User talk:Goethean/2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good to see some one taking your views[edit]

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. (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[reply]


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[reply]

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

Ramakrishna (cont.)[edit]

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[reply]

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


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[reply]

Please see;

I just had a great idea![edit]

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. :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[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! ;-) ScarianCall me Pat! 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[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! ScarianCall me Pat! 20:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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[reply]

Thank you for your clean ups[edit]

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

Spiral Dynamics[edit]

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 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. 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[reply]

Evolutionary argument against naturalism[edit]

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[reply]

Marsiglia 1807[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Integral thought - theory - movement[edit]

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[reply]

Editing survey[edit]

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:

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

Proposed deletion of List of commercial barley wines[edit]

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[reply] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restructuring article on Sri Aurobindo[edit]

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[reply]


I have no argument with the template itself - but for this individual the fields were being used in a quirky and unhelpful way. My understanding is that not all fields of a template have to be used in every instance, so I felt it was better to remove them in this article rather than have misleading information. It would be impossible to list all of the notable people McLuhan has influenced - and the random selection that was displayed seems to have little to do with notability or importance. Same is true about "influenced by" - too many to list and the infobox was missing important ones. Tvoz/talk 05:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this particular case the list of scholars and others he influenced would be too long to be a meaningful entry in an infobox and almost certainly incomplete and therefore misleading - it is best handled in the text as it has been. The list of people who influenced him was also oddly chosen, with strange omissions, and is similarly better handled in the text. When an individual has one or two clear influences, and has influenced a few well-known individuals, the fields might be useful. But for McLuhan they are not, so it makes more sense to go with the text. Tvoz/talk 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way - these two fields have been the subject of discussion among users of the infobox, and there is no rule requiring using them - others also find them problematic. Also, McLuhan himself would have disagreed with the appellation "philosopher" (I heard him say so myself in fact), so it's not at all clear to me that every field in the philosopher infobox is appropriate for him. Tvoz/talk 18:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

link[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It merits a nice big 5 google hits. The promotion of Ayyavazhi as a giant Hindu reform movement or popular cult among Tamils is fallacious. I know for a fact I am not the only user to call it a hoax, but I will get back to you on the specifics.Pectoretalk 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adi Da[edit]

Hi Goethean,

I appreciate your edits and administrative input for on the Adi Da article. I am curious as to why you recently removed from the external links section? I saw that you included a link in your reasons to the External Links article on what should be posted and what should not be, and I am afraid that I am still confused. Could you please clarify this for me?

Thanks! NeesheePandit (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. That really clarifies a lot for me!NeesheePandit (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Goethean, thank you for the explanation I saw you gave on NeesheePandit's talk page. Should the Adi Da Archives link also be removed on the same basis of being "amateur" and "unofficial", given the policy that 99.9% of external links should be removed? Would appreciate this clarification Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Goethean,I also wanted to bring up the whole question of newspapers & TV being legitimate non-bias sources. Even if you look at the controversy around health care reform, every newspaper is biased based on their particular leanings. I have been reading a number of different papers lately and they all choose to focus in on specifics of this issue. Some lie about "the death panels", others refute it as wrong information. There is an inherent flaw with newspapers (and media in general) in that they must sell papers and the more controversial and negative they paint things, the more papers they sell. Sensationalism and media frenzy are part of what newspaper and TV are all about. Especially with new religious movements and even non-mainstream traditions, there is a lack of understanding in the general public and definitely in the media. The media plays into and takes advantage of all this. The academic/scholar community, however, might be a better resource for legitimate discussion and quotes. Now, I know that not all scholars are totally non-bias. However, they are held to stricter standards of a more dialogue/debate forum within their own community of colleagues. I think the Scientology wikipedia page and also the Ramakrishna page, for example, is a good use of this scholarly resource. This way, wikipedia could avoid these dreadful highly reactive dialogues. I know this is a complex issue, but I felt it should be raised for wikipedia in general. Thanks for listening Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Goethean,

I have an edit I want to propose for the Teachings Section on this article. I feel that the current section is not as neutral as it could be, not entirely accurate, and also not very clear in it's language.

I would keep it within the same form, just proposing a re-written version of what is currently under "Adi Da's Cosmology". I would leave most of "Adi Da's Testimonial About Himself" and everything under "Adidam As A Guru-devotee Method".

The edit I am proposing is just factual, cited, and contains a simpler language that represents his teaching with more accuracy. I am not sure how to go about posting it within such a controversial article. I was wondering if you wanted to take a look at it before I posted it? Or if I should simply go ahead and post it.

Thanks! -Devanagari108 (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the words of encouragement! I went ahead and posted it. --Devanagari108 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Goethean,

I need to ask your opinion again. I noticed that citations #37, 38, and 42 are currently marked in red as being invalid.

These citations relate to the content currently posted in the "Controversies" section. Since there are other citations for content in Controversies, is this enough basis upon which to remove the content corresponding to these now "invalid" citations? I was reading the Wikipedia Policy on this here: My general feeling is that it could be appropriate to remove this content that is now unsourced, but I wanted to get your view on it before I did anything, since my understanding of Wikipedia Policy is still growing and thus limited. Thanks so much! --Devanagari108 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanagari108 (talkcontribs) 21:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goethean, silly question... I realized when I am doing editing that I should indicate summary simply what edit I am doing so others can see that. I read the instructions on this but still am not clear where I can do that. When I edit there is a tool box at top. Is that the place where I can bring up the "summary" box? If so what icon and if not where can I do that? Thanks:) Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah ha .. got it .... thanks!Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism of Adi Da[edit]

Take a look: (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


While it appears the subpage will be deleted - and no doubt it should, as I'm neither going to finish it, nor will I actually care to - there still remain the constituent issues which are in fact better contexts for that topic. I agree actually with them that the suggested context is inappropriate, but of course this has been largely about abuse of process and the incapacity for people to be helpful rather than just obnoxious. So there's obnoxiousness to go around, and I dislike being an unnecessarily active party to it via my unwitting attempts to counter it. Apparently, obnoxiousness also needs to run its course. And that's true even here.

Anyway, the constituent issues are still valid. The Socialism fallacy is the big one. Some nuanced additions to the reductio and NS articles are also required. Naturally all of this dross and detritus would have fit nicely under a "criticism of" article, but BLP-paranoia has meant that even the "brilliant" arguments you noted have been given broad validity by Arbcom. So I'll stay away from the whole scope of presidential articles, but I will try and deal with the broader issues of "dysliteracy" and the policies that promote it, and I can maybe also make some topical suggestions. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 11:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC) PS: And just to get away from our little spectacle of absurdities, I'm going to immerse myself in AdS/CFT. :-{Reply[reply]

Well, that "systemic issue" in a nutshell demonstrates how dyslexic our functioning is, and how little good can come out of letting bureaucrats make editorial decisions based on just a title, or a cursory read, or some inaccurate notions about various policies. In a certain way, we've all been talking past each other, and its been largely due to the way BLP and RS have antagonistic qualities that run against the "free" and "civil" parts of our philosophy. It's total bullshit: Nobody cares that dual resonance model and affidavit have no citations, but summon the deletionists en masse if a quirky minutes-old subspace draft isn't footnoted like a dictionary. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of NRSC Pledge[edit]

The article NRSC Pledge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:N, WP:NOT#NEWS. A political effort by bloggers which did not draw significant attention.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RayTalk 06:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seven Sermons[edit]

I cleaned up the title to Seven Sermons to the Dead, and while fixing some double redirects, saw your book list. Quite nice. --Blainster (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Integral economics[edit]

So as to avoid engaging in an edit war subject to the three-revert rule, I've created a 'welcome message' on the Discussion page at Integral economics.

Original research as defined by Wikipedia is:

. . . "research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research."

Because you cited 'original research' as the reason for deleting, 'A (modern era) synopsis' and the section is specifically created as a "synthesis of earlier publications on the subject", I've exercised the undo command again. Nevertheless, if you'd wish to propose constructive ideas for improving the page's content, please share your suggestions at the Discussion page prior to brandishing subjective edits. gospelnous (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Pat Buchanan. Thank you. (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Fellowship[edit]

I noticed you reverted large numbers of edits to the article on The Fellowship. I am curious though if you had visited the talk page of that article before the reverts. There was a bit of discussion as to the reliability of the sources used in the article. Due to those questions, I spent most of the last couple of months weeding through the sources used and attempting to discern which ones were reliable and which ones weren't. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new section[edit]

Thanks for reverting you-know-what. Frankpettit (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Goethean, I noticed your userpage recently and while we are given wide latitude on what to include on our usepages, I had a couple of request related to yours:

  1. Can you please add the {{Userpage}} template to your userpage, so that it is not confused with mainspace wikipedia-content ?
  2. Can you remove the names of specific editors who you accuse of edit-warring ? Such lists, which the editors have no way to respond to, are generally considered divisive and are not conducive to collaborative editing.
  3. While I am not currently asking you to remove the article-related material from your userpage, I recommend that you use one of wikipedia dispute resolution processes, such as an WP:RFC, to resolve the underlying content issue instead of letting it fester this way.

Let me know if I can help in some way (although I must admit that my time on wikipedia nowadays and interest in the article, is somewhat limited). Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I appreciate your concern regarding being collegial and civil to fellow editors. However, since the last activity on the Ramakrishna article was me being told by an administrator that I am not allowed to merely place the POV template on an article that absolutely, clearly, indefensibly POV...I guess I don't feel like I am included in the suppossedly collegial atmosphere here. None of the concerned editors mentioned on my user page have voiced a single word of dissent. They appear to be perfectly happy to leave the page dominated by religious dogma, with the academic, scholarly perspective unrepresented. So your concerns seem to be unshared by the editors involved. If you would like to help settle the dispute, please let me know. Thank you. — goethean 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (Copied from my userpage, to keep the conversation consolidated. Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) )Reply[reply]
I am not really aware of the history of dispute at Ramakrishna (I think my only involvement with the page was commenting during its GA nomination), and currently don't have the time to mediate in the dispute. If I understand correctly, you and some other editors disagree on how Ramakrishna's sexuality should be covered in the article, and what sources should be used. That is a fair topic to discuss on the talk page, and since you all seem to be unable to agree amongst yourself, you can use formal mediation or RFC to invite outside views. Also, if you think other editors are edit-warring take it to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. However, it is not productive to simply accuse editors of edit-warring on your userpage, without making any attempts, as far as I can see, to seek a resolution over the past 8 months. This is not a valid use of userspace. Can you please comply with at least my first two request listed above ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you ask me to comply with the rules, and no one else? — goethean 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure I understand. I did check the recent page history and the recent contributions of the editors (3 of whom I have worked with on wikipedia) and didn't find any edit-warring on Ramakrishna or any other article. In either case, this is not really a competition and we all are far too old and mature for tit-for-tat. If you have any complaints about the conduct of the editors you can bring it to the attention of other editors and admins at the venues I listed above. In the meantime can you do your part ? Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I resent your aggressive mis-characterization of my concerns for article content as using Wikipedia as "a competition" and "tit-for-tat." I do not see Wikipedia that way. I have grave concerns over the content in Ramakrishna. I am sorry that you do not share my concern. — goethean 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure what you found aggressive in my reply; my tit-for-tat reference was clearly referring to your question above, which pointed at other editors supposed misdeeds instead of addressing the specific concerns I raised about your userpage. Anyway, do you have any objections to complying with the requests in my first post ? Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed that you had already complied with my request above, and replaced the 4 usernames, with my own. I have no problem with that, and won't bug you any further on this issue. Before parting though, I'll offer my sincere read of the situation (FWIW): I haven't looked into the sources at Ramakrishna and the ones listed on your userpage, and it is certainly possible that you are in the right on the content issue. However, your current approach with the statements and harangue on your userpage comes across as petulant to outside observers (such as me), who consequently are likely to dismiss your concerns as mere trolling from yet-another-editor-with-an-axe-to-grind-on-wikipedia. This is counterproductive. If you are really interested in fomenting changes to the Ramakrishna article, rather than simply complaining about the status quo, I would again recommend that you take it up at Talk:Ramakrishna and use mediation or RFC.
I realize that this is unsolicited, and perhaps unwelcome, advice - feel free to adopt or ignore it at your discretion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation - Integral economics[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Integral economics 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/Integral economics 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, gospelnous (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Altering reality[edit]

Thanks for your change to the Reality article, in response to my comment on the talk page. Now I see more clearly that the "In a sense" phrase was setting up a contrast with the subsequent "in its widest sense" phrase in the next sentence. Still, the wording of the opening sentences seems awkward to me and not very enlightening. <time passes> Okay, I've tried this rewording. What do you think? Better? (I'm asking you personally simply because you seem to be interested, having edited the article to address my concerns directly.) - dcljr (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ebenezer and DuPage County.[edit]

Wasn't that link okay that I put in the DuPage County article for the article Ebenezer Floppen Slopper's Wonderful Water slides? I really would like to make the Ebenezer water slide article less orphaned and more included into the Wikipedia community. Darthvader1 (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you take a look at the bottom of the article Ebenezer Floppen Slopper's Wonderful Water slides, you will see that I have included 3 references with links to a Chicago Tribune news article and 2 photo galleries of the water slides. Darthvader1 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Personal_attacks.2C_copy_vio.2C_removal_of_scholarly_material_at_Wendy_Doniger. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As I noted in the discussion on ANI mentioned above, I believe you transgressed WP:Civil on Wendy Doniger. Please do not continue this. I'm sure you're aware of why and the potential consequences of continued incivility. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Your research here was useful, but why spoil it with incivility in the closing sentences ? Could you refactor the "Congratulation ... Book review" " comment ? Abecedare (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking guidance on Film citations[edit]

Dear Goethean, thank you for your recent citation-checking on the Passage Meditation/Easwaran page(s). I have a question about appropriate citation for a film. In Talk:Eknath_Easwaran#Ways_to_Expand_Easwaran_Page I mentioned that Easwaran wrote a book about Abdul Ghaffar Khan, whose life is the focus of a recent documentary film called The Frontier Gandhi: Badshah Khan, A Torch for Peace. Apparently this film won "best documentary" at the Middle East Film Festival earlier this month (see Wiki-page for film). I have confirmed with the film-maker (TC McLuhan) that interviews with Easwaran appear in the film. Others I've talked with who've seen the film have said the same thing. But the film does not yet appear to be available for sale as a DVD. QUESTION: In these circumstances, can the Easwaran page make the statement that he appears in the film? If so, how should this be cited? Would it make sense for me to ask TC McLuhan if you could contact her by email to verify that EE appears? Thank you in advance for your help. I will keep a watch on this user page for a few days, if you want to respond here -- or you could put relevant info on the Easwaran page discussion. Thanks. Health Researcher (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! (for your response on my talk page) Health Researcher (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD on Two Bothers Brewing[edit]

The article Two Brothers Brewing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This artical is an example of blatant use of Wikipedia for profit, as well as violations of many many policies - such as WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOT#HOST, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMOTION

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I have nominated Two Brothers Brewing, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Brothers Brewing (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 02:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Civility on Two Brothers brewing[edit]

Please cut the SPA nonsense and stick with the discussion of the notability and the merit of The Two Bothers article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Brothers Brewing (2nd nomination). I know you like to personally attack people you don't like because they don't agree with you, as your discussion page seen to indicate, but try to tone it down and keep a civil face. Greenbreww (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey dud, You can't have it all at the Two Brothers Brewer article. The article has way to much spam in it, I am willing to allow it, (in spite of the fact Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOT#HOST WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMOTION, demonstrates Two Brothers is a blatant case of using Wikipedia for profit)
Now I am willing to compromise, but you seem to be unwilling. I outline my position, but you just think you own the article and answer to no one, which implies you own it WP:OWN. Finely, you seem to be. almost continually embroiled conflict, edit wars and other divisiveness I would hope you start to show some good faith and start learn the art of compromise instead of "my way or no way". Your continued edit war is not good faith and is disruptive. In the end, this article needs shortening , Way to much spam here.)Greenbreww (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Integral economics.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.


==YOU WANT to CYBER STALK ME... I'M COLLECTING INFORMATION FOR THE LOCAL POLICE— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Fine. If they need any copies of the threatening emails that you've sent me over the years, I've kept them all. — goethean 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's clear to me your some kind of apeman, thug and bully. I can only say if you should try to hurt me, my family and friends, I will use every legal means to stop you. You are a sick hateful little man. I —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hurt you? That would be difficult since I don't even know your real name. You are the one who has sent me dozens of threatening emails and who showed up at my house in a red pick-up truck on December 24th, 2006. If I had gotten your license plate number, you would have been slapped with a restraining order already. — goethean 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like instead of black choppers, your seeing red pickup trucks. (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jesus christ Greenbreww, I guess we're not starting a beer-of-the-month club like you promised.--Milowent (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This guy is obsessed with getting his way no matter what. Greenbreww (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O RLY? I find that hard to believe based on what I've witnessed.--Milowent (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And by the "duck" principal, I think your his meat puppet. (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I AM FILLING MONDAY, I WILL SEE YOU IN COURT CLOWN. WP:DOLT —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference in Two Brothers Brewing[edit]

I found a set of duplicate references and replaced two of them with "ref"s that refer to the first. Please check my work and if I did any damage to the article revert the changes I made. (Note that I use {{talkback}}.) -- allennames 06:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

southern strategy[edit]

I apologize for that reversion. :[ A8UDI 00:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q re Easwaran page[edit]

Hi Goethean, I saw you added the "advertisement" tag to the Easwaran page. Since I'd been the main one doing changes over the past few days, I suppose you must view some of the changes I did as pushing it in the direction of an advertisement. I was wondering what thoughts you might have about what you perceive as the locus of the problem, and how you think it might be fixed (I followed the link in the tag, but it didn't crystallize the problem in my mind). I feel slightly on the horns of a dilemma, in as much as I was wanting to add more secondary references, to continue to build up notability, but there doesn't seem to be much negative that's said about him (he seems not to have courted controversy). Since a lot of the reviews to which I added new cites are not in the public domain, I thought a few quotations might be worthwhile, but almost all of them I put in the references (as "explanatory notes"), rather than in the body of the article. Do you think it would it have been less like an advertisement if I hadn't put those quotes in the explanatory notes (so that most readers would have known the review existed, but would know nothing about what it said)? Or is the total mass of secondary citations to reviews too large? (have I been too preoccupied with notability?)....... On a different line of thinking, as another possible approach to redressing the perception, I suppose someone could expand the section on his biography, which would make the reviews a smaller piece of the total. How much do you think that would help? Your thoughts on these issues are welcome and indeed desired (I will watch this page, or you could respond on my discussion page, as you did a week or two ago with another question). Thanks! Health Researcher (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Goethean, thanks for your response about the Easwaran page, and what stuck out for you. That is very helpful to me (BTW, some of those phrases -- e.g., "classics" -- are not my phrases, and I would not have put them in myself). Also, I wanted to respond to your statement that you are "not sure" what I am "trying to do". Let me say that I like to spend my time on things that will stand the test of time. And I believe that for something to stand the test of time on Wikipedia, it must adhere to the spirit of Wikipedia, and adhere to most or all of the rules/guidelines. So I consider myself to be trying to write an encyclopedia, just as many (/most) other people here are. It's not my only goal in life, but I don't see it as having a fundamental conflict with any of my other goals, either. There are some areas, such as with regard to the question I just asked, where my intuitions about how to best write an encyclopedia may be a bit more sluggish, or a bit more uninformed, and I appreciate your responsive help. But I beg to disagree with your aspersions: I AM trying to write an encyclopedia! :-) (thanks again for your help) Health Researcher (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update, invite. Hello again. I've followed up on the specific concerns you mentioned on my own talk page re the Easwaran page. If you get a chance, I'd be interested to know if you think those changes have addressed the advertisement issue. A couple of comments: 1. I removed "classic" one place where it appeared in the text. But I didn't see an obvious way to address that concern when it appears in book titles, or in otherwise relevant quotations from secondary sources (e.g., Huston Smith). 2. I dropped all but one citation of the trade magazines (the last citation seemed to be more noteworthy than just boilerplate). 3. You didn't mention this as an issue, but I also changed some of the language about the books to 3rd person from 1st person plural. For example, it now reads "inner resources for dealing with challenges of daily living" rather than "inner resources for dealing with what life throws at us". (As someone who's used to writing in a neutral voice for impartial professional publications, those 1st person phrasings, which I didn't put in, seemed a bit discordant.) Any thoughts about further fixes? Thanks again Health Researcher (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Goethean, do you think the Easwaran page is now fixed from being written like an advertisement? If you no longer have any apecific concerns that you can mention, I'm inclined to put up a note on Talk:Eknath_Easwaran asking if anyone else has any lingering concerns that would prevent the removal of the template. Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is back - edit away - Peripitus (Talk) 05:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, you have been engaging in personal attacks on the Talk:Mark Levin page, specifically [[5]][[6]]. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thank you. --Malvenue (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since those comments were posted ten days ago, I will assume that your warning is in retaliation to the comment I just posted on your userpage[7], and can be ignored. — goethean 19:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary I was abiding by WP:NPA by refusing to be baited by your personal attacks. However, since you have accused me of that which you've been doing for weeks, I can no longer ignore your violations of WP:EQ. --Malvenue (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theosophical Society in America[edit]

Hi Goethean,

I see that in the past (4 August 2006) you made improvements to the "Theosophical Society in America" article. I am planning to expand the article quite a bit and have added a Talk Page to the article with my proposed changes.

Is it important to you that the revised article should preserve the boxed quotation of Bylaw 3 that you edited? I am inclined to present the same information in a different format, because in my experience the term “bylaw” causes readers’ eyes to glaze over.

Janet Kerschner 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AhimsaJ (talkcontribs)

Richard Tarnas[edit]

Hi Goethean, you've been extremely busy on the Tarnas article! I'm curious about where your intense interest in this subject is coming from. Have you read his books? To be honest, it seems like you may be trying to discredit Tarnas' work by primarily highlighting the few negative reviews as opposed to the overall positive reception that both of his books have received. You obviously spend a lot more time on Wikipedia than I do, but don't you think it would be more in the spirit of the Wikipedia project to present a more balanced and objective view of this subject? I'd hate to see a repeat of your situation with the Ramakrishna article. I'm really busy at the moment grading papers for a course that I'm teaching, but I'd be happy to work with you starting next week to fix some of the glaring imbalances in the article so that it more accurately reflects the general perception of Tarnas' work, rather than basing it on the Meany, Heron, Berman, and Wilber references since these are clearly outliers in the overall picture. Does that sound reasonable?Murgy (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, it seems like you may be trying to discredit Tarnas' work by primarily highlighting the few negative reviews as opposed to the overall positive reception that both of his books have received.
If that were true, I wouldn't have pointed out that Wilber's claims about Tarnas' comments on Maslow are transparantly false, would I have? In fact, I violated a Wikipedia policy in order to do so.
I'm really busy at the moment grading papers for a course that I'm teaching, but I'd be happy to work with you starting next week to fix some of the glaring imbalances in the article so that it more accurately reflects the general perception of Tarnas' work, rather than basing it on the Meany, Heron, Berman, and Wilber references since these are clearly outliers in the overall picture.
I introduced they Meaney material — which is highly notable, and thus inarguably belongs in the article, being in the Wall Street Journal, for god's sake — to show that there was mainstream reception of Tarnas' book and thereby to prevent User:Verbal from deleting the article, which he continued to contentiously push for, against talk page consensus, even after Tarnas' notability had been clearly established. I'll take your message as your back-handed way of thanking me for my efforts in helping to prevent the article from being deleted. Furthermore, I have gone out of my way, and have spent considerable effort, in introducing favorable material from Jorge Ferrer's book.
Are the critical reviews outliers? I find it a bit telling that the reviews on Tarnas' website make for such thin gruel, and are from such utterly non-notable figures, such as health care worker Renn Butler and bookseller Esther Fields — which I have placed prominently in the article. What notable figure has reviewed Tarnas' book positively? Yes, there are publisher-supplied blurbs from Campbell, Grof and Bache, but where are their reviews? We need citations in order to add them. I have gone way out of my way in order to make the article positive towards Tarnas. But to ignore the WSJ's review would have been patently dishonest.
You have always been free to contribute to the article, so I guess that you just stopped by to accuse me of editing in bad faith or something. This type of reaction to a critical article on Tarnas from you and User:Dioxinfreak[8] does not speak well about the caliber of Tarnas' admirers. — goethean 22:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goethean, let's not get into a war of words here. I mostly stopped by to find out why you're so interested in this subject in the first place and also to find out if you've read Tarnas' books which would seem to be important for understanding the complexity of his work. I'll certainly be weighing in on a number of issues in the article when I get more time in a few days. I think we can both agree that this doesn't have to be a contentious battle. I'm sure we'd both prefer a respectful collaboration. Are you involved in academia or book publishing at all?Murgy (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read Passion and I've read sections of Cosmos, and I've read the material available online. I wrote most of the Ken Wilber article. But in the last few years, I've become seriously disenchanted with Wilber and his group, and have become interested in other integral/transpersonal theorists like William Irwin Thompson, Grof, Tarnas, and Ferrer. I'd prefer not to discuss any personal information on-wiki, since I have a psychopathic stalker who harasses me in real life, and whose incoherent rants you can read on this page (under "Threats"). — goethean 00:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also very interested in all of the theorists you mentioned. And I agree with you about Wilber. Although he's clearly very smart and knowledgeable, he has a tendency to represent subjects in a rather reductive, and even erroneous way. For instance, his claim that Tarnas uses Maslow as a "whipping boy" has literally no foundation in Tarnas' work. Tarnas only mentions Maslow once in Passion, and that's in a positive light. Very strange. In a similar vein, the WSJ article seems to be a willful misunderstanding of Tarnas' work, which is a shame since it's in such a prominent publication, though I agree with you that the review belongs on the page in the interest of completeness. You're probably aware of this already, but Ferrer was a student of Tarnas' at CIIS and Grof and Tarnas have worked closely together for decades on the material presented in Cosmos and Psyche. Have you read Grof's article on archetypal astrology at Extremely interesting stuff. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about it.

Looking forward to some productive collaboration.Murgy (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I haven't read very much Grof at all. It was surprising when I read the title of Tarnas' dissertation. It is obviously a Grofian work, which puts Tarnas' work in a different light. It seems like Tarnas' work stems from Grof's psychedelic therapy, into a kind of psychedelic cosmology. — goethean 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On cited material and sexual behavior[edit]

Hello, Goethean. I've had Ralph Waldo Emerson watchlisted for ages, and although there has been seemingly little development as of late, I just wanted to let you know that your most recent response on the talk page was a highlight of my day. Very simply put, with just the perfect amount of burn. Cheers. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hal Moore[edit]

I didn't remove the entry based on sourcing. Had you bothered to read my edit summary, my removal was based on WP:WEIGHT as it relates to BLP. The entry, as written, makes it appear that Moore is a white supremist. That implication is a BLP problem. You provide absolutely no context for the nature of the appearence. It simply links the Moore with white supremists. On a larger scale, this is a biography, which should document important or significant events in his life, not trivia. If I found a reliable source telling us what he had for breakfast yesterday, should that trivial fact be included simply because it has a good source? I am reverting and starting a discussion on the talk page. Please feel free to continue the discussion there. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Let me know if you want your userpage semi-protected. Abecedare (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Abecedare (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case you are wondering where Ron Pattinson went.[edit] Nomoresoxforu (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work. However, I'm guessing that this is not your first account either. — goethean 21:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adi Da . Reliable Sources[edit]

Geothean, while I understand and appreciate your points I think your tone is a bit caustic and accusing. There is no need for that. Just state what needs to be done. I am trying to comply with wiki policies. I spent a lot of time the last few days working with what was given to do by the official wiki editor and within the guidelines of wiki policy. They just state what needs to be done and when I have questions there is a dialog and my questions are answered ... simple. I have put up the full info on Lake County Record Bee which is a paper still in existence unlike the Mill Valley paper. The Lake County Record Bee is a real legitimate newspaper, the main paper in a county of about 80,000 people. From looking online they have editorials, staff written articles with full coverage of both sides of a story, carry national weekend magazines etc. Totally legitimate. Will work on McKinleyville Press next and try to keep criteria in mind here as well and if criteria is not met will find other source.

I had nothing to do with Mill Valley paper which as I understand was a little small town paper nestled in Marin County, CA. What do we do about a non-existent paper with no page number quote,on a bias website "or has access to (in order to verify the citations)"? What is the wiki policy on that? Given the bias of the website and no paper in existence I have real concern about accuracy there.Certainly the information cited there is of much more relevance to the Adi Da article that a few descriptions of name changes.How do we go about getting that citation questioned?

Again you can be very helpful, informative etc. Let's keep the tone civil, non-accusing and work in dialog. Thanks again for pointing out info that was lacking.I am trying to comply with wiki policy. Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can add [page needed] and other templates to indicate that citation data is missing or that the sources are unverified. Thanks for your help and responses. My real question remains why the article uses these odd sources. — goethean 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So to answer the why, when I started getting involved in this edit and since I am basically more of admirer and reader of Adi Da...I soon found that especially information on the controversy aspects of his work ...only the negative stuff get's reported by newspapers, that's how they sell paper. Newspaper, TV etc are about sensationalism. They make people get more emotionalism,they sell. Look at the economy issue,which is bad but made so much worse by focusing on and taking advantage of peoples fears etc.While the recent access to older books written about him has allowed a lot of the Dawn Horse Press citations to be replaced( with a lot of work!),some of the aspects about the controversy issues are not reported in the books or major city newspaper. The Washington Post, SF Chronicle has NO interest in having too much balance. It don't sell papers! The only place you can find some real back and forth and some of the "other side" of the story is in some of these medium size newspapers.So these kind of different newspaper articles do have a little more latitude. So... I understand objection to McKinleyville.

Wikipedia is also a strange breed. It ain't about truth, justice, fairness etc. It is just about verifiable sources and many times those sources are very bias slanted etc.I have had to accept that issue and try to work within wiki's limited scope. With the additions of texts now as appropriate 3rd Party sources I feel that the article is much more balanced... and just a few decent papers with editorial influence, real writers etc (as you suggested) the article is much more balanced and fills in some areas.

So Goethean sorry for going on so long in writing here, but a lot of this is about getting an education about this strange thing called wikipedia, which in some ways play into the current psyche of humanity wanting a "quickie" consumer truth and information because they don't have the time to dig deeper. It is one of the reason wiki is so popular in a consumer mind way. I understand the person who started wiki is trying to do another version of it that would be more academic and debate like.

Why don't we agree to dialog on these things here so it is a constructive conversation to better Wikipedia and the article.I am trying to use more book sources as I can find them. Thanks for he dialog. Much appreciated.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. (My interest in Adi Da stems from my interest in Ken Wilber.) Wikipedia's policies may seems absurd at times, but there is a reason for all of them. Plus, they can be changed if the community agrees to the changes.
As far as your critique of the media, I guess that I agree in part. But is it necessarily a bad thing that people are motivated to write by a need to be read? I have a feeling that what you are saying to me is what the Adidam organization told you about why Adi Da had so much bad press. And I think that the American media certainly biased against gurus and new religious movements. But that doesn't mean that Adi Da was authentic or uncontroversial. — goethean 00:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well certainly the media is biased on new emerging religions and gurus,and certainly Adi Da is controversial,and from my point of view and investigation into it,that is fine and does not make him un-authentic. With a teacher one has to make choices if the unconventional approach is ok for oneself. Obviously Ken Wilbur struggles with this. It is a very personal issue it seems to me. Criticism of personal choices in religions, politics, sexuality are tricky things. Neither Jesus, Mohamed, and even Buddha were without severe critics I bet in their time! Certainly Jesus said some radical things messing with conventional things and saying that there was a deeper aspect to the norm.

My issue is with the media in general, because it is for the most part a sensationalist consumer driven force, supporting and even encouraging the "quickie consumer mentality". It will always have a hard time being balanced, accepting deeper exploration into the meaning of life, relationships etc. that may step over the norm. Wikipedia is well meaning, but the structure which surrounds it puts it in a position of playing into this "quickie consumer mind" If it is in Wikipedia it must be the truth. If it is in print in a newspaper it must be the truth. Not as an absolute. But that's the basic assumption. Anyway it is what it is!Have to work within it so... Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goethean, if you can give me the correct order for a book citation I will try to clean up some of my mess the last two days. Book Name,author,Publisher, Date of publication, ISBN page # ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Information_to_include. — goethean 17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And/or Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Citation_quick_referencegoethean 17:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passage Meditation NPOV flag[edit]

Dear Goethean, I see that there have been a lot of cuts made to the Passage Meditation article. While I think that these cuts are rather a loss - after all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it has the space to include quite a lot of material that readers will find useful, and I for one felt that all the research descriptions on the benefits of meditation were really pretty relevant - nevertheless I assume that they now mean that the article no longer suffers from NPOV. Would you be willing for me to remove that tag now? Thanks DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please see Talk page on Passage Meditation for my response to your response to this. Thanks DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please stop tagging my user page with you paranoid disillusions that I'm a sock puppet. Your abuse and lack of good faith is troubling. Please stop your harassment.Beer and wine (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You continue to persist with your charge the I'm a sock and you harassment. I will charge you with being an WP:DICK. YOU should mind your own business and stay off my user page.Beer and wine (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I got those things your sent me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schopenhauer's Views On Women[edit]

I notice you reverted my edit without any explanation this time. Simply talking through edit comments does not seem to be working, let's discuss this on the talk page: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwmargera (talkcontribs) 13:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mithras edits[edit]

Hey, why do you want to mess up the Mithras article? Roger Pearse (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I am evil, obviously. — goethean 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Integral (philosophy)[edit]

hi Goethean. I tried to rename Integral movement as Integral (philosophy) but there is already a page of that name. Could you move the current Integral movement page to Integral (philosophy)? Cheers M Alan Kazlev (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: The Fellowship / sex scandal relations[edit]

You should looke for 3rd party sources that state: "The secretive Fellowship came into public prominence when the sexual affairs of several of its members made headlines." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that's not needed. A news article which covers the fact that several Fellowship members have had sex scandals recently is sufficient to avoid WP:SYNTH and to allow Wikipedia to cover the scandals in the Fellowship article. Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave knows that there is a multitude of such articles. We don't need a 2ndary source explicitly dictating what each article can cover. That would be completely impractical. — goethean 17:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Projectivism could use a lot of work[edit]

Hi! You seem to have some knowledge and interest in philosophical topics. If you have some time and access to appropriate resources, Projectivism needs a lot of help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. However, that article seems somewhat original research-ish and besides, I know nothing of the subject. — goethean 02:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kirk Military Record[edit]

Wikipedia is a place for objective information only. Redacting my FACTS with an irrelevant and pejorative blog post is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talkcontribs) 06:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]