good luck on the logo. That is definitely not my forte. I was just adding a little to the article on Arthur M. Young. Did you ever read his The Reflexive Universe? That was my first introduction to the field of consciousness studies. I think he should be on the template. --Blainster 20:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Young was a very integral thinker. He was educated at Princeton, interviewed by Jeffrey Mishlove in the latter's PBS television series "Thinking Allowed", and profiled in the book The Roots of Consciousness by Mishlove. I see there is no article on Mishlove either. He earned the only PhD in parapsychology from U C Berkeley. Add Young to your watchlist and I will expand the article. Another candidate for the list would be Teilhard de Chardin. --Blainster 21:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

20th century authors

Stephen King is in the list of 20th century writers. --Brunnock 13:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Heh! Well, I said that it was absurd, not that people didn't think it. --goethean ॐ 13:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polytheism

I largely agree with your removal, if only because it was distracting. That said, some religions which are often seen as polytheistic from the outside (Hinduism, many forms of buddhism, possibly even ancient greek mythology or native american beliefs) are actually speaking of a number of aspects of God, and/or of lesser entities, djinn or devas. I can see that was a bit difficult for me to present. An important example would be the many buddhist dieties. Sam Spade 00:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Entries for each of Wilber's Levels

Hi Goethean. I recently added a (still rather stubby) entry for the Triple transformation. Anyway I mention there two of Wilber's highest levels, which I give the wiki links as Causal (Wilber) and Ultimate (Wilber). I notice however that you have Subtle realm and Causal realm on your user page. So since you're doing most of the Wilber stuff, I'll leave it to you how to name the links and entries M Alan Kazlev 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Integral Wiki

The Integral Encyclopedia Wiki M Alan Kazlev 05:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

btw this would be a good forum for a non-physicalist version of Human, and a non-cynical version of Guru (haven't checked both pages lately so don't how these issues have been addressed. I've been transferring wikipages over, and will eventually be adjusting some away from a non-physicalist-bound perspective (e.g. the page on The Mother is very limited by its required physicalist slant on wikipedia, when i have time i'll combine this page with the older "sympathetic point of view" one to get a good balanced perspective) M Alan Kazlev 00:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harold Bloom

I may need to adopt a more ethereal approach, then? Thanks! Jeffrey Newman 08:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

integral wiki

I and other users have therefore initiated the The Integral Wiki, which, unlike Wikipedia, is equipped to truly implement neutral point of view.

Since you seem to have it all figured out over there, perhaps you should spend your time there too. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

Conduct on talk:Intelligent design

I think FW deserves an apology for your conduct, specificly the inflammitory statements towards the end.

Also, as a note, your conduct, while better, looks suspiciously like baiting FW. I am willing to give you the benifit of the doubt, but I ask you go out of your way to avoid baiting him even by accident.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)

I went to look at that page to see what this was about, and I could not see anything Goethean had posted there. I thought okay maybe he had written something and forgotten to sign it, but i checked and he's not listed on the history screen either. Perhaps you're referring to another talk page? M Alan Kazlev 8 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)

[1], jump into archive 11.

Goethean, my attitude here is much like a school teacher or a parent. I don't care who started it, no one but you is responsible for what you say. I am not intrested in discussing FW's behavoir, I am intrested in the fact that you breached civility and that you should not have.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent Design

This seems to be the result of a script that left behind a fe anomalies. It's impossible to merge the history of this page with that I Talk:Intelligent design, and my inclination is to leave it where it is (it's of no obvious use, but leaving it at least preserves its history). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Category: Integral Theory

Here's a new category page i made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Integral_theory We can add this to all the Integral theory pages M Alan Kazlev 9 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)

You asked 'Why are you removing the Integral theory template from every article?' --goethean ॐ 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

They are still there I am moving them to the references and links part of the articles where they fit best. References and links go at the rear of articles not at the head in all Wikipedia articles. Lumos3 23:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Untrue — as you undoubtedly know, the use of templates as panels of links is a common Wikipedia custom.

Yes I do know this, and its not the use of a box of related links that I object to but its position at the head of these articles. There is clear guidance on this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections. I have placed the boxes within these sections where they are most appropriate. A quick tour of wikipedia featured articles will show that this convention is universally adhered to. The only exception would be the Integral Theory article itself, where a box summarising key data would be appropriate. Lumos3 12:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Bangla

I dont know devnagari, but obviously can do the bangla part--ppm 20:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, but hindi is not bangla. I dont know hindi either. --ppm 20:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults

Hello Goethean. Please see the VfD on List of purported cults. I participated heavily in this article, but now I am siding with supporting deletion. After all, it is being used as a way to throw mud at religious groups that are not mainstream and thus inherently POV. Read and vote if you wish at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/2 and if you know of other editors that care for religious tolerance and freedoms and a WP that is devoid of bias against religions, please alert them as well so they can participate in generating consensus about the future of articles of this type. Thanks.--ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 04:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)