User talk:Goethean

Goethean is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Archives: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Mediation Request Re: Adi Da page

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Mediation case name has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Tao2911 (talk)

Queen WikiProject

Hello, I've seen you around editing some of Queen's articles. Would you consider becoming a member of Queen WikiProject, a collaborative effort which works to improve the coverage of Queen related articles on Wikipedia? If you're interested, join us!

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians interested in Integral or Transpersonal theory

Category:Wikipedians interested in Integral or Transpersonal theory, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk)

Presidential election template

Hello, Goethean. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)[reply]

Rothbard

Hey, here is the entire ball of wax [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]