User talk:Goethean

Archives: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008a

My RfA

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

Ramakrishna / Keshub Chunder Sen

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

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

WP:Swaminarayan Invitation

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

Dude! You ROCK!

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

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

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

Stab-in-the-back legend

I see you worked on Stab-in-the-back legend a while back, making significant changes. So perhaps you're familiar with the topic. An editor just made many changes with little explanation.[1] I'm concerned that the changes may not have had the effect of "Neutralising some opinion" but rather adding new opinion. It's not a topic I'm interested or expert in, but if you can review the edit I'd appreciate it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony M. Daniels

You have written so many bitter words on your introduction page (the spiritual wrappings of the message notwithstanding), that I think it's good to say that I agree with the edit you did on the Anthony Daniels (psychiatrist) article. The only excuse I can think of is that I felt a bit nervous in a foreign Wikipedia domain and, probably as a result, I produced marketing drivel that has been sent by you to its ultimate destiny: the waste bin. I feel ashamed. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Integral psychology page

hi Goethean. I restored the Integral psychology page, which had previously fallen prey to the depredations of deletionists. Also added a bunch of footnotes, and some new material, so this time hopefully it should be fine. Anyway keep an eye on it, just to be sure.

By the way there's a couple of Wilber quotes in a sentence (I suppose from his book Integral Psychology) in the text which I kept

Wilber identifies an "integral stage of consciousness" which exhibits "...cognition of unity, holism, dynamic dialecticism, or universal integralism..."

But they really need citations, so if you know the page number(s) (or know anyone who does) please add it/them. Cheers! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see some one taking your views

Having looked at your userpage recently, I was quite excited. It seems good to see a Wikipedian who has similar views and interests to my own, both in terms of your general philosophy, and in terms of your philosophy of Wikipedia. For example, I take it that you and I would both be deeply interested in transpersonal psychology and related topics (in fact, I teach this subject as part of my profession). If you want to respond to this comment, please feel free to leave message on my userpage. I have been checking the computer a lot lately, as, living in part of the United Kingdom where snow has been at its worse for twenty years, it has not been inviting weather for going out. 92.4.10.52 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you and I apologise - I must have done the above when I was not logged in, hence no userpage signature! My userpage is at ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC). I hope you can get on that one OK. Again, thank you for your kind message. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Ramakrishna. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CON and WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks like "You are being deliberately obtuse.", "your disingenuous message" are violations of WP:Assume good faith. Please do not violate it again and retain WP:CIVILITY. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna (cont.)

Gothean, you're really being combative. you're really not going to get anywhere by continually pissing people off.

Just as a matter of record: I'm not associated with the Ramakrishna mission in anything more than a passing way. I mean, I know of them (because I know a lot about a lot of different religions), and I've visited a couple of their centers (which, on the whole, was usually a pleasant experience), but I'm not even Hindu, and I'm certainly no devotee of RK. when you accuse me of being part of some bizarre mission conspiracy to suppress some 'secret truth' - well, I don't frankly know what to do with that except write you off as a complete dolt. please try to gain some perspective before you destroy your credibility entirely. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is here. — goethean ॐ 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see;

1st [2]
2nd [3]
3rd [4]
4th [5]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a great idea!

Why don't you (voluntarily) take a week off from working on the Ramakrishna article? Right now I've seen you violate 3RR and am within policy to block you but I don't want to do that. So, instead, I think a nice break from that article would be a fantastic idea. Would you agree? Work on something different, friend. There are millions of articles out there that need your help! Unfortunately, if you continue to edit war over that particular article (and I'm seeing a bit of ownership problems per your userpage) then I may be forced to block users who are edit warring. But I don't want to do that, buddy. If you agree with me that it's a great idea then come and tell me and we can have a nice cup of tea. :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your e-mail. I'll reply as soon as I can, friend. Give me just a little while and we'll progress further, I promise :-) - Just have patience! ;-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for the delay. I can't (by choice) get involved in the actual content dispute as I may have to make objective administrative decisions in the future. I hope you understand that. Okay, next thing: There is more than one article on Wikipedia that you're interested in. I know that for a fact. You'd be an awfully sad person if you only ever had one, single, solitary article that you were interested in. So what do you do? You branch out and explore elsewhere. That Ramakrishna article will still be there tomorrow, the day after, and the week after next. There's no panic to complain and mope and moan about people pushing you off of it as you have a whole lifetime to do that. What I'm saying is: Move away from it and try something different. You never know what might happen. I'm going to assume that you are an academic yourself. Being an academic would (usually) require you to be an adult. So be one! ;-) - Again, just work on a different interest on Wikipedia. There's so much more you could be doing rather than getting into edit wars! (Edit wars can consist of less than 4 reverts in 24 hours, by the way) - And another thing, when you say: "Who cares if religious editors succeed in censoring the most popular reference site on the internet?" - The other editors are going to see it from a completely different perspective. So who's correct? No one. So you can't really feel hard done by. Honestly, I'm just here to stop you from being blocked for edit warring. I can't get involved in anything like that... But, if you're still begging to return to that article after a while, consider visiting WP:RfC and/or WP:DISPUTE/WP:MEDIATION. In extreme cases you'd go to WP:ARBCOM, as you probably know. Well, that's all I've got to say today. I'm not going to check this for errors or anything as I haven't slept in a while and... well... I'm tired. So this is good night. Take care, buddy. I hope you'll just relax a tiny bit and realise that the whole World is so much bigger than a Hindu fella :-) Night! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be so accommodating this time; you're really pushing the limits of AGF. I was well within policy to block you for edit warring on that article, but I didn't. I'm not expecting you to say thanks for that or anything because it was just a preference I had at the time. Either you stop being so over zealous about one measley article or you move to file an WP:RfC about what's going on. So stop complaining to me as if it's my fault that you have a problem with something you don't like. As far as I can see it's just you who seems to have the problem. Having difficulties with religious contributors? Go to RationalWiki. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Just an FYI, but Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_needed_please if you want to comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clean ups

Thank you for your clean ups on Werner Krieglstein and Transcendental Perspectivism. Dkriegls (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Dynamics

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. A discussion is taking place on the talk page, please stop reverting and also breaking WP:GF. the 3RR rule is not necessarily restricted to a 24 hour period --Snowded (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary argument against naturalism

Hey Goethean.

There is currently a debate about EAAN where two people try to link EAAN to Intelligent Design. One of them doesn't have basic knowledge of the argument. I would like to get your opinion on the topic. I invite you to participate in the discussion.

Thanks --Student of philosophy (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marsiglia 1807

Hello is an Italian citizen I live in Triggiano in the province of Bari. Let me know if you live in the district of Medinah. In that district, I think that living a certain Cassandra Ferrara with his daughter Maria Ferrara. I would like to help if you can direct me in finding my American relatives since Medinah is a small country. Answer, thank you right away. Triggiano and Greetings from Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsiglia 1807 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integral thought - theory - movement

Hi Goethean.

I think we should organize the Integral thought / theory template and category pages. Currently there are integral Categories Art, Theory, Thought and Wilber. All of these can go in one category (unless you want to keep Integral Art as distinct). Similarily, there are templates Theory and Thought which again can be combined. Since the main page is now called Integral movement (perhaps not the best term because it implies a well-defined movement, but Integral theory and Integral thought no good either. This is why I'm calling my book The Integral Paradigm), perhaps there should similarily be a single category and template also called Integral movement. What do you think? M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey

Hi Goethean. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of commercial barley wines

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of commercial barley wines, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not an appropriate list, per WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unsourced and orphaned and potentially endless.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. SilkTork *^YES! 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring article on Sri Aurobindo

Hi Gothean,
I have been restructuring the article on Sri Aurobindo in a bid to improve its quality rating and to make it more widely likeable. I noticed that you have been a major contributor of material to that article. It would be great if you can also review/suggest or contribute in any way you wish to improving the article. Looking forward to your support.Varun (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]