This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Pamela Geller
Your recent editing at Pamela Geller appears to be in violation of your WP:TBAN for articles related to the Tea Party movement. Is there some reason you don't believe that to be the case? Roccodrift (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize that Geller is connected to the Tea Party movement. I will immediately desist from editing the talk page of the article. Thank you for your help. Good luck with your pending SPI case. — goethean 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree - the main nexus is MilesMoney inserting it on the talk page, but it is not, IMO, close enough to warrant any sanctioning. And I trust my post here is not related to the TPm as such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
::*It's gonna be pretty tough to blame Miles this time. [1] But if you wanna try, go for it. Roccodrift (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I probably disagree too. Interpreting the tban this way would almost expand the ban to "US Politics" as almost every notable topic is likely to have some interaction or influence on/by the tea party. Gellar is a tough case to call. She isn't formally part of any of the tea party orgs as far as I know, but she certainly does speak at tea party groups quite often. Also, as her main focus is immigration/islamization, and immigration is a core issue for many tea party groups that makes it risky as well. I would urge goethean to be careful, but I personally would not report/take issue with the type of comments he has made on the talk page thus far. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Clarification request
The clarification request involving you has been archived. The comments left by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 04:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Goethean, in response to your request, it's a bit hard to count words, but I think you have roughly 900 words now and I believe 87 diffs. You can add to your section keeping a 1,200 word and 110-diff cap in mind. If you end up needing more, please post here or on my talk page and briefly explain why. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Goethean, apparently it would be preferable for you to file a report at WP:SPI rather than add the material to the case. At least you won't have to worry about caps. Sorry for the confusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
double spacing
Hello Goethean,
Maybe you already know this since you're such an active editor, but I saw your edit to the fort lee scandal article, and I thought you might be interested to know that "The number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence in the wiki markup makes no difference on Wikipedia; the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page (see Sentence spacing). For this reason, editors may use any spacing style they prefer on Wikipedia. Multiple spacing styles may coexist in the same article..." per MOS:DOUBLE SPACE. I don't think your edit was harmful, but it also doesn't seem to be a particularly productive use of your editing time. Best, AgnosticAphidtalk 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not know that! — goethean 18:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
North8000 Issues
I don't think that your allegations about North8000 are applicable to the current case on Gun control. I would suggest that they be filed at arbitration enforcement if they have to do with the Tea party movement, from which he is topic-banned for being on the "right", just as you have been topic-banned for being on the "left". Also, if you are willing to pull together a record of a pattern of misconduct in a user conduct Request for Comments, I am likely to concur. Your diffs about sock-puppetry appear, at least mostly, to be old, and the Checkusers generally are not interested in reports of sock-puppetry from previous decades. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that an RFCU would be a good first step. — goethean 05:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you
Thanks for the message. I am taking a break from gun control articles. — goethean 05:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited François Villon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ne'er-do-well (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) 09:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Goethean. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'm sure it only looks like your stalking me. So easy to fabricate an accusation. But proof is a different matter. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed the thirteen links to amazon.com, all for the same book, that you had scattered throughout various articles. Wikipedia is not a tool for the promotion of commercial products. If you feel that my edits do not improve Wikipedia, I suggest that you contact an administrator. — goethean 21:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Give it a rest
Persistence in the face of adversity
I always felt that I could at least admire Javert's sense of duty, if not his judgment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that my editing habits offend you. I am no longer looking at your past contributions. I have used Google to find and remove links to Amazon.com, which is not considered a reliable source. If you still feel that I am harassing you, please take it up at WP:ANI. — goethean 16:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I was very angry about your whole resort to WP:ANI. That is done, and I'm over it.
I don't care about your editing habits.
I welcome your contributions. Edit away, please. As, when and how you like.
Please leave me out of it, however.
Life is short, and you alone will have to decide whether auditing me is a good use of your finite time and resources contributing to Wikipedia. I don't want to offend you or bother you. This was meant as an olive branch, honestly. I will not darken your door again, and I hope we will both go unimpeded about our business.
Life is too short to bear a grudge. And driving away good editors — you or me — is bad business for Wikipedia. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if you would like to provide a URL when adding bibliographical information, you could add a link to the Worldcat.org entry rather than the Amazon.com entry. — goethean 16:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Good suggestion. Understood. Sorry for coming back so soon after promising I wouldn't. Over and out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Goethean. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you sir — goethean 16:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: Left-Lib
Goethean, this edit ([2]) does not need to be reverted. Honestly, I think the material is pretty good, as it stresses common leftist and libertarian commitments, but I'm not sure there is a way to phrase it in a way that will sate other editors' claims of POV. For example, the libertarian commitment to self-ownership is POV to some libertarian socialists, but individual autonomy redirects there too. Similarly, talk of free markets is usually tainted by capitalist rhetoric even though, technically speaking, it is a libertarian commitment; freed markets, on the other hand, is a relatively obscure term for the same concept, packaged with an explicit critique of the privileges plaguing capitalist "free markets." I couldn't get anyone to work with me on finding a way to present this information without POV language, so I just let it fall away. I would prefer to see the material reinstated in a NPOV manner, but I don't think the article suffers much from its absence. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. — goethean 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Trawny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology (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) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Dylan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.. Alatari (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
2000 Most active Wikipedians
2000 Most active Wikipedians
Goethean
Hi Mate,
Just found out that you are Wikipedia's "one of the 2000 most active Wikipedians." Congratulations.
Thank you for keeping the Hindu Temples Lists up todate there are over 400 Hindu Temples in US, which are currently not on Wiki.
I thought I'd ask your suggestions / advice on the lists of Hindu temples, How can we add the 400 + Hindu temples to Wikipedia and
As I'm new here can the link to the directory be kept in an appropriate place as per wikipedia standards
Thanks Dhorsetrader (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thank you very much for the trophy!
I recently removed from List of Hindu temples in the United States all entries for any Hindu temple which did not have its own wiki article. My model for these edits was the article List of Presbyterian churches in the United States, which only lists notable Presbyterian churches in the United States. If you take a look at what the article look like previous to my edits,[3] and compare it with how it looks now, I think that my edits were a substantial improvement. Previously, it was unclear if much of the information was accurate or up to date. Some of the temples on the list could have moved or closed. We don't need addresses and phone numbers of the temples, as Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. I knew that there would be some negative reaction to my edit, because lots of people like to use Wikipedia to promote their particular temple or website. But I would like to stick with the policy that the list only include temples which have a Wikipedia article about them. — goethean 12:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Help
Hi, can you help in GA for Sri Aurobindo, its taking lot of time and efforts Shrikanthv (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take a look and see what I can do. — goethean 14:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Glancing at the list
of editors who have been topic banned around the tea party makes me feel sort of left out, missing what must have been quite a party. And since I am in Arizona right now, the only state I know of where you can get a state approved TEA PARTY LICENSE PLATE, I have things that I could say. Oh well, having been banned from the Men's Movement for a bit (for suggesting that all the editors showing up as red links might be doing it because they are communists) I know the thrill involved in these things. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice to make your acquaintance. Think of it this way: you missed the dispute but now you can edit and improve the articles without interference (there are a lot of articles which relate to the tea party, all of which I am banned from). — goethean 13:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Likewise I'm sure. Well that is food for thought. make that, erin for thought.
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffrey J. Kripal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Republic (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) 08:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
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
Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gun_control and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Sri Aurobindo, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Administrator Incident page
Hi there,
I had to revert your version as someone had changed the page just before you to practically blank it, which needed to be reverted. You may want to take a look at the version you edited and re-add it. Sorry about that! Calvinkarpenko (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I did restore it (and AN/I); thanks Calvin for the explanation for the blanking. Nate•(chatter) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys. — goethean 16:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. You are named as a party to the Gun control arbitration case. The committee is now voting on its decision for this case, and findings and/or remedies relating to your conduct have been proposed. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. As voting is underway, please submit promptly any comments you wish the arbitrators to consider. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK[•] 11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Goethean (talk·contribs) reminded that further incivility as well as unnecessary antagonism may result in sanctions;
North8000 (talk·contribs) is indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. The twelve-month period of the ban under this remedy is reset if new infringements of the sock puppetry policy occur. In addition, North8000 (talk·contribs) is also indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, gun control. The topic ban that North8000 was subject to due to the Tea Party case remains in force.
The topic-ban remedies passed in this case may not be appealed for at least twelve months, and another twelve months must pass for each subsequent appeal.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manasputra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sage (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) 08:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thank you
Hey Goethean. Just wanted to say thanks for your "thanks"(!) I get so paranoid mentioning Harrison at those Beatle talk pages sometimes – as if I'm committing sacrilege by daring to disturb the established McCartney-Lennon-Martin order … So it was quite a relief to get that notification from you, I must say! Best, JG66 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I just thought that your comment made a ton of sense. — goethean 15:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
You are mentioned in an arbitration case
The Arbitration Committee is currently hearing a case relating to US Politics. The case information page is here. This message is to inform you that evidence has been submitted about your conduct. As a result, the committee is now scrutinising your conduct in this topic area. If you wish to give one, your reply to this evidence must be received by 13 May 2014 if it is to be fully considered by the committee. The evidence is in one or more submissions on this page. You may reply to evidence by posting in a new section on this page. You may also submit your own evidence, subject to the rules imposed on evidence submission (and the 13 May deadline). I must also make you aware that the evidence that has been submitted about your conduct may, in the course of these proceedings, lead to an arbitrator proposing you be sanctioned as part of the committee's final decision for this case. Please contact a committee clerk if you are not sure what this means. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK[•] 08:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
American politics arbitration evidence
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK[•] 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
you may have violated your block [4] of editing topics related to the tea party broadly construed. a request has been filed with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ramakrishna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please continue discussion on talk page responding specifically to this edit. Jyoti (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your abuse of a Wikipedia template in the service of your effort to have well-sourced, neutrally-presented material removed from the Ramakrishna article. Your proposed edit has no consensus on the talk page. Additionally, it is completely asinine. — goethean 16:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Kindly participate in on-going discuss on talk page. Jyoti (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Luce may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
He is the author of the 2006 book ''In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India''], and the 2012 book ''Time To Start Thinking: America and the Spectre of Decline'', published with
Per WP:CHALLENGE, a citation must be provided if a user articulates doubt as to its veracity. It never occurred to anyone before now that this statement needed a citation, which is why there is not one in place. If your challenge is serious, then I will follow the policy.
Nevertheless, I may still articulate my utter disbelief that you seriously doubt the fact that you have challenged. Do you know the storyline of Thief? Do yo know what dispensationalism entails? Seriously. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Now that I look, I see that the necessary source was already in the previous sentence. Seriously. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nature (Tobler essay), 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) 08:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red Pine (author), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuang-tzu. 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) 08:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Analytical psychology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Psyche and Ego. 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) 08:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
you may have violated your topic ban
[5] may be a violation of this ban [6] a request for enforcement will be made. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The above AE request as been declined. Monty845 18:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Goethe's Religious Views
The reasons you gave for undoing the information I provided are risible and absurd. I doubt that you have ever studied the historical method, as you would know that older historical accounts are more reliable than newer ones, as they're closer to that person's time and have less time to be corrupted. Moreover, there is a multicultural period of historiography today that attempts to make historical geniuses out to be atheists or homosexuals, and often causes secular historians to fabricate information along the way. Just look at the ridiculous claims that Laplace was an atheist or Abraham Lincoln a homosexual. All I've given is reliable information that effectively refutes that point, and you only betray Wikipedia's integrity to the truth when you attempt to hide that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Gothean I replied to the above poster's jarring incoherence for reverting my revert on his own talk page.
My reasons were not incoherent. They were perfectly coherent, whether you agreed with them or not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not care to argue that point further. You originally said that you edited what I wrote because I gave no reason. When I did give a reason in compliance with your wishes, you still undid what I added. Is that not agreement enough. What more would you like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Goethean. I am sure that you agree that something needs to be done about the unfortunate behavior of User:Piotrniz at Friedrich Nietzsche. I am quite prepared to revert Piotrniz again, but I think that reporting him for edit warring should perhaps be done first. Either you or I could do this. Any comment? I should add that the same user is continuing the same pattern of behavior at that article, some time after I first notified you of this. If you do not intend to do anything about it - taking the user to ANI, for example - it would be helpful if you could inform me of this. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 31 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hack gap, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Republic. 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) 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hack gap until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Help Akshardham Environment Violation Section & Protest at launch event for Book
Hello,
If you have time would you please take a look at this article: [7] and this discussion [8] and provide your input. There is a content dispute occurring and I feel fresh eyes would help because of your experience. [9].
Also, if you have time , could you see if you have anything additional to add to this talk page? There was a book launch [10] and a translation author was asked not to come because she is a woman and an organization prohibits their holy men from looking at women. This is not typical in normal Hinduism but this is a practice in this branch. The person was offended and there was public outcry. Is this considered something that is notable and included?
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Transformative Practice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I have no feelings on the topic. — goethean 18:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The attraction of Spinoza's philosophy to late eighteenth-century Europeans was that it provided an alternative to Materialism, Atheism, and Deism. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them:
the unity of all that exists;
the regularity of all that happens; and
the identity of spirit and nature.
I am very interested to know where these three ideas are to be found as a list in any literature on the subject? Thanks in advance!
I don't know the answer to your question. The text was originally added to the Spinoza article by User:Lestrade[11] in May 2006. — goethean 19:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Ingmardb (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Integral thought
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haridas Chaudhuri until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
BARNSTAR OF FAMILY VALUES
Vector of Vigilance Award
For service in the name of everything just and decent on WP. SPECIFICOtalk 18:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Jen Richards
Hello Goethean,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jen Richards for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Hello, Goethean. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. I'm reaching out to you since you have been one of the top contributors to American Legislative Exchange Council. There are a number of recent discussions at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council that could benefit from additional input. You are invited to participate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention here.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Happy Trans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Luce may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Template:Integral thought has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. jps (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
