User talk:Goethean/Archive 5

Splitsection tag in Kali
Can you please talk a discussion on talk about the split proposal, explaining your rationale? Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the corrections, although you were a rude ass. I did those edits very late in the night and apologize for the mistakes. However, I agree with you in presenting both sides of the debate, from phallic to religious and even cited the infamous Wendy Doniger, of whom I am no fan of, for your defense. I defend your right to speak, as you respect my right as well.Raj2004 (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I put Doniger's complete viewpoints and views of anthroplogist Fuller of the London School of Economics on Lingam. If you want to condense and reorder, that's fine. Raj2004 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that editors not remove notable views that they disagree with from the lead, but it looks like this article will be subject to vandalism by religious hooligans, just like Ramakrishna. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ramakrishna has a special place for his followers as an object of piety, so I don't think it's a religious hooligan view. It's sort of akin to the Mary Magdalene controversy to The Da Vinci Code where she was portrayed as the bride of Christ. Most Christians would object. Raj2004 (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a consensus among Hindu Wikipedia editors to deliberately suppress known facts about Ramakrishna, to lie rather than to tell the truth. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? Discounting a Freudian interpretation by Kripal and Co is not lying... Raj2004 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Suppression of facts is suppression of facts. And that is exactly what has been accomplished on the Ramakrishna page. I have read the scholarly materials, instead of religious moralizing from the sanctimonious and mendacious Ramakrishna Mission. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 01:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By reading the Wikipedia article on Ramakrishna, which paints him in the virginal, Christian saintly, Christ-like image promoted by the liars at the Mission, one would never know that he had admitted to "worshipping the penises of boys".Ramakrishna Kathamrta Volume IV, Section XXIII, Chapter IX, “His earlier story...” The scholars know all of this, as is clearly evident from reading the scholarly materials on Kali's Child. But the Mission, and its agents here on Wikipedia, have succeeded in lying to the public about Ramakrishna. But look who I'm talking to &mdash; another Victorian who insists on suppressing the phallic nature of the lingam. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am open to this fact but his followers claim that translations of Kathamtrita and Kali's Child have been mistranslated since Kripal lacks knowledge of Bengali. As I said before, I never suppressed the phallic nature, just as the cross can be interpreted in many ways, so is the linga. Raj2004 (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course the swamis say that --- what else are they going to say, that their interpretation since Vivekananda has been a lie? They've got too much money coming into their organization to say that.


 * I wrote a lead for Lingam in which both sides were fairly represented. You added sentences onto that lead paragraph three or four times. Each time, you misrepresented a source in order to marginalize the phallic interpretation. I'm not a bit surprised by these tactics; I have encountered them regularly in the name of Victorian pseudo-Hinduism. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I did admit that I made a mistake unlike those right-wingers.

Well, both of us were wrong in putting them in the lead; the article is now balanced and by the way, what is the name of the title of the earlier story: There are so many:

His earlier story – samadhi of a brahmin girl with good signs – Mother Goddess as daughter of Ranjit

Raj2004 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Raj2004 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, my version of the lead was well-balanced and well-sourced. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. some of the edits were reversed by others so I don't think I erased your version. I apologize if I did. Raj2004 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The section
The section you had referred does not allude to the sexual incident you are referring to:


 * His earlier story – samadhi of a brahmin girl with good signs – Mother Goddess as daughter of Ranjit

“When this state of divine intoxication came to me the first time in Dakshineswar, a brahmin lady belonging to a respectable family came. She had very good signs. As soon as a garland was put around her neck and incense burnt before her, she went into samadhi. Soon she was all joy. Tears began to stream from her eyes. I bowed to her and said, ‘Mother, will I succeed?’ She replied, ‘Yes.’

“I want to see Purna again. But where is the opportunity? It seems that he is a part of the Divine.[1] What a wonder! Not just a tiny part, but a full sixteenth! How intelligent he is! He is so good in studies. Therefore I have hit it right.

“Narayana (the Lord) takes birth as a person’s son by the power of spiritual practices. On the way to Kamarpukur, there is Ranjit Rai’s big lake. The Divine Mother took birth as Ranjit Rai’s daughter. Even now a fair is held there in the month of Chaitra. I’ve had a desire to go there – but not now.

“Ranjit Rai was a landlord there. By the power of his austerities, he obtained the Divine Mother as his daughter. He loved his daughter very much. She became so attached to him that she would almost never leave her father’s company. One day, he was attending to the affairs of his estate and was very busy. The girl, in her childlike nature, continually asked him, ‘Father, what is this and what is that?’ The father very sweetly replied, ‘Daughter, please leave me alone. I have lot of work to do.’ But the girl would not leave. At last he said absent-mindedly, ‘Please, get out of here.’ On this pretext the girl left home. A peddler of conch-shell wares was just then passing by. She called out for him and took a pair of conch bangles. When he demanded to be paid for them, she said, ‘There is money in a box in that room. Go and take it from there.’ Then she left, never to be seen again. The bangle peddler went to the house and began to shout for money. Seeing that she was not at home, the inmates of the house came running. Ranjit Rai sent people in all directions to find her. The money owed the peddler was found in the box. Ranjit Rai was going around weeping when someone came and said, ‘There is something in the lake.’ They all went to the lake and saw a hand with a conch bangle raised out of the water. A moment later they could see it no more. Even now worship of the Divine Mother is performed during the festival on the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight of Chaitra.

(To M.) “All this is true.”

M.: “Yes, sir.”

Sri Ramakrishna: “Narendra now believes this.”

“Purna was born with an element of Vishnu. I worshiped him mentally with vilwa leaves[2] but it wasn’t successful. Then I offered him tulsi leaves[3] and sandal paste and it was accepted.

“God appears in many ways, sometimes as a man and sometimes in other divine forms of consciousness. One must believe in divine forms. What do you say?”

M.: “Yes, sir.”

Raj2004 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The one I am referring to is "His earlier story – practicing Tantra under the bel tree – Brahmani procured the articles." I wrongly assumed that there were not multiple sections entitled "His earlier story". &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, shocking. This changes the opinion I had of Ramakrishna. What did the swamis say about this? What's their argument? I know Ramakrishna was not so enthusiastic about the left-hand tantric method, which the story alludes to. Raj2004 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The swamis avoid the subject in an aggressive, rhetorical way by viciously attacking the reputation of any scholar who brings it up these matters. Swami Tyagananda wrote a 173-page essay attacking Kripal's Kali's Child. Never once did he say a single word about the merits of Kripal's observations of Ramakrishna's sexuality &mdash; he only attacked Kripal's translations. In reviewing the book, the Swami carefully avoids broaching the subject of the book.


 * The most damning indictment of the Mission, however, is that while they see fit to publish truckloads of books on Vedanta every year, a primary document of Ramakrishna's life, Datta's Jivanvrittanta, has never been translated into English, and it never will be. This is because it contains a more accurate poirtrayal of Ramakishna, a portrayal which the Mission is comitted to suppressing. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My queries on the subject have been completely and predictably ignored. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They had at one time denied that they were Hindu; see, http://www.hvk.org/articles/0696/0015.html Raj2004 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. In fact, however, the Neo-Vedantic philosophy of their founder, Vivekananda, has been the strongest influence on 20th century Hinduism. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I had known that Satya Sai Baba allegedly engaged in antics involving young boys; didn't know Ramakrishna was that type until you brought it up. Raj2004 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Spengler
Added to the Spengler Talk-Page, Regards, DLMcN:

Prime Symbols

Goethian - I noticed that you reverted my last entry. The Russian Prime Symbol (the "Horizontal Plane") is certainly not from my research ... it was Spengler who suggested that. However, you are quite right (as indeed I acknowledged) that the Mayan one was not Spengler's idea ... It crystallized out of a three-way discussion, as logged in my "History Correspondence" file (in www.DLMcN.com). But I do take your point that it should not really be on the main page ... although is that not also the case with the proposal for an Indian Prime Symbol? DLMcN (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oswald_Spengler" DLMcN (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RS. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thanks - but the Russian Prime Symbol is mentioned a few times in the "Decline ...". DLMcN (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to find a secondary academic source (not Spengler) which discusses this material before adding it to the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that you are correct about that^. Did all the other descriptions of Cultural "Prime Symbols" conform with your above-mentioned criterion? DLMcN (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Savarkar welcomes the Jewish State in the Palestine; Deletion
Please see talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Swami Krishnananda
Dear Goethean,

Thank you for your interest in the Swami Krishnananda article. I am one of the principle researchers for and authors of that article. Most of our work has been conducted under IP addresses rather than usernames, the reason for which being that we are not regular Wikipedia editors, and are not necessarily interested in becoming regular Wikipedia editors. Rather we are folks in academia who discovered that Swami Krishnananda—a major figure in 20th century Hinduism—had been largely overlooked at Wikipedia, and therefore decided to make a one-time contribution to the site in the form of an article that would serve as a starting point for those interested in learning about Krishnananda and his work.

All of the content of the Swami Krishnananda article was thoroughly researched before being published at Wikipedia, not just by myself and the other principles editors involved with the project, but also by numerous Swamis in India, the Webmaster of Swami-Krishnananda.org, and several respected professors of philosophy and theology at preeminent universities in both the U.S.A. and the U.K. You will find this corroborated by nearly 80 different citations, all of which correspond to credible and verifiable sources listed in the "Notes" section of the article.

You are incorrect in asserting that the names and subjects listed the "See also" section of the article are "unrelated" to Swami Krishnananda. They are, in fact, closely related to him; and this will be quite clear upon reading the article and taking even a brief survey of Krishnananda’s work. However, we are relatively new to Wikipedia, and can appreciate that perhaps the canon as regards "related material" may dictate that only material related biographically may be included in an article’s "See also" section. We do not wish to argue this point either way. However, we are reinstating the section as a whole, to include only the subject Philosophy of religion, as this was one of the branches of philosophy in which Swami Krishnananda was most prolific and influential. If you wish to discuss the matter further, I am at your disposal for this purpose.

Regards,

Advedom (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is an unmitigated disaster and should be nuked immediately. To give the most obvious examples, footnotes 3, 4, and 5 appear to be fraudulent. You can't cite a person. You need to cite a book, an article, or something that that person has written or said. How do you imagine to cite a person, with a link to the person's website, without mentioning where, or when, or how, or in what venue this person is supposed to have said what you are ascribing to him? I am at a loss as to where to begin to undo the damage that you have done to the page. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Goethean,

I noticed that you removed nearly all of the content of the "External Links" section of the Swami Krishnananda article. What was your reasoning for this? All of those links correspond to relevant information on Swami Krishnananda and the organization, the Divine Life Society, that he ran for over 40 years. Though the links to the Vedanta sites are relevant sources of knowledge in the context of the Swami Krishnananda article, I can appreciate how they may be regarded as "spam"; but the rest of the material most certainly should not be regarded as spam.

Did you not receive my earlier message in which I introduced myself as one of the principle authors of the Swami Krishnananda article? According to Wikipedia policy, it is helpful to discuss concerns you may have in regards to an article before making significant edits to it.

I will wait for your explanation before reverting your edit.

Regards,

Advedom (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Goethean,

What a horrible thing to say. I notice that you have a history of "edit warring" and hostile behavior, but to suggest that an article of the caliber of that written on Swami Krishnananda should be "nuked" is crassly irresponsible. Do you honestly believe that three contested references is sufficient reason for calling an entire article a "disaster" and suggesting that it should be "nuked"? For your information the article is almost a year old, and not one editor has contested anything about it. Even without those references, the article is a fine piece of work. As mentioned, I am the principle author of the page. I have not "damaged" anything. Rather without me the page would not even exist. You should be thanking me for such a sizeable contribution. And with all due respect, you are jumping to conclusions with your use of the word "fraudulent."

As I mentioned to you, I am not a regular Wikipedia editor. Therefore, I am probably not as familiar as you are with all of Wikipedia's polices in regards to footnoting. I figured it would be sufficient to use as references links to the personal web pages of preeminent professors of philosophy and theology who have used Krishnananda's work in their syllabus on and off for years, as anyone wanting to verify the references could then easily get in touch with those professors. Do you see the logic?

I take it by the OM symbol which you use after your name that you are interested in Hindu philosophy and theology. So am I. Hence the reason that I took time to collaborate on an article on a significant figure in Hindu religion and philosophy--Swami Krishnananda. In the spirit of "OM," let us please cease with the hostilities and threats. Rather let us collaborate to improve the references in the Swami Krishnananda article. I am sure I can learn a lot from you.

Regarding references 3, 4, and 5, would quotations from the university professors be acceptable? I will be happy to provide them. In the meantime, could you please refrain from adjusting the article as you see fit without first engaging in cordial discussion?

Regards,

Advedom (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: references 3, 4, 5. Citations should reference published work. Quotations are not usually necessary, but page numbers etc are needed. I will refer the religion noticeboard to your article in order to get wider range of opinions on the matter. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, Goethean. I really hope everything works out. Swami Krishnananda was a great man. And me and my collaborators tried to write a great Wikipedia article on him. Like I said, I am willing to collaborate with you in an attempt to make references 3, 4, and 5 acceptable. I can assure you that they are not fraudulent.

Advedom (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Swami Krishnananda follow-up
Dear Goethean,

Though my collaborators and I did spearhead the Swami Krishnananda page, including writing all of its content and doing all associated research thus far, we by no means wish to claim ownership of the article. We are fully aware of the open and collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and are more than willing to work in this capacity with other editors to improve the page. However, we are quite knowledgeable about Krishnananda and his work, and it may be helpful if we could maintain a leadership position on the project until it fully complies with Wikipedia policy. Either way, we intend to comply with that policy.

One of the missions of the institution that Swami Krishnananda ran for more than 40 years—the Divine Life Society—is the free dissemination of spiritual, religious, and philosophical literature. In accordance with that mission, Krishnananda did not promote nor profit monetarily from his writing or teaching. Therefore, Krishnananda’s work is not known much to the lay public. It has been challenging for us, then, to find impartial viewpoints about him outside of a relatively small, albeit highly respected, academic community, some of the makeup of which includes Dr. Stephen Phillips, Dr. Clooney, Dr. Grayling, and Dr. Pintchman—the professors cited as references in the article. According to one of our researchers, these professors have used Krishnananda's work in their lecturing, and do in fact assert that he was a significant 20th century theologian and philosopher. This assertion is testified further by Krishnananda’s extensive body of work, which speaks for itself, and by consensus among serious theologians and philosophers.

Essentially the article consists of three phases: biographical, academic, and contextual. The sources for the work in the first two phases have been cited amply with references to biographical information on Krishnananda published at Swami-Krishnananda.org, by Krishnananda’s own scholarly work, and by a few sources relating to the defining of key terms and concepts. Over half of the citations in the article correspond to these sources. The other phase of the article is “contextual,”—that is, related to the perspective with which the reader will view Swami Krishnananda. This phase of the article consists of the 13 assertions connected with the contested university professor references. Without these assertions, by virtue that Krishnananda is not well-known outside of religious and academic circles, the lay reader will have difficulty in fully appreciating the scope and scale of Krishnananda’s life and work, and therefore may not take the time to read the article in its entirety. For this reason, it is important to us that these assertions, which I can assure you are accurate, remain in the article.

With the exception of a few over-generalized correlations of statements in regards to Krishnananda’s work and Swami-Krishnananda.org, which I will soon correct, the only references in the article that remain unacceptable as per Wikipedia policy are the aforementioned which correspond to Dr. Stephen Phillips, Dr. Clooney, Dr. Grayling, and Dr. Pintchman. I will work diligently to get in touch with these individuals in an effort to obtain copies of their published material—course materials, syllabi, and work in academic journals—in which they have referred favorably to Swami Krishnananda and his work. I could provide quotations of theirs to such effect immediately, but as I understand it, this would be deemed by Wikipedia as “original research.” These professors are very busy people, so it may take some time for me to obtain copies of, or find online locations for, their published comments as regards Swami Krishnananda and his work. If I am unable to locate this material in a timely fashion, perhaps you and I could collaborate to find sources elsewhere which can attest to the validity of the 13 assertions made in the “contextual” phase of the article.

Unfortunately, religion is under attack today. The reasons for this are rooted in ignorance. However, the study of a man like Swami Krishnananda, who had an unblemished record, who lived a life of admirable self-discipline, who selflessly served millions of people, and who left behind an ocean of knowledge, all in the name of religion, can replace this ignorance with an understanding of what the ancient science is really about.

Om,

Advedom (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If they can put their lecture materials online (powerpoint, text-file, word doc, whatever), those urls may be cited. I believe that Swami-Krishnananda.org can be considered a reliable source for biographical information about the subject; the relevant policies are WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 12:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good to know. I will get on it. I will familiarize myself more with those policies, too. Advedom (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Goethean,


 * I wrote you a very thoughtful letter explaining to you my role in the creation of the Krishnananda page and politely requesting you to allow me to fix the citations in the article without your independent assistance. In lieu of this, I offered to collaborate with you to improve the article; however, you did not respond to that offer. Therefore, I am confused by your recent, rather obtrusive, activity on the Swami Krishnananda page. If you are interested in working with us to improve the page, then please engage with us—the creators of the page—in cordial discussion of edits you want to make before making them.


 * In light of the fact that I, and not you, am the author of the Swami Krishnananda page, and have been responsive to your concerns in regards to it thus far, as has been testified by my correspondence with you, and others, I do not see why the page should be of such concern to you, to the extent where you feel you have to come in and rephrase key statements. Your rephrasing of "considered classics of theology and philosophy" in the "Authorship and lectures" section only makes sense if there is no citation to attest to that assertion; and I have already assured you that I have sources to cite for all assertions to this effect, and that I am working to find a way to properly cite those sources. Considering that you have now peppered the article with CNs, could you please refrain from also rephrasing my writing? What is the point in branding a sentence with a CN, only to rephrase it? It is counterproductive; therefore, I have reverted your edit.


 * Why did you delete the PDF links in the "Selected Works" section? Is linking a relevant PDF file of an author's work in an encyclopedia article a violation of Wikipedia policy?


 * I am in the process of finishing the article; so please, for the sake of sportsmanship, if nothing else, allow me to do this alone. I am more knowledgeable than you about Krishnananda and his work and can therefore write more authoritatively on the subject than you can.


 * Om,


 * Advedom (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Goethean,


 * We missed your earlier edit to the introduction of the Swami Krishnananda article. Poor form, sir. We have reverted. I would not let this article keep you up nights. It is in good hands. We are working to get our sources properly cited. Relax. Do not panic. The world is not ending.


 * Like Ken Wilber's, Swami Krishnananda's message is that of integrality. Without masters like Sri Krishnananda, there would be no Ken Wilber's. If you do not believe me, as Ken Wilber; he will tell you the same thing. Did you know that Andrew Cohen prostrated at the feet of Sri Krishnananda?


 * We admire all of your hard work at the Wikipedia data base. Are you keen on philosophy? Interesting subject if you ask me.


 * Hari Om Tat Sat


 * Advedom (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Poor form"? The material that I&mdash;out of politeness&mdash;re-worded for accuracy may be removed at any time by any editor, because it is unsourced. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Poor form considering the extensive thoughtful articulation that I have given you in regards to the contested citations, which I am not going to repeat, and the fact that your re-wording occurred in the article’s introductory paragraph. Your rewording of that key introductory statement was not accurate; rather, it was disparaging. Evidently you are unfamiliar with Swami Krishnananda; else, you would not be so quick to discount the assertions that we make about him in the article. He was a giant of 20th century Hindu philosophy and theology. And perhaps if you familiarized yourself with his work—all of which is available for free—and the world renowned institution that he ran for more than 40 years—the Divine Life Society—you could appreciate this fact.


 * Considering that we are new editors, I think it would be more polite for you to give us a chance to prove ourselves and follow through with what we have said we will do, rather than act in haste and bypass us—the creators of the page—to adjust things as you see fit. Project Wikipedia is not going to collapse during the time it takes us to fix those four contested citations. Nevertheless, we appreciate your attempting to be polite.


 * On a different note, we understand that you were integral (no pun intended) in creating the Ken Wilber page. Very good work. Ken Wilber is a fascinating guy and we admire his work.


 * Advedom (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Is it against Wikipedia policy to link a PDF of an author’s work to an article for academic purposes?


 * external liks should be either in footnotes or the external links section. If you see external links elsewhere on Wikipedia, you are free to fix them.


 * I have said nothing about krishnananda or his reputation; I merely rephrased the sentence so that it reflected the (poor) sourcing. It would have been completely appropriate for me to remove the sentence altogether, but I did not do that. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Goethean,


 * You wrote: “The material that I—out of politeness—re-worded for accuracy may be removed at any time by any editor, because it is unsourced.”


 * When you make a value judgment about the accuracy of a key introductory statement in an biographical encyclopedia article, what else are you doing but saying something about the individual on whom the article has been written?


 * I asserted that your rephrasing was inaccurate, and in the state of being which was disparaging. However, I did not mean to imply that you intentionally disparaged Krishnananda. I merely asserted that it had been done.


 * I assume that by asserting that your edit reflected the sourcing, you were implying that my statement suggesting consensus about Krishnananda’s significance was inaccurate because I only cited three scholars as sources for that statement. Well, as you know, there is never going to be real consensus about anything. Someone is always going to disagree. But I think we have to be practical. If quantitative analysis is not possible—which in this case it is not, for Krishnananda was a flesh and blood human being, not a bit of data—we have to go with qualitative analysis. When you are able to cite as sources three experts with tenure at world-renowned academic institutions as testament to an a assertion made in regards to disciplines in which those individuals are expert, I think, for the purposes of an encyclopedia article, the assertion can be considered as correct, on the grounds of the quality of the evidence. Of course, this is assuming that the sources are valid, which they are. But this fact notwithstanding, I will remove the sources. I will also reword that key introductory statement to read: “He was an important 20th century theologian and philosopher,” rather than "He was one of the most important[...]". I hope that this in conjunction with the numerous CNs you have rightfully introduced into the article will suffice until I am able to cite the university professors correctly.


 * Om,


 * Advedom (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume that by asserting that your edit reflected the sourcing, you were implying that my statement suggesting consensus about Krishnananda’s significance was inaccurate because I only cited three scholars as sources for that statement.


 * There are no legitimate citations for the statement at all, and that's why it can be removed at any time. Perhaps I erred in rewording the statement rather than removing it altogether. Call it "idiot compassion". &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Doniger

 * I agree, but the quotes for those favoring Doniger are highlighted while those who are against Doniger are less highlighted. You put Mishra's and Nussenbaum's quotes as highlighted unlike the previous version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Doniger&oldid=369382250]) which we all agreed upon.Stop lying, Goethean! Raj2004 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation for Wikipedia to cover both sides of every made-up pseudo-controversy equally. The entire point of manufacturing the controversy was to damage Doniger's reputation. However, Doniger's enemies have failed to do so, which is evident from the positive coverage of Doniger's latest book in every major media outlet, regardless of ethnicity. I have a source which describes the issue over Doniger as a Maratha issue rather than a Hindu one. If you insist on covering the interview with a urologist more extensively, I can also add more sources. But I think that it would be better to cover the substance of Doniger's books rather than engaging in a war over expanding the criticism section. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Sorry for the confusion. I only care about the formatting as I had just edited. We should not highlight either side extensively. Enough material from both sides. Raj2004 (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Tao2911. Thank you.-- Diannaa TALK 21:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow up
Thanks for your comment at Articles for deletion/Tom Krieglstein. I have replied and invite your further participation in this AfD. Cheers! —Eustress talk 01:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Waugh
Please take a look at Waugh's comments generally on academic interpretations of religious traditions at the Wendy Doniger article. It's lengthy but please condense if appropriate. It is more neutral detached view but cooky like Malhotra nor patronising such as Mishra. Raj2004 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"...group of patently dishonest Indian hooligans"
This edit has quite good personal attack ( not to speak of false speculation). I thought you had resolved to change; On a serious note, have you managed to find the references to the "patently dishonest" addition of yours, to repeat my previous question--"What is the need to add failed verification and later fight for it by abusing others? For ex : I recently discovered while cleaning up Kakar's article. This edit by you which makes controversial claims is not available in the source cited at all. And what's more, you have argued for the inclusion of this false information." ;" Where did you find it in the citation? Since you have fought for its inclusion in Talk pages, it has to be there somewhere in the citation right? Best Wishes. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation reg Francis Xavier Clooney
This edit is a WP:BLP violation on Francis Xavier Clooney--Parkman Professor of Divinity and Professor of Comparative Theology at Harvard Divinity School--and particularly falls in the area of guilt by association; Clooney is a Roman Catholic Priest and few Roman Catholic Priests are involved in sexual abuses, so are you suggesting that this Parkman Professor is also involved in sexual abuse? If not, then what does the edit summary "...just in case my meaning wasnt completely clear to everyone." mean? If yes, then this is WP:BLP. Make the appropriate changes or we can even discuss at WP:BLPN with other editors. --TheMandarin (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Stick to what I said. There is neither a personal attack and certainly no BLP violation. I said that the choice of blurbster was ironic, which it most certainly is to anyone with half an ear. My saying so is neither a personal attack nor a BLP violation. But good luck with your career as a wikilawyer. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit War warning re: Stuart Davis page
You have reverted the page four times now without discussion or providing any new citations or defenses of your inclusions, despite repeated requests and warnings from more than one editor. This is being reported to the edit war notice board.Tao2911 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please edit the article rather than blanking large sections. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Sections" in question deserve to be removed since they are promotional, interpretive, biased, original research, and have no sources. You have not addressed this point once.Tao2911 (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton
You might be interested, not sure if you have anything to add or not. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 23:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * we may disagree occasionally, G, but I really appreciate your honest appraisal of this matter.Tao2911 (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Userpage
I would like to point out that your userpage is in violation of WP:HUSH and is a personal attack on at least 4 editors, including myself. I think this was also discussed before:User_talk:Goethean/2009. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette_alerts
FYI. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Park 51/ Cordoba House
I wrote something in the talk page of this article, please read it. Wikipedia is not a blog, it's not about your opinion on the subject but about what said the people who participated to this debate. You can't change peoples opinion just because it's not yours.--Onesbrief (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Professor Waugh
I e-mailed Professor Waugh to clarify what he meant by that paragraph. Here's what he said, "Religious traditions are not necessarily in conflict with academic analysis as is implied in the second statement; rather the conflict is between academic analysis of the tradition that pays no attention to the tradition's own analytic frameworks but rather applies systems that have no relationship to it, and whose assumptions arise out of quite different perceptions of the human. The notion of scientific neutrality might work in the physical sciences, but there are serious flaws in it when applied in the humanities and social sciences.   .....I have doubts about the legitimacy of applying an analytic system so obviously rooted in European sexual-psychological theory willy-nilly to other religious traditions as if it would apply without remainder. As a tool, perhaps. As a creative engagement, sure. But as a robust and accurate treatment of the religious culture..that I can't buy." If you have any objections, he said to e-mail him directly. You can find his e-mail from the University of AlbertaRaj2004 (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks for the cleanup. I made some minor changes. Professor Waugh in his e-mail stressed that the conflict alluded to stressed that was no relationship between the tradition and the Western analytic tool. He had said earlier to e-mail him if you had doubts. In your older previous edit at []    Professor Waugh said, ".if Goethan doesn't believe it, then have him/her? write to me. Frankly I don't think he's read the whole passage I wrote, or even the whole article. It sounds as though he's just read what is posted on line, which only allows partial access." Raj2004 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Professor Waugh said that you have not read the entire book and only read the limited preview. He had stressed that the Western analytic tool had to be one that had no relationship to the tradition; You can ask him the approproriate page. please e-mail him if you don't believe it. Raj2004 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have e-mailed Professor Waugh to find the appropriate page for the citation, as pgs. 261-263 don't appear to have the entire citation. Raj2004 (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Doniger
Here's what Professor Waugh said.

Raj: You'll note that much of my discussion concerns the notion of linear time and its relationship to modernity.. This is where I place my critique...it is within the context of a western notion of 'tradition.' My point is that without time consciousness, we would not have the same concept of the 'tradition' within "traditional." So the academy comes to define what it "the tradition" using its own categories generated from its own Western time consciousness. I think this may be problematic.

I talk about Freudianism as an example of the direction taken in the academy to apply its own analytic categories arising from its own notions of what defines "the tradition." In this context, I am speaking in more general terms of applying categories of understanding that are not found in the tradition being described; with regard to Doniger, I suggest that she is an example of someone who approaches Hinduism using categories generated out of other contexts and not grounded in 'the tradition.'..and indicate she is known to apply categories that are suggestive of Freudianism to the sacred texts of Hinduism.

I do not have a copy of the book, and, because of a crashed hard drive, do not have my original article, so this is the best I can do at the moment....Here's the section as I wrote it...I don't have the printed edition, but I can't think it deviated much; I really don't know. You'll have to check the printed copy.

Raj2004 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Gebser as linguist
I'm not sure why you reverted what seemed to me a perfectly uncontroversial change. Your reference simply states, without evidence, that Gebser was "A linguist and poet." There is nothing in the (very long) article to suggest that he was a linguist, which (to state the obvious) is a specialist in linguistics. Examples of linguists would be, for example, Karl Verner, Leonard Bloomfield, and George Lakoff; if you go to their articles, you will see degrees and academic positions that make it clear they are in fact linguists. There is nothing in Gebser's to suggest such a thing; he was a philosopher, which is a very different thing. In my opinion, the first sentence of a Wikipedia entry should present the essential facts about the subject; if you feel the fact that he wrote poetry is important enough to mention there, I won't argue with you, but calling him a linguist is simply false. I won't delete it again until you've had a chance to respond, but I hope you'll see the cogency of my point. Languagehat (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read Gebser. Assuming that you have not, I'm a bit flummoxed by your confident assurances &mdash; in the face of a reference to a reliable source &mdash; of what Gebser was and was not. The main work of Gebser's which has been translated into English uses a highly etymological method to reach his philosophical conclusions. This is undoubtedly one basis for the claim that Gebser is a linguist. Although, being unable to read his untranslated works, I don't know if there is more convincing evidence. I'm afraid that I will have to side with the several sources (as well as my own eyes), which attest to Gebser's status as a linguist. I do find it interesting that you say that my reference "simply states, without evidence" when the fact is that unlike me, you have presented no evidence for your position. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My evidence is that there is no mention of any linguistic activity or qualification in the article. It's the claim that he was a linguist that requires evidence, not the reverse. Again, your "reliable source" is simply an article that states, without any backup and with no relevance to anything else, simply as an obiter dictum, that he was a linguist and poet; as far as I can see, that statement is no more reliable than yours in this article.  You're obviously personally involved with this article and consider it "yours," and I know better than to get into an edit war with you, but I will leave a note on the discussion page that I consider the statement ill sourced and in any case unsuitable for the first sentence of the article, just so it will be on record. Languagehat (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Pamela Geller. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced is to be removed immediately and you should know better than to make edits like this Truthsort (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Get a grip. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Astrology software
Thank you for your kind email. Since you feel that way, could you please stop by Talk:Astrology software and weigh in on the sources and notability? Yworo (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Geller
Thanks for upholding my edit. I am wondering what policy I could have used to argue my point? Because when the user starts throwing policy, all I could think of saying is that it wasnt appropriate. Any advice? ValenShephard (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Lots of users like to bully people by throwing around abbreviations which have no relevance to the issue at hand. Policy doesn't mean anything unless the editor explains what policy he thinks you are violating and how. And then there is WP:IAR. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can relate to that. Thanks. But then again, if you hadn't come in, or some other user, he probably would have 'won'. He didn't seem interested in taking the issue to talk, so how could I have convinced him? ValenShephard (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Convincing people of things on Wikipdia is an ambitious goal, esp. in the short term. Instead, simply state your position on the talk page with reference to Wikipedia policy. Pamela Geller is a sufficiently-trafficked page that someone will read your post and act, one way or the other. If he violates 3RR, you can complain at the appropriate noticeboard. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe that isn't the way to go. Take it easy, ValenShephard (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Camille Paglia
I see you removed a chunk, I wasn't happy with the wording myself, how would you phrase it? The source time article says 'For one thing, as Teresa L. Ebert at the State University of New York, Albany, points out, they were caught napping by Paglia. "She wasn't taken seriously, but her attacks are part of Ronald Reagan's and Margaret Thatcher's conservatism," says Ebert. "They mean a backlash against women. Paglia is reviving old stereotypes with new energy."' The early version linked her to neoconservatism, but I haven't found a source to support that. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say: "Some nobody attacked Paglia irresponsibly." Then again, I wouldn't include it in the article. That's why I removed it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, I'll rephrase and add it back, and ask that you bear with me for the time being. I'd like to get all the material in there I can sourced, and then work on trimming it back. Whether or not the attack is responsible or not isn't really for us to decide, and I think given the extremity of her language in characterizing others it is to be expected that she'll attract harsh attention. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Joehazelton SPI
Goethean, I've started a sock puppet investigation of the IP you tagged as a Joehazelton sock. I thought you might want to know; it could help if you commented. UserVOBO (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ram Dass
Thank you for your edit to the article. I was just about to get to that, when I got sidetracked. 2tuntony (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
I am new to Wikipedia editing, and am involved in a disagreement over content on an article that appears to be heading into intractability, and saw an entry with your name attached when my talk page was created offering your help for new folk. My question, then - how does one go about requesting dispute resolution? Thank you in advance for your help!Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See Dispute resolution. I would suggest placing a request for comment at Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. Place this: on the talk page of the article in question. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time. I may not pursue this, as I am near to abandoning my editing efforts here after the experience visible on my talk page, but I do appreciate your answer and your efforts at contributing to the issue at hand.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Annie Dillard
Do whatever you want with the Wikipedia wikilink. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. There is such a thing as overlinking, though. Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Dawn Covington for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Dawn Covington, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dawn Covington until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Upanishads
Zuggernaut (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you re Juan Williams
I appreciate that you restored the well-sourced and studiously NPOV text to the Juan Williams article. I have bent over backwards compromising to try and retain some semblance of encyclopedic fact in this matter. Originally I inserted a small section covering this. It got whittled down and inserted in the W. Post section - but buried without a heading. As though it was just another aspect of his journalistic career. I compromised and accepted that the text should appear within that section, but with a header. Then there was an entire debate about the sub-header. Then today there were concerted attempts to "bury" the text by removing the header and by reducing the text to almost nothing - as though it was simply about a speeding ticket. I was apparently getting perilously close to 3R, so I have stayed away the last few hours. The objections raised include BLP issues. But since Williams acknowledged much of the matter - I don't see how withholding the text on the grounds of "undue weight" adds up.

A comparable article is the one on Bill O'Reilly. A similar matter is given a sub-section and sufficient amount of text to relate the facts in a calm NPOV way. I'm not sure what the rhyme and reason is for trying to belittle the matter. Is is that some feel that these facts are damaging to Williams and they have a political motive for minimizing them? That seems strange since Williams acknowledged most of the allegations and I think he demonstrates decency in his apology. Or is it perhaps that some people feel that being disciplined for harassing women is an example of political correctness and not a serious matter? I have read the "oh it was two decades ago" argument too, and that seems immaterial. It either happened and was of some import or it didn't. Facts and pertinence aren't diminished by the passage of time. We shall see how long it is before your efforts are overturned on the grounds that this is all overblown and unimportant. Something I doubt would be said if one of the women on the receiving end of what Williams was decent enough to acknowledge - happened to be the mother/wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter of an editor writing that... Davidpatrick (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Update I have made peace with the editor who I got into disagreement on in respect to this article. And I want to make an effort to reach consensus among several editors on the way that the topic is handled. Not overblowing its significance in a long journalistic career and yet not burying it as though it was something completely trivial. Would you be up for contributing to a conversation on the talk page to try and help us reach a fair consensus?  I know we've never encountered each other before but I thought I would ask you.  Thanks.  Davidpatrick (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ben Lowe
While that is another sock of JoeH, it the case of the article above, he's actually quite right about WP:SPS. Furthermore, reverting as you are, without any commentary whatesoever is never a good idea. Whatever about its being simply rude, it gives no indication to all other editors as to why you're doing what you are - A l is o n  ❤ 16:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Way to be a tool for a vandal. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Joehazelton's edits should be reverted in priciple since he is a blocked editor who has cost the site untold hours of administrative work. Your advice to him to "be less obvious" is counter-productive at best. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Omega Point
Hi! Thanks for tidying up Omega Point. I just remembered to follow up on that, and it was a pleasant to surprise to find my edits already done! -- William Pietri (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all you do, including NOT being an enabler. Unlike Alison. ;-) Anyway, I ended up on the Ben Lowe article after starting at the Illinois election article you updated. It appears to me that Lowe is mainly notable as an author, so I re-formatted the article a bit and added some 'author-type' links. If there's a mass purge of losing nominees, he probably shouldn't be caught up in the sweep. Although I don't know anything about InterVarsity Press, his book's in 108 libraries according to WorldCat (which I generally use to help determine if a book is "real".) Flatterworld (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Intervarsity Press is quite well-known in evangelical circles &mdash; in which I sometimes inexplicably find myself. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? - A l is o n  ❤ 22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles G. Koch
Why did you remove a legitimate NPOV tag from this article? Please restore. THF (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Swami Krishnananda
is in need of sources and NPOV edits. I know this is the sort of article you have worked on in the past, so I was wondering if you have access to any materials on this person that you could draw on to improve the article? Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Year old NPOV tag
Hi. I added a section to the Mark Levin page having the same title as this section. Please, if you would like, read that and respond on the Mark Levin Talk page. Thanks. This is a courtesy notice since you added the tag back then. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger article
The paring does not minimize Heidegger's Nazism: it summarizes block quotes and detailed historical evidence, which is treated in the dedicated article, "Heidegger and Nazism". The evidence is reviewed in much greater detail in that article, and the bits of it used in the main Heidegger article did not cover it adequately.Wwallacee (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum
--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not clear on rationale for removal of other theologians
I don't particularly care for the other theologians listed at the intro of the Tillich article, but listing them is valuable for WP users- in particular those doing horizontal browsing in the domain of 20th century theology. Would you mind if I change it back to the way it was? If you do mind, perhaps you could explain the rationale? J JMesserly (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No strong preference either way, I just thought that the intro would be more tight and to-the-point by omitting the other names --- especially now that the text, which mentions four names, contradicts the citation, which mentions six. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the cite was suboptimal. When I was adding the material for ultimate concern and two entries on reception, I noticed the cite-needed template on the intro and I thought no problem I should be able to find something supporting it.  I found the first cite and was looking for a second that was more to the point but found it was not so easy to get something authoritative that directly supported the statement without qualifications.  As I am going through a lot of Tillich material now, I am hopeful I will find a better evaluative statement about his prominence made by a relatively unbiased and respected source.  Depending on what I find, I will put the horizontal references back in somehow the next time I edit that article.  I agree your edit makes it tighter and certainly, an encyclopedia of philosophy would have a concise statement such as this.  But over the years my observation is that oftentimes WP domain experts neglect the needs of the lay audience.  We have a lot of high school kids reading this who require navigation assistance and contextual information that a knowledgeable reader would find superfluous.
 * BTW- I also added the infobox for the tillich article and there are some summary assertions about influences, school, major ideas and so on that would benefit from another person's opinion on the subject. J JMesserly (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Spirituality portal2
Template:Spirituality portal2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Camille Paglia
Goethean, I'd like to let you know that I have shifted to an account and will no longer be editing from the IP address I was using before. I would also like to strongly suggest that you wait for the outcome of the RFC before re-inserting the Molly Ivins quotation. It's very bad form indeed to continue restoring controversial BLP material when less confrontational approaches are possible. Could I also ask that you not revert my spelling corrections in future - Kate Millett's second name is spelt with two 't's, not one. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been reverted by a number of different editors, not just me. That's because your Bowdlerizing edits do not have consensus. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see you have been warned about edit warring more than enough times to be intimately familiar with the WP:3RR policy you have just violated -- even after I suggested opening an RFC (not to mention theatric and uncivil use of edit summaries.) Please stop and allow the RFC time.--Cybermud (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He said, as User:Seed of Azathoth continued to edit war...typical. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Typical of what? Cast aspersions much?  I have not counted Seed's edits only yours.  Seed is a relatively new editor as far as I can tell, and is responding to you with what, if you'd read the  talk page, are concerns that I share.  You, on the other hand, have been reverting in the Camille Paglia article extensively for the past week (if not years) and have a long history of being warned for doing so across many articles.  I'm sure there are other pages where this can be raised if you are not amenable to me asking you stop directly.--Cybermud (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making sure that you get your way. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

IP sock
Please, can you identify this sock? 86.2.91.136. You reverted some of his edits days ago. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea, sorry. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

pointy?
Goethean, I know we don't always agree, but if you think I'm being pointy in the Paglia discussions, I'll back off. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not you, the other guy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But feel free to call me out anytime if I'm acting poorly, I don't want to get too wrapped up in this stuff. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly normal for editors to disagree with each other, at times, about policies and how best to apply them. I am not guilty of being 'pointy' for arguing for a position different from yours. BLP policy is meant to be applied strictly, and I think you will find there is wide agreement that mentioning pointless insults and vulgarities in BLPs is contrary to the way the policy says that articles should be written. To quote the policy: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Mentioning insults like "asshole" when it's not necessary is not writing conservatively, and it is sensationalist. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Failed verification
Goethean, pls refrain from introducing grossly inaccurate and false information. If one reads the Ramakrishna article in Gale's encyclopedia or religion( Vol 11,pp.7611-7614 ) Brain Hatcher, Neevel provide a completely different picture. So is the case with the Wendy Doniger's Foreword and Larson, John Hawley, Urban. Pls be aware that there are readers who actually verify the sources. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You continue to talk compete crap, as usual. When you make very serious charges of abusing sources against another editor, please bring some evidence. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You can find the "evidence" in the initial post, go to the page numbers / sections I have indicated and compare it with your inaccurate additions. I ask you to check the sources--you resort to ad hominem. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramarishna - formal warning
I asked you not to comment on other users, but to restrict yourself to discussing content. Your response was to make to posts that were largely comments on me and TheMandarin, and then edit in your preferred material again without more discussion. Consider this a formal warning: this behavior violates wp:CIV, wp:NPA, wp:CONSENSUS, and wp:Tendentious editing, and if you don't refocus your edits on a proper discussion of the material without reference to other editors, I'm going to ask to have you topic-banned from the entire area for disruptive editing.

As I said, I'm trying to work with you, and that implies that you are willing and able to (a) make some compromises on your position, and (b) assume good faith and give other editors a degree of respect. please try. -- Ludwigs 2 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the people on the talk page are dedicated to portraying Ramakrishna in a way which is directly contrary to the way that the majority of reliable sources portray him. This violates Wikipedia's core principles of WP:NPOV and WP:V, as well as doing a disservice to the readers of the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Two points:
 * the way you want to portray RK is not the way that the majority of reliable sources portray him. you have a few sources, yes, and I agree that the page as written is not as encyclopedic as it could be (which I will address once this nonsense dies down), but there is not even an academic consensus for this representation of RK, much less a consensus in reliable sources more broadly put.
 * even if your assertions about content were true (which I disagree with), it does not excuse rampant personal attacks against other editors. If you cannot assume good faith and deal with the issue solely on the basis of sourcing and content, then you are too involved personally to be editing the page.  I mean, I really don't mind if you occasionally lose your cool and bitch someone out, but you have been engaged in consistent, long-term, unfounded insinuations about the other editors on the page which is just unacceptable.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)