User talk:Goethean

Archives: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Spiral Dynamics

You just reverted saying "see talk" without adding anything to the talk page --Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be added. You have provided no valid rationale for adding the category. — goethean ॐ 18:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact the category has been removed, I have not added it. Get your facts right. --Snowded ^TALK 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Regions of Asia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Regions of Asia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regions of Asia. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

january 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spiral Dynamics. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Taking one vote from a six month old discussion, and two from a current one does not make for a consensus to change long standing text. Refusing to take part in any discussion of a compromise is clear edit waring. Added to which your assertion that other editors have "no standing" to make changes and your general failure to assume good faith are in clear breech of Wikipedia editing policy. Please try and work with other editors, if you persist then it will have to go to ANI for attention. --Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no support for your view on the talk page. — goethean ॐ 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

and hardly any for yours, try discussion of a compromise, its the oil on which Wikipedia runs. --Snowded ^TALK 13:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My compromise is to go with the consensus version. — goethean ॐ 13:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere 2:1 in June and 2:1 in December is not a consensus, its not even a vote. You are an experienced enough editor to know that. I have made a sensible suggestion that would allow the category to be removed and you have not responded to that. I suggest you do. --Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK you have continued a slow revert war and failed to engage. I am not going to edit war with you. I suggest you self revert and engage, otherwise this becomes an ANI report. I'll leave it until the morning UK time to give you time to reflect and hopefully engage. --Snowded ^TALK 13:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a reversion

I am sorry I left the revert text in the edit summary. I did not revert. Please review your change and statements.- Sinneed 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

4RR

You are on a 4RR on Spiral Dynamics and your protagonist is on 5RR. Can I suggest you just say why you think they should be removed on the talk page rather than edit waring? I for one will happily support that as it was one of the changes I was planning anyway. Even if the editor is a sock puppet/stalker its still the best response. I've got better things to do than be petty minded and report this one, but I think you could use it to reflect on your editing style. --Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't discuss articles with stalkers. Careful, you seem to be joining their ranks. — goethean ॐ 12:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't take kindly to contradiction do you. That editor may be a sock puppet, they may be a stalker, but a little politeness never hurt anyone. And be careful of accusations they don't help much either. As far as I can see we have encountered each other on three articles so far, one agreement, two disagreements. Given some evident common interests that will probably extend to others. I suggest a slightly more open attitude on your part might help things.. --Snowded ^TALK 15:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to pointless charades. Explaining myself to stalkers who oppose my edits for no reason other than that they are my edits is a pointless charade. If you want to side with the stalkers, you go right ahead. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just siding with common courtesy and not jumping to conclusions. However you are what you are ... --Snowded ^TALK 15:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny. At least Snowded isn't telling you to leave wikipedia. Unlike you Goethean. Maybe Goethean should practice what you preach and cease and desist with the edit warring.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That was what, two years ago!? I am sorry that I hurt your feelings. Now I suggest that you find something productive to do. — goethean ॐ 16:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Same old Goethean, still projecting, dodging, deflecting and then continue to edit war. How about I suggest you stop with your cult tactics and stop edit warring. Now that would be something productive. 2 years it took you to apologize and only now as it is. Well forgive my skepticism.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

just 2 cents

G-man, it really would be nice if you took a less combative attitude. I understand that wikipedia easily lends itself to a bit of a thrill ride, but the ideas you try to introduce into articles (which are generally worthy of consideration) get spoiled because you come in like half a battalion. Don't get me wrong, I can get pissy over articles too, and I've had my fair share of fights. but I've never seen you carry on a calm, deliberated conversation. a little chill room would be good for everyone involved (you not least of all). --Ludwigs2 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Email

From a brief perusal, this seems to be a content dispute, which can be handled through talkpage discussion or the normal dispute resolution process. Since I am not really familiar with past history of you being harassed (besides blocking one obvious case), it's possible that I am missing some non-obvious signature of your stalker. If that's the case, I'd suggest that you file a WP:SPI case, and a checkuser may be able to confirm or refute your suspicion. PS: I am replying here, since I prefer to keep all conversations that don't involve privacy issues, on-wiki. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for a more reliable source.

Hi. Regarding your comment when you made this edit, I think you'll find the two paragrpahs appended to this to be a better source. I'm not suggesting that you add or remove anything from the article - I just wanted to make sure that you had a reliable source. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an op-ed piece, not a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the two paragraph correction that was added to the end, which states, "Editors' Note: January 9, 2010. On July 12, the Op-Ed page published an article by Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at M.I.T., on health insurance and taxation. On Friday, Professor Gruber confirmed reports that he is a paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services, and that his contract was in effect when he published his article. The article did not disclose this relationship to readers. Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Professor Gruber signed a contract that obligated him to tell editors of such a relationship. Had editors been aware of Professor Gruber’s government ties, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his article."

That's from The New York Times, and it is a reliable source. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are no news stories about the event there is no story. You are writing the story as if you are a reporter. But you are not a repoter, and you as a Wikipedia editor are not allowed to act as a reporter and to create news stories. Until a newspaper reports the story, there is no story. — goethean ॐ 15:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when is the New York Times not a "newspaper?" Grundle2600 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that the NYT is not a newspaper. But an op-ed piece is not a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The correction at the end is not part of the oped, because it was not written by the oped writer. But I won't argue this any more - I just wanted to make you aware of it. Thank you for reading my comments and responding. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility Please

Dear Goethean, pls be civil and avoid personal attacks as you did [1]. Being a "defender of Kripal" does not mean that you must bite other editors. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You can show some civility yourself. Al of the articles related to Ramakrishna and Kripal obediently parrot the dogma of your religious cult, and you have the balls to allege systemic bias in Wikipedia against your position. You are a megalomaniac and a liar. — goethean ॐ 13:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine Goethean. I think you misread me, just in case you were not aware, I had asked one of the editors to write neutrally and improve the article.[2]. We had similar discussions earlier on systemic bias.

Since you have called me a "megalomaniac and liar", I have few questions to ask you:

• What is the need for "publicity"?[3] and disrespect[4] other neutral opinions[5] ?
• What is the need to add failed verification and later fight for it by abusing others? For ex : I recently discovered while cleaning up Kakar's article. This edit by you[6] which makes controversial claims is not available in the source cited at all. And what's more, you have argued for the inclusion of this false information.[7]

I suggested a positive way forward by being civil, and mutual respect.....but I think we are probably heading right towards WP:ARBCOM. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Edit_summary_vandalism_.26_Civility regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it best that you don't call others "a megalomaniac and a liar", and definitely it is unwise to start a thread on Talk:Jeffrey J. Kripal with "Showing a lack of restraint that is completely typical". Could you please reign in the personal comments? I have no doubt you are an excellent contributor to articles, but by being so harsh and personal you are largely undoing a lot of good work! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Crestwood, Illinois

Just wanted to let you know, there's a discussion on the Talk:Crestwood, Illinois page about separating the section on water contamination into a separate page. Since the section is much larger than the actual article, it may be notable enough for a spin-off. Please feel free to comment there. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is in clear violation of WP:UNDUE, and since the excess material needed to be trimmed in order to meet Wikipedia's rules, my recent edit was clearly made in good faith. I invite you to apologize for characterizing my change as 'hatcheding.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Goethan, I've noticed that you have made a number of personal attacks and incivil comments. Due to your general rudeness, I've noted a Wikiquette alert. Please feel free to respond, but even more than this - stop making personal comments, especially nasty ones! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Goethean, much appreciated. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Can you please clarify what you meant by Joe Hazelton stalking you to your doorstep? Viridae^Talk 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It means that on 24 Dec 2006, there was a red pick-up truck parked in front of my house with some guy in it watching me. I approached, and he drove away. Unfortunately, I didn't get his license plate number, or I would have put out a restraining order on him. Meanwhile, a Joehazelton sock on Wikipediareview.com is bragging about how I live only 3.5 miles away from him. [8] — goethean ॐ 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here, "CS, W, DPC" refers to "Carol Stream, Wheaton, DuPage County." — goethean ॐ 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. You know if you (and Gamiel) ever joined WR, his head might explode. Viridae^Talk 03:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sane people can play the sockpuppet game too. Bwahahaha. — goethean ॐ 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)