User talk:Goethean/2006

Happy New Year
For last year's words belong to last year's language
 * And next year's words await another voice.
 * And to make an end is to make a beginning.
 * ''T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"


 * Happy New Year! &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Indian epic poetry
If you have time and inclination, could you review my proposed version of this article at talk:Indian epic poetry to ensure I got your recent changes appropriately integrated? And if you have an opinion about the merge, I'd be interested in hearing as well. Thanks. John (Jwy) 18:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Swaminarayan/BAPS
and are wearing me out. I don't know enough of the topics to fully understand why some editors are so adamanant about certain aspects of the article, its links, and its punctuation. But they are adamant. These articles need an experienced, knowledgeable editor. All I can really do is hit the revert button. Can you communicate with the editors and help decide what we should have in these articles? I'd be happy to see them settle down. -Will Beback 10:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Any help is appreciated. -Will Beback 18:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the flattering comments on talk:Sathya Sai Baba
I am happy to see that our past antagonism is over. Andries 23:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken Wilber Category page
Hi Goethean.

I just started a new category page; [Category:Ken Wilber]. This would be good if you want to do reviews for each of Wilber's books, or more detailed coverage of various Wilberian topics. You would still keep the main KW page, but these other pages can go off from there, and look at each of the subjects in more detail. It would also help keep the links to the Integral theory category page more managable. M Alan Kazlev 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Time to archive!
Hey, Goethean, don't you think its about time to create an archive subpage and move some of this stuff over, to make things a little more manageable? Holler if you need assistance. --Blainster 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hegel
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I understand what you were trying to do, but a Marx reference is necessarily too weighted to be valuable that early on in a discussion of Hegel. The relations you have in mind are better treated further down. And I think Russell, as an accessible example of the 20th century analytical English-language philosophers, with their antipathy to Hegel (but nonetheless, or therefore! their vulnerability to his influence) is a good example to use up front. --Christofurio 19:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Holism in science - your opinion requested
Hi. I'm thinking about how many holistic scientists are people who are open to "feelings", including spiritual feelings and intuition (e.g. synchronicity), and willing to talk about them. To me, it seems like science suffers from a dominance of the mind (and consequent suppression of the heart), and holism in science is a response from within the scientific community "organism" that is somehow "trying" to correct this. Maybe this topic is too "hot" (reductionists would say "irrelevant") to put in the article but at least a link to Integral theory (philosophy) could be added. Your thoughts on this, and how it might be written into the Holism in science article? --Smithfarm 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I added an embryonic Integral theory subsection to the section on scientific fields. Perhaps you'd like to flesh it out. --Smithfarm 21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wellness
User:CDN99 recently deleted all the Wellness articles, including Wellness (alternative medicine) and Wellness (medicine), replacing them with redirects to Mental health. S/he claims to have integrated the material into the Health article but I couldn't find any of it there. Seeking your opinion. Isn't this vandalism? --Smithfarm 12:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look into the history of "health", you'll find which is a merger of the articles that was vandalised by another user (as a result I changed the redirects).  A discussion on User_talk:Smithfarm for the wellness articles is ongoing. --CDN99 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Scroll down on [], it's not a diff, just an old version. --CDN99 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism
Hi, I've restored a previous version of the Buddhism article. Could you please redo your wikifications:
 * 17:37, 25 January 2006 Goethean (→Principal schools of Buddhist philosophy - wikifying)
 * 1) (cur) (last) 16:19, 25 January 2006 Goethean (removing links from section headers)

in the current version (seems reasonable).--Klimov 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Arvan Harvat
The Arvan Harvat page has been nominated for deletion. If you think it should be saved, please vote. Thanks! M Alan Kazlev 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

where is the controversy?
Where is the controversy? The man who was there said the words were not spoken. I think that should seal the debate once and for all, and relegate all talk of his dying words to the trash can of urban legend.

Pizzadeliveryboy 18:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * hi, i have added a bit more abt this on the gandhi talk page, please take a look. thanks. -Pournami 11:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

humans
Hi Goethean I saw your new sub page. What are your plans for this page? Discussion or to use as a reference page keeping discussion on the human page?

Despite all our differences of perspective I think this has been a very productive discussion. Thanks for being patient, i can see how this must be frustrating for you having been through all this before. David D. (Talk) 17:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to delhi
Namaste dear,

So you are coming to India. A very warm Namaste and welcome to delhi from this delhite.-Holy Ganga 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Consciousness
Uh, generally, a quote is a good thing. The problem is that the quote isn't relevant and the inference being drawn from it is inaccurate, largely because Loxley is on record as hating all things Dennett. The brief summary I used instead is entirely accurate, and not at all original research. If you'd like, I can drag up some quotes to support this summary. On the other hand, Loxley's summary was simply wrong, and the quote is irrelevant. I'm going to cite my summary and remove the quote. Alienus 16:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
 * 2) If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
 * 3) Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Wallace Stevens Poll
This is to invite you to respond to the editors poll on the Wallace Stevens talk page at Talk:Wallace_Stevens. You have either contributed to the talk page or have made a substantial contribution to the encyclopedia page within the past three months. Thank you. --Halcatalyst 01:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet
Do you know anything about Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet? She is referenced in dozens of articles. While she may be notable, there seems to be an effort to promote her, which may go beyond what her importance merits. I don't know myself, but it seems suspicious to an outsider. -Will Beback 22:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Kidney stone
You've added quite a lot of interesting information re the balance of increased/decreased effects of alcohol & coffee on stone formation. Can you add some of the references you used to the article. Thanks David Ruben Talk 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism Scholars
I don't know about Paglia, so I'll take your word for it. Nozick wrote significantly on Rand, briefly mentioning her in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" and disussing Objectivism more extensively in "Socratic Puzzles." LaszloWalrus 23:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Linking to an external webpage
Please note that linking on your user page to "Andries Bias" webpage may be seen as a personal attack against me. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba Can you please remove the link to the webpage? Oh, and by the way, I do recognize your sarcasm and I replied with sarcasm that you seemed unable to recognize. Thanks. Andries 18:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question on my talk page. Yes, I think that by linking to the webpage you are making a personal attack on me. And I think that you are violating WP:NPA. Andries 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I made a complaint about your behaviour at Administrators%27_noticeboard. Feel free to defend your behaviour there. Andries 19:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I noticed you said my page contained "defamatory" content. Are you aware of the definition of "defamation"? If statements are negative, but true, that is not defamation. If statements are untrue, then it is defamation. Point out anything on my page about you that is untrue, i.e., "defamatory". You are falsely accusing me of defamation without backing up your claims by citing examples. SSS108 talk-email 15:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Defamatory" comment addressed: Talk Page: Personal Messages SSS108 talk-email 18:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Integral post-metaphysics
Integral post-metaphysics has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 15:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Linga Sarira
Hi Goethean. Your vote needed here: Articles for deletion/Linga sarira. Thanks! M Alan Kazlev 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Disappointed
I am disappointed at your choice in section headings. My edit summary stated "the only method for classifying species is biological", not that there are no other classification schemes besides biological ones. The species is a unit in biological classification; it does not mean that no other schemes can exist or be beneficial, nor does it mean that the biological system is superior to all others. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: in your edit summary here you stated you were noting personal attacks in edit summaries by admins. Where did you see a personal attack in an edit summary? thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all right; I already noted there that you misrepresented my statement, and changing it at this point would make some of the subsequent comments spurious. In my opinion, when one is getting angry, it's better to take a little break from Wikipedia. That way one is less likely to misinterpret others' statements&mdash;being less likely to see bad faith and exaggerated claims&mdash;and less likely to provoke conflict. Arguments made from logic and reason, not from emotion or anger, tend to be more convincing, as well. Hope you're feeling better now. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's return some humanity to Talk:Human
I offer this olive branch and an apology for some unnecessarily intemperate, aggressive, and even insulting language I've thoughtlessly spouted out recently on Talk:Human. I meant no offense whatsoever, and have enormous respect for your contributions and efforts at resolving this matter peacefully; I just get way too absorbed in conflicts sometimes, and don't always consider the consequences of my hyperbole. I hope that we can continue to discuss possible solutions to the disagreements on human's content without so much divisive vitriol getting in the way of the exchange of ideas; I'll do my best, but if I screw up again, please feel free to reprimand me, vent, or whatever you wish on my talk page. Thanks for taking so much of your valuable time to try to sort this mess out. Here's hoping we can sort out some sort of solution; if people with world-views and beliefs as wildly different as the two of us can reach some sort of common middle ground eventually, there's surely hope for peace in the Middle East, or even for peace in Wikipedia. :F -Silence 05:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Goethean, thanks for the apology and i likewise apologise for being terse. I do recognise your concensus position especially in relation to the quite different version that Sam is proposing. Much of my discussion is based on trying to formulate an opinion.  I do have a POV opinion but working out the 'give and take' part takes time and discussion is necessary (for me at least). I was looking through the archives (at last) and I noticed that you have been at this longer than most (Tom and Sam have the longevity too), so I can understand why this must be getting tiresome.  From my perspective i still see it as constructive. David D. (Talk) 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Goethean, I would like to award you a barnstar for your excellent work on Wikipedia, Best wishes, Solar 13:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)



re: Kripal
From Mahamaya1 to Goethean:

Thanks for the note. Yes, I do know a bit about prof. Kripal. Did you originally create the article, or add to it later?

Thanks for the reply. I did all the anonymous editing yesterday, before creating my own user name today. I know that in the articles, everything has to be neutral and unbiased. But personally, are you antagonistic against or appreciative of, Kripal's work? And how did you hear of him in the first place?

Your comment that many of these offended Indians are rather "Victorian" is very insightful, and ironic. In my plans for adding to the Kripal article I already had in mind a heading "Brown Victorians and White Natives." (As an American married to a Bengali lady from Calcutta, I'm a "white native" in the sense of the old derogatory colonial term "going native.").

J. Kripal is a friend of mine. I first read K.C. in 1999, while living in Calcutta, after having done a lot of research on Ramakrishna for my M.Div thesis. That, along with his ROADS book, has been incredibly helpful and therapeutic for me. What has been totally overlooked in the K.C. controversy is Kripal's intense and graphic discussions of Kali herself. These discourses have a sort of catalytic quality about them, which can launch certain types of people into mind-altering mystical encounters with the goddess (even people who are Christians and should thus have no natural attraction to Kali). K.C. created a firestorm in me, but for very different reasons than you read about in all the debates. Mahamaya1 23:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's way cool! Another American married to an Indian. We have many Punjabi friends, mostly from Chandigarh. I'm originally from California (Marin County), by the way.

I would highly recommend reading K.C. (2nd Edition), as well as the book co-edited by Kripal ENCOUNTERING KALI. Also, a few weeks ago in Calcutta I picked up a relatively recent book, which I think you would find fascinating. It's called CHILDREN OF KALI by Kevin Rushby (used copies are about $8 now on Amazon).

One more important note about Kripal: although he does use some Freudian theory, he's not a full-blown Freudian and is not a reductionist. He's had many mystical experiences of his own, which he documents in ROADS OF EXCESS, PALACES OF WISDOM. Also in that book, he turns the same analytical lense inward, analyzing himself in the same manner that he did Ramakrisha in K.C. This is almost unheard of in the field, and I'd never have the courage to do such a thing. Way too embarrassing. But he's pretty unabashed.

There's one thing that needs to be added to your section on Kripal. YOur last paragraph refers to a "counter response," but doesn't document it. I'm guessing it's Rajiv Malhotra, but I'm not sure. If you could just add a link or reference to that paragraph, clarifying the counter-reponse, it would be perfect.

Thanks Mahamaya1 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

human/ity
Interesting tie in with regard to the second sentence in your version four sub page of the introduction. I'll think it over, it makes sense since we have humanity redirecting to the human article. At present the word does not appear in the introduction, so this appears ti have been overlooked in the bickering. David D. (Talk) 04:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You probably already know about the three-revert rule. I think you are close to violating it, or may have already done so, on 7 World Trade Center. I understand it's easy to get carried away and transgress by accident, so I'm not going to persue it if you stop reverting now. (Of course I can't speak for anyone else.) Please work toward compromise. I offered to include a link in 'see also', even though I don't think it's appropriate. It's not clear to me why you reject out of hand a simple link to the page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have responded, and I understand you have found my arguments unpersuasive, as I have yours. It seems to me that should make compromise all the more appropriate. What have I done that you consider wikilawyering? Tom Harrison Talk 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I see eight comments from you on the talk page, and six from me. Clearly neither one of us has been ignoring it, we just haven't convinced each other. If I have edit warred, and I may have, then so have you. I didn't threaten you with the 3RR, I said I was not going to report you if you stopped reverting, even though I think you have (maybe inadvertently) violated it. I have offered (in vain) a compromise. I don't see the basis for your hostility. Tom Harrison Talk 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear that further discussion between us would not be productive. By all means invite others to edit the page. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

NEED TECH HELP
Hi Goethean,

Last week you wrote:

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mahamaya1. You sure know a lot about Professor Kripal! Let me know if you need any help. — goethean ॐ 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Now I do need some help. I'm proficient in MS Word and Excel and that's about it. I want to continue the expansion of the Kripal article, and in doing so need to use proper endnotes (academic style, quoting sources specifically). I'm not sure how to do this, or how to convert the existing notes into this format. For example, one existing note quotes K.C. but when you click on it, it takes you to a review on Google Book search. I need to change that to the exact page number from which the quote is taken. I'm hoping that the finished product will have all the numbered endnotes at the bottom of the web page. Any suggestions?

Thanks, Mahamaya1 18:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Higgs boson consensus vote
There is currently a vote on the Higgs boson talk page over whether or not to merge the pop culture references article with the main article. I noticed you've previously contributed to the debate, so your vote would be helpful in establishing a consensus (or, perhaps, a vote of "no consensus", in which case the problem will be referred to AfD). Thanks! -DMurphy 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Need Tech help
Thanks for the footnote advice; it was easy to impliment after reading your post. This Wikipedia stuff is a lot of fun, by the way. Mahamaya1 17:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Friedrich Nietzsche
I think it is best for you to be aware of the recent subjection of vandalism to the article, and I have so far traced these from the past to moments ago, all following similar patterns: ; similar vandalism, different IP, "honest" political distortions, and again. At any rate, I hope we can find some way to bring a stop to this ridiculousness bent on falsifying Nietzsche's claims and so on. I will try to notify others who have been keen on the article's improvement in the past. —IGNISSCRIPTA— 23:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dzogchen
Thanks Goethean, for fulfilling my footnote request - and so quickly. You are a true bodhissatva lol! How does one contact a wikipedia author anyway?

New message: Thanks my friend for the info about messages and so forth. Very generous. You rock!

5.75%
The total Asian population of Downers Grove only makes up 5.75% of the total population. Those groups you want to have listed are two of the smallest groups in the town, there are several groups with much larger populations. 75.3.4.54 20:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Integral theory and Integral thought
Hi Goethean. I've added material to and reorganised both pages. (The Integral theory page still needs more work). Perhaps the Integral theory template should now be divided into two, as follows:

o Integral Thought, with links to the important integral thinkers in general (as per the Integral thinkers page), and only the most important Wilberian pages

o the other can be called either Integral Theory or Ken Wilber (whichever you feel more appropriate), and this can just have wikilinks to the pages on Wilber and his organisation (Integral Institute, Integral Naked, etc), and the practical application of his ideas (Integral ecology, Integral politics), as well as to all of Wilber's books that currently have wikipages on them

M Alan Kazlev 23:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

LM
I'm aware there is a problem, but I'll have to give it some thought. I'm not sure what happened prior to my meeting him, so I didn't really know any harassment had taken place. I've been trying to butt out of the issues and give you guys more of a hand, believe it or not, while also trying to be courteous and encouraging. If you feel there is a problem that needs immediate action, LMK and I'll ask around. I'm aware he's overdoing things, I've just been out of the loop and rather lazy about it, as no one has said anything. But I figured the issue would rearise sooner or later. --DanielCD 21:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dashes
Thanks for the compliment, though it's a bit of an exaggeration. Different style guides have different approaches, but the one that I prefer, and which makes text much clearer and easier to read, distinguishes between en-rules (with spaces) for parentheses and em-rules for most other uses. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Adding a link is not vandalism. I am sorry if it doesn't please the madman's church, but Rorty's ideas *are* controversial, and I will keep adding that link until someone finds one as good or better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.192.129 (talk • contribs)

In case you haven't noticed (something quite surprising, given the fact it's the first thing on the discussion section) I have tried to debate it since day one. Obviously, no one had a word to say. If no opposition was voiced and no explanation was given, what should I do? Except for someone on the editing history who said it was a useless critque (sic). I'm not the one who's silent here. No, it's not by an analytic philosopher, and why should he be?! Are only analytic philosophers mentally capable of criticizing Rorty? That's a notion that would infuriate himself, I assure you. Also, several parts of the text are critical of Rorty's innacuracies and high school grasp of philosophical history. That's factual criticism.

Your note
Hi Goethean, I'm sorry you're having these problems. I can't easily block LoveMonkey so long after the fact, but if he does anything like it again, or threatens to, he'll be blocked, and probably indefinitely. As for the article, I know nothing about it or the issues, and I can't get involved as an editor in case I have to take admin action. However, I'll put it on my watchlist and I'll be looking out for personal attacks or any disruptive editing. In the meantime, you can insist on all contentious edits being carefully sourced to reputable sources, and you can also insist that edits of yours that are relevant and carefully sourced not be removed. I've deleted Visualerror's personal details from his page history, which doesn't undo the damage, but might at least prevent any similar stalking in the future. This kind of thing is happening more and more, unfortunately. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

April projects
Just looking through your project links. It's shaping up well. David D. (Talk) 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Plotinus
Hi Goethean, if you have a view about page protection, could you let me know at Talk:Plotinus? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let it go.
I've already filed a 3RR violation [report for Ndru01's edits on [[Morphic field]], so just step back and let him get banned. Don't revert and get yourself banned, please. Alienus 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche
The debate we had is now in the archive, but as that's out of the way I'd like to ask pardon for any incivility that you encountered as a result of my vehemence during the course of my debate. I think I was trying to prove my case too strongly, not through WP:NOT, but as result I forgot about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Such things are not responsible conduct. --Knucmo2 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Esalen
Hi Goethian,

My knowledge of Esalen is vague and sketchy, so I can't be of much help here.

Mahamaya1 15:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Goethean. CKA3KA here. I noticed that you'd been doing quite a bit of work on the Esalen article, so I wanted to keep you in the loop. The bits of text that were lifted, verbatim, from other sources still seem to make up the meat of the article. Would you do me the favor of reviewing my comments on the Talk:Esalen Institute page and weighing in? I'd like to get your input before I nominate it for deletion. I'd prefer to save the article, if possible. Thanks. &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA
I think you need to read the policy on no personal attacks before you jump to conclusions. Continued disruption of talk and article pages with nonsense is definitely disruption and trollish. Hope you heard me loud and clear. This is an encyclopedia project, not a blog and definitely not a place for misinformation.--MONGO 01:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo's behaviour
Hi Goethean,

I've started a Requests for comment/Mongo to report Mongo's behaviour on 9/11 related article. Can you help me with it?

Thanks, Seabhcán 09:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

McLuhan/Joyce
I'll admit, I don't know much about Marshall McLuhan, but your reversion to a previous article made me question the necessary inclusion of the "nonsense" from Finnegan's Wake in the article. Perhaps it does merit inclusion, but it is utterly unclear to the layperson as to why. I'm not going to edit it out, but perhaps there should be some discussion as to making it more accessible. beekman 19:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag on Marshall McLuhan, and after looking at your remark on Merosonox's talk page, I think it may have been in haste. Should I put the tag back up? Or should we just press Merosonox into adding more info to his/her (in my opinion, quite informative) paragraph? beekman 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Goethe
It would appear this article has a terrible infection that persistently attacks its host at all costs    and now has "reverted vandalism". I'm not too sure in what way we ought to go about this, but it very clearly needs to stop, for this individual reads into this small section that Goethe is being titled a "homosexual" and this reading was above all prevented since there is no evidence for it, and thus this activity itself purely constitutes vandalism in the highest degree, even trolling.ignisscripta 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, "Goethean" - it seems you manage to co rather a lot of people.

You just
 * For the while I have reverted the last instance of vandalism, but I'm of the assumption it will happen again.ignisscripta 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

élan vital
Hey! Elan vital was being incorrectly used as a disambiguation page, so the disambiguation page was shifted to Élan vital (philosophy). I wanted to let you know if you wanted to change yr "created pages" link instead of me changing it on you. mxdxcxnx T C 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Science Defender
Sorry for not replying to your note on my talk page. I'm too busy these days and have lost the inclination to mess with non-constructive edits to "Holism in science". The way I see it, I did what I felt was needed of me, and now if someone wants to re-do it into something else, that's their affair. The "Holism in science" experience really taught me a lot. Among other things, it exposed some ownership and territoriality issues that were lurking in my psyche. By closely watching these issues as they operate, they gradually lose their grip and I can let them go and feel much lighter. I have seen the idea of responsibility for a chunk of encyclopedia turf for what it really is -- bogus. Thanking you and wishing you all the best, Smithfarm 11:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

Thanks! --evrik 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Message from User:Andries

 * Delete. As someome who has been attacked on an external blog (scroll down to "Never Mind The Pollocks....") for my views on Wikipedia, I have to say that I would fight (although probably not to the death) for the right of people to attack me on their blogs. Wikipedia simply has no business with what any Wikipedia editor does in his time away from Wikipedia. Sets a bad precedent. — goethean ॐ 14:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, at least you are consistent in your views: linking to a webpage with a personal attack against me on user:Goethean was acceptable according to you, in spite of my complaints about it and in spite of endorsement of my view by mediator user:BostonMA (false, now retracted claim by user:SSS108/Joe Moreno that I am a marajuana/hash user). Thanks. Andries 10:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder + Suggestion
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

No personal attacks
I'm not going to immediately revert it again, but please consider I hope you will consider my objection, and either revert yourself, or try to incorporate more fair representation of the off-wiki part and more ballanced representation of question of wether the extension procedure was ok. Thanks. --Wikimol 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks. --Wikimol 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact it was extened per talk page, Village Pump and Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Extension, which is reasonable procedure. (The disscussion was also advertised on Policy RfC and other pages.) The extension stayed in place for about 3 weeks. Only than heated dispute, revert war and polling started.
 * The line to prevent Wikipedians being insulted outside of Wikipedia is misrepresentation of the case. The extension was inteded to stop bypassing the policy and that is clearly stated: As such, personal attacks made by editors of Wikipedia against other editors of Wikipedia in online forums and personal websites, for the specific purpose of bypassing this policy,
 * Given the current results of the poll, I would repeat words of Strom: If you take nothing else from these results, please keep in mind that neither "side" is an overwhelming majority, so no one can pretend they represent an "obviously correct" position; I think those supporting "strong throw out" were bold enough by removing the extension & defending that in revert war.

Plato - Humanism...
hi, I've taken your advice and gone back to translating Kafka's short stories more full-time; my purpose here in this so called encyclopedia was actually pretty much based on self-interest in any event as I thought it might be a place to Link people up to my translation of Plato with a free download of the dialogue Charmides... see http://home.earthlink.net/~ushaphil/id5.html if you would like to see my translation work (and my current POV website).

if you have any ideas that might help me, I'm happy to be contacted there too...

thanks again. phillip.

A project and much besides
Good day, Goethean. I've decided, since I feel I must at least express in full or in whatever part may be the result, to speak on the nature of my attitude toward the project into which I jumped headlong. Although, I have done little that would be considered a contribution to its purpose I nevertheless feel I should make clear that my many other contributions have so far hindered or withheld me from doing so, and I at the very least still am a "participant" regardless. As that would have it, whenever I come to such situations that would demand that of me, though I do hold to the central principles of Wikipedia (when they are of essential use), you may be assured I will be of assistance. Please accept this small "apology", and I hope the best for whatever comes your way. — ignis scripta 22:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, igni. I'm not understanding you. What project? Nietzsche? Goethe? Weimar Classicism? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon! I mean the Countering systematic bias against religion project (to which I signed not too long ago)—I suppose it is little wonder my post seemed so vague… My sincerest regards, be that as it may. — ignis scripta 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. Well, not much has happened with that project since its inception, which is mostly my fault, not yours. No problem, and thanks for the message. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Morphic field
Please come to Talk:Morphic field and discuss your desired changes. Edit-warring is counterproductive. Al 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please don't insert the link again. You already have violated WP:3RR, by repeatedly inserting the link:


 * 15:33, 1 June 2006
 * 10:21, 2 June 2006
 * 12:49, 2 June 2006
 * 13:12, 2 June 2006

But I realize you have never been blocked before, and were not warned this time. Thus, I will assume good faith and refrain from taking any action this time. -Kmf164 ( talk | contribs ) 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Talk:Sikhism

 * I made a request for comments regarding this dispute Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy. Andries 08:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Diffs on your userspace
Do not use your usepage to post personal attacks on others. Baseless accusations such as the one I just removed will not be tolerated.--MONGO 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You removed a diff to one of your own comments. I have replaced it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your userspace is not "yours"...it belongs to Wikipedia and you borrow it. It is not the place to post attacks against others...just as that usersubpage was doing. This is an even more blatant example of misuse of this resource on your part than that subpage was. I am not the least bit embarassed.--MONGO 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not the least bit embarassed
 * That's not my problem either. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Advice
Strongly advise you remove the word whim and replace it with something more neutral. As it stands it is a violation of NPA against any administrator who ever removed any content from User talk:Goethean or User:Goethean. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Fundamental Rights in India
Please see a reply to your comments and Fundamental Rights in India, and then review the article for GA status. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(review me!) 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced
I happened to see your question to Nikodemus on Unbalanced. Since Nicodemus is on Wikibreak: My understanding is that it refers properly to an unbalanced selection of sources, and should, like other dispute tags, be explained on Talk; and it looks to me that your tag was removed as unexplained. Regards. Septentrionalis 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Goethe as philosopher
I don't mind a reversion at all, and think your suggestion to add a note is fine; feel free to do that. Is it necessary to also insult me and a class of people in the process? Universitytruth

Within the realm of evaluative considerations, we oughtn't to be hasty to give too much regard for the user by way of "friendliness" for the mere sake of not incurring any skirmishes in categories; how these categories are in fact tractable and malleable to the contingencies of the eras and placement in which they breathed must be given attention, but these issues must not be subjected to normative modes for those in the 21st century alone—this would in actuality be against Wikipedia's aims to be as informative as much as possible. My reasoning behind Goethe not as philosopher but who was a philosopher is grounded in the contextuality in which he lived, and those that would disregard this simply by way of contemporary conventionality I find to be fundamentally absurd, and they over simplify a matter that scarely lends itself to such an infringement. In short, there is no reason to find Goethe as philosopher nor as non-philosopher—he in essence was a philosopher, and this, brought to us by historicity, cannot be denied, excepting only whilst one ignores the time in which he lived. — ignis scripta 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, if I may address this on a much more basic level, under what circumstances would List of German-language philosophers even be considerable as a necessary functionary within the Wikipedia dynamic? True, there is already Category:German philosophers—and thus it would appear this blanched list is an exiguous, and altogether superfluous, article—therefore, haven't we obliquely discussed a non-issue undeserving of our attention? Perhaps what ought to be conditioned within the fore of our minds is the list's unreserved deletion; although it could be said that it does well to make matters simpler by way of presentation, I do not find it to be so when the identical category serves as a direct implicative construct for whatever particular article to which it may relate—in other words, the category suits its inferred purpose more than the list does its own whilst their dimensions are thus contrasted. The first step, in rhythm with my proposition, would be to categorise those philosophers—who haven't already as shown in the list—within their respective articles, after which we may go about blotting the list from Wikipedia's memory completely. Do you find this in good order? — ignis scripta 16:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Goethean, see the following on the talk page of the List in question. (I hadn't seen igni's cogitations until now, on your talk page.)

Oh, I see: you meant Category:German philosophers (in the plural). Still, it's not an entire duplication. Your own beloved Goethe, as well as others I've added recently, are not represented there. Also, since that's a list of German philosophers, as opposed to writers of German-language philosophy, there is in fact potential non-overlap between this list and that category. Which makes this list useful, I think. What do you think? Universitytruth 20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Goethean, that Universitytruth has been misguided in a few particulars regarding this issue, hence his statement "Goethe... are [sic] not represented there [i.e., the category 'German philosophers']", which is entirely untrue and his deletion of the deletion template, which I replaced with the appropriate link to the category, from the list: these are the general features of this misunderstanding (which is in part elucidated by the confused nature of this discussion that is now spread fourfold: here, my talk, original list's talk, and renamed list's talk). In any case, within the category itself I have specified it refers to those philosophers of the German language, so there will be no need to make a new category or to do anything unnecessarily drastic (and we can assume those of German ethnicity—and I don't think the category implied ethnicity anyway—were, for the most part, writers/philosophers of the German language). Be that as it may, we shall eventually see how things flow in this digital hourglass, and the sands will most probably follow the predetermined inclinations with no ado as I had outlined in my previous post above. — ignis scripta 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

German philosophers, German-language philosophers, or Writers of German-language philosophy
Greetings,

Please see my comments on relevant talk pages. Meanwhile, I would ask that you look at this important writer, and consider the grounds for including vs. excluding him on this list (or in this category, should the list be deleted): Salomon Maimon. Thanks! Universitytruth 20:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute
LoveMonkey is worried that you are deliberately reverting his work and making alterations that are incorrect, simply to spite him. I haven't looked at everything but just letting you know that he mentioned this issue to me on my talk page and I have responded on his here.--MONGO 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thompson
Thanks for the friendly welcome. you are a gentleman. I'd like to see his page reckon with his place in philosophy. He is a bard/intellectual of note and worthy of comment. The emphasis at least in the intro should be on his relevance to as many readers or reasoners as possible. I'd also like to bring in some criticism and debate. DocFaustRoll 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My Article
I didn't create it, but you're free to do so on that other wiki you talked about, I can help you if you want. Karm a  fist  19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk
Hi Goethean. I am concerned at what people are saying, and I do wish to get to the heart of the problem. Clearly there must be an aspect or aspects of my editing and/or attitude that is annoying and frustrating people like yourself. The incidents that are mentioned are small in themselves, and - to my eye - are part of the collaborative editing of Wikipedia, moving it forward. I make very many beer edits, much of which is stub sorting which either entails a merge, a redirect, or an expansion of the article. It is not, to my understanding, in the nature of Wiki that consensus is sought for what are essentially everyday edits. But I can feel from your frustration, that there must be a pattern in my editing that you are uncomfortable with. I totally apologise for any aspect of my behaviour in the past that has annoyed you, and promise to do better in the future. I am hoping that with your help I can learn from this experience and move forward. Please talk to me and let me know your underlying concerns which the recent edits have highlighted. SilkTork 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, that is appreciated. I'm now going through my talk archive and listing the conflicts since I have been here. There are quite a few! My mistake, I suppose, was assuming from the initial communications that edit conflicts like that were normal, especially as I read details of such conflicts on other people's talk pages. The people who got in touch with me were by and large rude and unhelpful from the start - but that is a general failing of internet communication. I have been involved with internet groups for a long time (I have been an Admin on RateBeer for about three years), and I'm quite used to poor communication skills and rudeness from internet users. I just didn't make the link that it was my actions that were causing the rudeness, rather than that was the way these people communicated anyway. I suppose Mais oui! unsettled me more than I cared to admit at the time, and gave me a poor flavour of Wiki editors. It seemed that people were moaning and shouting about trivial matters to a person who didn't quite know how Wiki worked, and on the essential matter of the work I was doing there was never a real discussion. I would point out the reasons I was doing something, and get no further response. It all looked rather petulant to me. I suppose I may, in retrospect, have become a little arrogant, as there was little understanding of beer knowledge shown, just hostile remarks about procedure. I got snappy, bad-tempered comments from people who admitted they knew little about beer. And congratulations from those who did know about beer. That sort of thing would sow the seeds of an arrogance. It would have been nice in those early days if someone had given me a proper welcome, and guided me through the system. But that, sadly, didn't occur. I am now, I suppose, reaping the negative benefit of that lack of early guidance. Thanks again for your comment, it is helping me reflect more deeply on what the issue is and see where I am going wrong. If you need any help in the future, you have a friend here. SilkTork 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Brewery vote
Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: SilkTork 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

removing text

 * the following text was moved from User:Goethean

Well, why you removing my edits... and edit warring then? your unilateral edit must stops it works both ways...

if you don't like, then discuss, don't call me a vandal and the like and use trickywiki tricks and wiki-lawyering to get your way and me in trouble. --Joehazelton 17:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to like to remove well attributed quotes and information and engage in unilateral edits without discussion as well as engage in wikiedit wars with out discussions. Also, trying to paint and label me, and the condescending tone you have is self-evident to me and I will not allow it.

Please Stop it... It's the walk that counts not the talk and I can see how you walking this article to the left of center.

--Joehazelton 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Goethe, a philosopher? NPOV: Yes.
Just so you know, in Goethe, Kant, and Hegel p. 25, Kaufmann wrote: "[Goethe] was not a philosopher and did not claim to be one." This might be well to understand Kaufmann never made such a direct claim about Goethe's status, but, as List of German-language philosophers's history will show, I've added the two sources you mentioned from Google scholar. Either way, Goethe will be where he rightfully should be.Non-vandal 08:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You forgot about it since over a decade ago? I wouldn't call your memory "faulty", but the opposite. Anyway, you're welcome.Non-vandal 03:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Theory of everything - proposed deletion
The article Theory of everything (philosophy) was tagged for speedy deletion on May 23, 2006, rescued, then retagged for uncontested deletion on July 28. I removed the tag, but it may now be nominated for AfD. References to the use of the term TOE in philosophy are being demanded. I notified Alan Kazlev, who created it. --Blainster 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

edit summaries
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. Gamaliel 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Where to go?
I come here to ask for your opinion regarding where this material best goes, since my request for Smahoney's opinion has gone mysteriously unanswered. But I feel you are able to give me sound, consensual advice. The discussion just below leaves the two options quite apparent, but there could always be more to choose from. Thanks for your help.Non-vandal 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That really sounds like a great idea! Maybe we can truly look forward to great improvements to the article. Serious effort is required though and not very many seem interested in exercising their abilities but rather whining about this or that and all that childish nonsense.Non-vandal 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Integral yoga and Integral psychology
Hi Goethean

I think that some of the suff on the integral yoga page (about the various faculties of the being) shouldn't go on a new page called Integral psychology (Sri Aurobindo). Not that Sri Aurobindo used the term "Integral psychology" as far as i know, but Indra Sen did, but this level of categorisation, while important and necessary for understanding if one is to take up an Aurobindonian path, is not central to the practice of Integral Yoga (and Integral Yoga is ultimately about practice). I've been reading passages from The Synthesis of Yoga, an increadibly powerful book, and there S.A. is very strongly mystical, with little interest in the sort of ontological gradations such as one finds in Letters on Yoga, The Life Divine and I would assume from the glossary Record of Yoga (although i'm not sure as i havent seen that work, I still need to order a copy). However, relevant to Integral Yoga would be matreial on the transformation of the physical, vital, and mental, and the subconscient, as well as, obviously, the triple transformation and the dangers on the path

Anyway, once we've decided what material should go where, I'll trim down some of the material on these main pages, either that or add more material on the specialised pages, because there is no point in simply repeating the material verbatum. M Alan Kazlev 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Goethe; Integral thought
You think you're "Goethean"? You are far from Goethean to call yourself that. Keep this in mind: Goethe was not a mystic (he had a certain disgust for mysticism, too). Have a jolly good time reflecting "integrally"; post-modern thinking is the trough of depravity and you would do well to avoid it, but it seems it's too late to go back, eh? You're soaked in it. Don't take this as an offense... even if it is vandalism or trolling. Toodles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do-re-mi-La-ri-fa-ri (talk • contribs)

Oh, I think you know precisely what I mean. But it would be my pleasure to remind you or to redress what I said.

"All effects... we observe in the world of experience are interrelated in the most constant manner.... It is inevitable... that we should separate them and contrast them with one another; but this necessarily created an endless conflict in the sciences. Stubborn analytical pedantry and indiscriminate mysticism both do equal damage." --Goethe, Die Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft, herausgegeben im Auftrage der Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher (Leopoldina), Weimar, 1947 ff., I, 8, p. 232.

But that is only the finger of the problem. It's too bad the "integral" (a fine euphemism at that) movement satisfies itself with useless "psychological" tabulations and idiosyncratic codifications of views. (I find it one of the most abhorrent and wearisome hustings under the modern sun.) Why can't people simply admit they're extending their petty individualities across the ages in a comforting, mendacious, collective way? And then all this laughably idiotic chatter about "consciousness-as-spirituality"! I even find it hilarious some have gone so far as to say this age is a "Dark Age". There's nothing in this time that is remotely different from the preceding ones (except those-other-ones)! But, whatever, if happiness is about dishonesty and illusions. You can be this certain, however: if this is a dark age, everything about "integrality" confirms its darkness -- only by the sheer amount of derth such a movement implies. To say it bluntly: those "integralists" are the dark ones.

Have an -- for lack of any more apt word -- "integral" day. May you fare well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do-re-mi-La-ri-fa-ri (talk • contribs)

(How can I sign so I don't look like I'm doing this chat furtively?) Yes, I know about Hafiz, but how do you really think Goethe thought about him? It's very clear: It isn't a problem that Hafiz was "mystical"; Goethe recognized the great brilliance of the man and his poetry. You can't attribute his recognition of Hafiz to mysticism, even if Goethe didn't reject him due to it (he wasn't a dogmatic thinker). My retort would be to you: he isn't as simplistic as you think. But that isn't the entire point of my discussion with you, just a very small, but significant, part of it. Gruss.

Concerning "proof", which is ridiculous: that was not my aim at all, but rather to convince you that Goethe held mysticism in its proper element and that he himself was NOT a "mystic" -- the quotation I gave isn't the only indication of this -- and that perhaps proved impossible, unsurprisingly. The other matter: I agree with the "central thesis", as you put it, of integral thought more than you think, but I disagree with its methods (amply shown above), which are thoroughly and utterly flawed -- it is a useless project, except for the fact that it makes people aware of the thesis itself. As it stands, this is a matter of taste: integral thinkers, or whatever they call themselves, and I part our ways when it comes to these matters; when it comes to Goethe, you and I do likewise. May your path be toward, and not away from, yourself. Do-re-mi-La-ri-fa-ri 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Roskam
I was asked, as I set out, in a bit more detail, at Talk:Peter Roskam, to act as an advocate for Joehazelton relative to the Roskam article, and I have attempted to delineate precisely those issues about which Joe is concerned and to frame several questions rather clearly in order that a focused discussion might be undertaken. On Joe's behalf, and in view of my appreciation for the advancement of the project, I'd ask that, at your leisure, you offer your views at the Roskam talk page. Thanks very kindly in advance! (The boilerplate text exhausted, I ought also to thank you very sincerely for your note with respect to my diff analysis at User talk:Joehazelton; even as I was asked to serve as Joe's advocate, it is for the advancement of the project for which any editor&mdash;as I&mdash;ought to advocate, and I am quite happy that you chose to construe my comments as having been offered decorously and constructively.) Joe 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Integral theory, Ken Wilber categories
Hi Goethean. Just throwing up some ideas here:

Since we have both an "Integral theory" (Wilberian) and a "Integral thought" category, i think that the "Integral theory" category is redundant and should be scrapped, because all relevant entries listed there be moved either to the "Ken Wilber" category or the "Integral thought" category. Also the "Integral theory" template could then be named either "Ken Wilber", or "Wilberian Integral theory". The former imho would be preferable, because as well as being shorter it is also comparable to the "Sri Aurobindo" category; both can then be subsets of "Integral thought". M Alan Kazlev 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Paglia
Thank you for your suggestion as far as updating the Paglia page. As I said when I initially commented on the page on the 29 June I don't feel I'm properly qualified to do justice to a section on controversy surrounding Paglia, especially considering the level of detail and effort that's gone into the article already. I'll start a section with an expand tag, but I'd appreciate any help you can give. Driller thriller 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:NRCC mailing 3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:NRCC mailing 3.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Duckworth
Dzien dobry Mr. Goethean... dont make me scan some of the more colorful Deomocratic Flyers I have received from The Duckworth campaign... I live in the sixth district and have a nice collection WP:SENSE as well as Tit for Tat.

Don't do it...dont set this precedent Do widzeniaJoehazelton 05:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NRCC mailings
I noticed you tagged the NRCC mailing images you uploaded as being created by you, but according to your summary you only scanned them in. Please note that scanning something does not make you it's creator or copyright holder. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sufi Muslim Council
Gothean, Please do not create a site for Sufi Muslim Council based on allegations from 1 Blog and a concerted effort to destroy the reputation (with innuendos and lies) of a new group that does not support many of the things that you have written (Occupation of Iraq etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiMeefoosky (talk • contribs)

Zaadz
hi Goethean,

i've noticed that you already helped out in editing the wiki page for Zaadz. thanks. as much as i want to continue editing and fine-tuning this page, due to my affiliation with Zaadz, i think it would be more appropriate to pass on this article. so moving forward i'd like to request for you to handle most of the updates on this page to preserve neutrality. however, it would still be on my watchlist just to keep track of the changes and verify their accuracy whether they're pro or con, and also to avoid future potential vandalisms. let me know if you're cool with this. and thanks again for the help :) ~C4Chaos 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk
You observed that FeloniousMonk has a strong bias against religion, and it shows in his editing. He's at it again on the Paul Weyrich page. Any assistance you could render would be appreciated. He's setup a User conduct Request for Comment against me because I have dared to standup to his interpretation of the rules.

I just saw you observed what I am dealing with, so I thought I'd ask your assistance.--68.45.161.241 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner edit warring
This edit warring has to stop. I am warning all parties involved. I am also not going to be a mediator in this content dispute. But I am warning all three of you, if anymore diffs I see are revert warring on this article or any other related article, all three of you will be reported for 3RR vioations. Please don't put yourself and others in conflicts which result in edit warring. Please discuss this until resolved and then make the appropriate change, ok? — The Future 19:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Goethean,


 * Here a user makes a personal attack on you. He has gotten one warning after having made a number of personal attacks (4) on me, two instances of unfounded slander and one instance of libel. Feel free to ask for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Golden_Wattle to give him a second warning. When making a third personal attack, he'll be blocked. If you'd be interested in contacting me personally my email address is found here Thanks, --Thebee 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not find the words A new editor in the Waldorf revisionist tag-team has arrived to delete the quotes revealing Steiner's racist comments. This time they deleted the following: ... that were contained in the diff you drew to my attention, a personal attack. As per No personal attacks - the statement to my mind falls within the scope of Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks  The poicy states It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. It probably would be better if PeteK did not characterise editors as "the Waldorf revisionist tag-team" but it isn't over the top.
 * In relation to the stance you and other editors have taken on removing the quotes from the Steiner article and have them in the article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, I do not find the edits totally appropriate. The brief one paragraph in the main article that remained after your edit to remove the quote seems to wriggle around the subject.  The current version contains some quotes and I find inclusion of some quotes a more balanced approach. There is no sense from the one paragraph on the subject of Steiner's views n race, that Steiner made such comments as the one consistently removed on the blacks in Africa as per this diff - it has been removed several times.  I note that removed quote does not appear in the subsidiary article.  Similarly the quote you removed  doesn't appear in the subsidiary article.
 * On the talk page you made mention of the article being too long. The article is just over 50 kb long - slightly longer than preferable but not excessive in length.  I don't think it has to be cut down in size, but if I was going to cut anything I would cut the extenal links section first.  If a link is not a note or reference within the article, it is not a necessary link - see WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links...  Some of the bibliography mentions he wrote on topics but does not give the writings - for example the section on "The Arts" lists topics but no works.  That he has written on the arts is further up the article thus that subsection for example seems repetitive and adds nothing.  The "Works about Steiner by other authors" could possibly go, if the works are not used as references to the article they also probably have no place.  The point being, if you want to reduce the size of the article, please start elsewhere than remving quotes on race.  If you remove content, please make sure it is indeed put into the subsidiary article.  At the moment the subsidiary article to my mind is barely readable - it definitely needs a lot of work.  I get no sense of where Steiner got his views, how they fit in the context of the time, and the stringing together of quotes is almost done in a way that hides them becasue they are un-navigable.  Further, as I have already mentioned, some of the more controversial quotes removed from the main article aren't mentioned in the subsidiary article.--Golden Wattle  talk 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Additions and removal of additions to the article: possible way forward

 * You asked I find User:Pete K's additions to be consistently unhelpful. Any help that you can provide in resolving the situation wuold be appreciated.
 * Wikipedia does have a dispute resolution mechanism - see Resolving disputes. It may be that you wish to go down the path of a request for comment on a specific article or series of articles or you want may want to seek comment on a user's conduct.  In the latter case, before filing the Request for Comment, you need to be clear what policies or guidelines you perceive the user to be breaching.
 * From my perspective, User:PeteK is attempting to stay within the guidelines, however, he does have a strong point of view. Other editors who are dealing with him also appear to have a strong point of view.  It should be possible for all editors to deal with each other civilly and good balanced wikipedia articles written which meet the guidelines of verificability and neutral point of view. I realise that "should" is sometimes difficult and painful to achieve.
 * I think the WikiProject Waldorf Project would be a good place to discuss issues and come to a position on a way forward that represents balance and neutrality and produces good articles on the topics. I would commend a discussion there as a first step before escalating the issue to any Requests for Comment (RfC). Specifically for example, you could, if you wished, put up a proposal seeking concensus on how to deal with issues of Steiner's comments on race at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Waldorf Project Proposals, seeking concensus as to what an appropriate balance of views are, how best to develop the article, Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - ... I note PeteK has signed us as a member of the project. Regards Golden Wattle  talk 00:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The project context you suggest concerns another subject, with few participants. There exists an almost unused relevant Talks page for the subject. Why not use that Talks page for discussion of the article for which it is intended to be used? --Thebee 08:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Upanishads
This is one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_Upanishads&diff=73697243&oldid=69396350
 * Plus, please contact User:Bakasuprman for further details. He led the debate on Upanishads.Also, see talk page of Talk:Upanishad and you will see that there was a move to create a separate article on Criticism per precedent with articles on Bible and Criticism of the Bible.Hkelkar 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah dont merge it. The reason is discussed on the Upanishads talk page, and a couple of hastily written angry jibes on the Criticism of Upanishads talk page will clear this up. Also User:Yeditor is the editor who inspired me to write the page, so he could fill it with "scholarly criticism" of the Upds. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't have it both ways
Greetings, in reference to your editing on Tammy Duckworth and Peter Roskams article you wish to remove "op-ed" entry by Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune, which I have added to the Tammy Duckworth Article, but you seem to approve of a Eric Zorn's article on the Peter Roskam article. The question is "what's your standard???" is it different for different candidates for congress??? Note, you remove the one, then you will have set precedent for the other. You cant have it both ways. For the interested readers see... [|Eric Zorn] [| Dennis Byrne]

Thank You Chitownflyer 14:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Polymath
Goethean, you'll be glad to know that I finally encountered the word 'polymath' in general reading — yesterday in the Economist. Perhaps it's only in general usage in British English? Sca 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Cool pic at Konigsberg!!
 * Yeah, too bad it's not Königsberg anymore. Many say it's now the ugliest city in Europe.
 * Sca 21:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Major Philosophers Talk
Hi, I saw your comment about the entries you made and then had reverted. I am hoping you weren't refering to me as a "randbot" just because I've been arguing that she is a major philosopher. I'm not a student or fan of eastern thinkers, but I wouldn't exclude any reasonable entry that you made. I respect the WP policy of verifiability. That has been my argument. Other people try to make WP an exclusive club where only entries they approve of get to stay. I also try to be respectful to other and not call people names. It works out better that way. SteveWolfer 06:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Pete_K
I suggest you take this matter to mediation or try other avenues of dispute resolution. The edit warring simply moves from one article to another related to Waldorf and Steiner, from talk pages, to user talk pages, into the article themselves, then around again we go - it's an endless circle of frustration for everybody concerned and tiresome as I'm sure you agree. Clearly a new set of "outside opinions" from other editors or mediators is required to resolve this ongoing debate. -- Longhair\talk 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary argument against naturalism
Hi, Goethean. I noticed you have been, at least recently, the more active contributor at the Alvin Plantinga article. You may be interested in knowing that an article about the Evolutionary argument against naturalism was created yesterday. And that it is already nominated for deletion. If you can contribute to the discussion it would be appreciated. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Hgilbert 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Elmhurst
I have semi-protected the Elmhurst article as per your protection request. However, I noticed while idgging through the article histroy that when you reverted anon vandalism, you twice yourself accidentally introduced some of the vandlaism they had put in the article. Not that this is horrible, but in the future please be more careful. Regards, RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Indians are an ethnic group???
No they are not. South Asians are an ethnic group. There are at least seven distinct races in South Asia.By your logic I can also put Castes in Pakistan and Bangladesh in the article. Please understand.Hkelkar 15:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please debate this point in the talk page Talk:Indian caste system soon.Hkelkar 15:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Goeth - Mash / Sparge
Goeth - I only removed mash / sparge from the culture section as I'd covered it in detail in the process section. I only full mash brew myself. I just wanted to avoid any edits preventing repetition gutting the process section at a later date... Can we discuss?

Goeth - thanks for the reply DavidP02 22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Goeth - Can I enlist your help in a couple of things. (No is a perfectly acceptible answer. I'm already getting grief from Mrs DavidP on this subject).

1) I've got a number of pictures to upload with permission for free to web release but the last time I did it, I was instantly edited out, I assume for reasons of not registering the pictures to the right license. What should I be doing?

2) I have a member of our brewing circle who is trying to seek out a rigger picture. He has a colleague who has use 4 pins to make a US-style brew rig, but the photo is not forthcoming and rigging is becoming very popular. so you know anybody with photos of their large rig who might like to spare one?

3) I'm a masher like yourself, but from a NPOV respect the plain truth is even in the homebrew culture there is a tendency to cornie keg rather than cask. I guess I shoudl reflect this? (I cask or bottle condition and always have BTW).

4) I've tried to keep out of how to and focus on the actual knowledge. Your comments much appreciated.

Regards

DavidP02 23:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

John Courage
I removed alot of information from John Courage because it lacked sources. WP:BLP encurages us to be quite strict about this kind of thing. The stuff I removed is still in the history, so feel free to revert me when you fine a source or two.

Thanks! ---J.S (t|c) 02:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

W. Classicism
Hello Goethean, I'm Dumetoo and I'd like to direct your attention to Weimar Classicism which has been altered by Dume7. Could you give me your input about the article's style since you are about the only other person currently active that has also edited this article? Thanks, I'm still rather new here.-Dumetoo

I hope things get fixed back to the way they were. It would appear Dume7 has absolutely no knowledge of W. C. and that is a serious problem.-Dumetoo

Constructive editing
Hi - I thought it might be useful to have a side conversation on something, rather than taking it to the talk page. By "wikipedia policy" I meant that I've seen duplicate links removed on other pages, without anyone objecting, and I've removed duplicate links many times without anyone objecting.

I hope that upon reconsidering you'll see the reasonableness of that approach. There are articles I've edited that have more than 50 footnotes/references - if any should be included in external links as well, how would one decide that? John Broughton |  Talk 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you find the removals of duplicate links to be a violation of WP:NPOV. I hope you've noted that I fully agree that thos  links are good ones - I added text to the Weller article from those two articles because I thought they were important.  So we're not arguing about their worth, just whether they should appear once each, or twice each.


 * If you really think I'm being POVish here, would you mind citing some specific part of the NPOV policy that you think I'm violating by removing duplicate info? I looked through the policy just a moment ago, and I couldn't find anything.  Thanks.  John Broughton  |  Talk 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Roskam
Hey, I am noticing the same sort of patterns of IP edits occurring again. This is why I had advocated a sort of holding pattern for articles of an immediate political nature, and setting up some protocols or early warning system (the nature of which within WP rather eludes me). Did I follow the right format for reporting the problem? What errors could I have avoided in protocol? Please contact me via email or IM (arcayne_1@yahoo.com, Yahoo IM: arcayne_1). Getting some direct heads up would be helpful.Arcayne 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing afd tag
I see that you speedily removed the afd tag I put to Neem Karoli Baba. I would like to know your reason for that (aside from the noobie crap you inserted as edit summary). Skobelief 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

M. Alan Kazlev
A tag has been placed on M. Alan Kazlev, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Missvain 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
There is a current request for arbitration relating to the articles Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Hgilbert 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

link to British
Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out British or British. Regards, Jeff3000 03:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet
I saw that you have earlier made some comments on her on Kazlev's talkpage. As you may know, the article on her was deleted on I think flimsy grounds. Thinking that she is a notable person, I have created a new article on her, which was marked for speedy deletion by another user. I thought maybe you would be interested to say something about her notability. Regards, --Mallarme 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I might need some help
Help_desk He's trying to block me.--D-Boy 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care
I can see what you're planning to do and I can't say it bothers me a great deal. Have fun in your own little sandbox.Patto1ro 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. Maybe you could add any examples that I may have missed. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't like to spoil your fun. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and need something to keep you occupied.Patto1ro 06:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I woke up in a good mood this morning, so here's one for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C3%A4rzen&diff=next&oldid=84903512 Patto1ro 06:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

so much for taking off the flag
index.php?title=Talk:Taxila&action=history--D-Boy 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * so what is the solution to this problem?--D-Boy 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * excellent suggestion....I think this should applied to many others. especially indus valley sites, harrapa, and buddhist sites.--D-Boy 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindu-Shudra

 * First read our Varnas, holy Vedas and Geeta before making comments. Hindushudra 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Varnas and Shudra Concept
Please don't misunderstand. There is nothing insulting to call any Hindu a shudra. Understand Varnashrama dharma in a present situation. Also read ShivDharma concept in Maharashtr. If Maratha feel insuting to be called as Shudra then you can convert to other religion. Being lower-cast to Brahmins is Dharma for every Hindu. Shudra123 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Keep comments on my discussion Page. Don't vandalise my user page. Shudra123 09:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

BJCP and Beer articles
Please stop reverting the beer articles. I am filing a complaint against you for uncivil behaviour and I will be happy to add this activity on your part to the complaint. If you don't know enough about beer to write an actual article, then leave the pages alone and work on subjects that you do know. Mikebe 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:I-355 at IPP.JPG
I think that might be in Lombard, actually. That particular bridge runs at slight angle, so the tall building in the background is just a bit east of I-355 and about 3-4 miles out. I'll look for it the next time I'm in the area. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Stout
So, three examples from the country that invented the style and 12 from the US? No. And no war reverting please. Mikebe 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bauwens
Could I have access to the content of this page in order to add the content to the article on Michel Bauwens? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved to User:Goethean/Pluralities-Integration. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Third time lucky?
Hi Goethean! Here's another attempt to redirect Burton brewing into English beer. I'm consulting this time, and giving, what I hope is, a decent explanation of the thinking behind my request. Cheers! SilkTork 17:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate stout
We worked on that together and there was a bit of a clash when I finished editing. I hope I haven't mangled anything you did. I think (I hope!) I brought my edit into line with yours. SilkTork 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Stout
Yep. References are our great weakness at the moment. I didn't use them at first. Then I noticed that comments on the main Beer article mentioned referencing as being a weakness. It's certainly easier to do the referencing at the same time as doing the writing, rather than later. So this time round I'm going to put in references as I edit! I'm working on Oatmeal stout now, and I have all my references around me ready! (Not that there's many - it's a beer that was largely created by Merchant Du Vin in 1977). SilkTork 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V
Goethean. With respect to this, I see that you are correct. You have my apologies. --Backface 23:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

harrassment
Very cute, there is no harrassment, and its not nice to besmirch someone's reputation... - ForrestLane42 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Edit summary in Peter Roskam article
I see that you reverted an edit and only said "rv" in the edit summary. This kind of summary is usually intended for vandalism, where the reasoning for reversion is quite clear. However, in this case, the previous editor stated reasons for his/her edit in the edit summary, that I understand that you may disagree with, but perhaps in the future you should state the disagreement either in the edit summary, or on the talk page (in which case most editor put "see talk" in the edit summary). --rogerd 05:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Michel Bauwens and ForrestLane42
I have closed the second debate on Michel Bauwens as "keep". I am currently investigating ForrestLane42. Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The first offense you referred to, involving the Chicago Humanities Festival, seemed to have arisen from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy rather than real intent to harass you. While it is true that you two seem to have something of a volatile relationship, this one-time event does not smack of intentional disruption. It seems ForrestLane42 blanked the article because he honestly found it to be unencyclopedic but did not know the proper deletion debate channels. Regarding the potential sockpuppet, I am loath to take measures based on a couple of fairly civil (albeit biased) edits; also, the Truthiness406 account has not made any edits since that small flurry on December 21. Can you present any undeniably compelling evidence in support of disciplinary action? Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 08:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wilber Article
Gothean, since you play a key role in this article, did you notice the comments I made here to Pro cast in a tor as follows here [], his response and my clarification?

Your current clean up to that section reads:


 * Wilber's conception of the perennial philosophy has been primarily influenced by Madhyamika Buddhism, particularly as articulated in the philosophy of Nagarjuna.[7] The nondual mysticism of Advaita Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Plotinus, and Ramana Maharshi are also strong influences. Wilber has been a dedicated practitioner of Buddhist meditation since his college years, and has studied under some widely recognized meditators, such as Dainin Katagiri, Maezumi Roshi, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, Kalu Rinpoche, Penor Rinpoche and Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche.


 * Wilber's conception of evolution or psychological development draws on Aurobindo, Jean Gebser, the great chain of being, German idealism, Erich Jantsch, Jean Piaget, Abraham Maslow, Erik Erikson, Lawrence Kohlberg, Howard Gardner, Clare W. Graves, Robert Kegan and Spiral Dynamics. On several occasions, Wilber has praised the work, while criticizing the lifestyle, of the American-born guru Adi Da.

I do not think a paragraph was needed to discuss Wilber and Da. The problem is that the reference to Da is correct as stated but still out of place. Da's influence on Ken, and what he praised, was Da's ideas on the ultimate in non-dualism, not his concept of evolution. Thus the sentence about Da should be in the first paragraph, not the second. I suggest this: "...The nondual mysticism of Advaita Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Plotinus, and Ramana Maharshi are also strong influences, as is the work of Adi Da, which Wilber has highly praised, while criticizing his lifestyle...", deleting the other reference.

Which brings me to my other point. Wilber's controversial ideas on effective gurus rude boy/nasty girl behavior, and his concept of enlightenment should have been mentioned, as they affect his conception of the goal of his system, his choice of endorsements and probably even his own recent behavior. As I stated, his stance on enlightenment, and the prevalance and superiority of "rude" or "nasty" gurus he considers enlightened, is in direct opposition to a long standing integral principle in non-dualist traditions, and inconsistent with the mainstream of the non-dualist influences he cites, which makes it signficant and worthy of mention. Thus, not wanting to significantly lengthen the article, I propose a simple, NPOV statement under Influences along this line: "Influences on Wilber's conception and recommendation that those desiring enlightenment should seek out "the outlaws, the living terrors, the Rude Boys and Nasty Girls of God realization" are from Zen traditions and his assessment that: "Every deeply enlightened teacher I have known has been a Rude Boy or Nasty Girl". Please give this some thought. --Dseer 07:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dseer, Wilber's rude boy concept is more of a ruse, those he deep rude boys are Andrew Cohen and Da Free John who just happened to have accusations of unethical or cult behavior. (goethean see my talk page, this is ForrestLane42, before your paranoia radar goes wild haha ) ForrestDouble 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestDouble

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education
The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)