User talk:Goethean/Archive 4

Spiral Dynamics

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Regions of Asia

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

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

january 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spiral Dynamics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Taking one vote from a six month old discussion, and two from a current one does not make for a consensus to change long standing text. Refusing to take part in any discussion of a compromise is clear edit waring. Added to which your assertion that other editors have "no standing" to make changes and your general failure to assume good faith are in clear breech of Wikipedia editing policy. Please try and work with other editors, if you persist then it will have to go to ANI for attention. --Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Not a reversion

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

4RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

just 2 cents

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

Re:Email

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

Suggestion for a more reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility Please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crestwood, Illinois

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

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

Wikiquette alert

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

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

Clarification

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

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

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

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

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

Your scrub and deletion of Jonathan Gruber

Please refrain from mass deleting portions of a person's biography without any explanation. Wikipedia is not your personal playground, and their are guidelines to follow. RE: Jonathan Gruber.Tubestennovel (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

rfc on taijitu

I've started the RfC. I'm trying out a new discussion template - please put your statement in the s2 parameter of the inbrief template - it will display your position and mine side by side. we can debate the issue below the template. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you got the wrong aggressively uncivil editor. — goethean ॐ 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

lol - that's tooooo funny. It's just the G-name thing; either that, or I'm starting to show the signs of early onset dementia. sorry!

if it helps any, you source your opinions much better than that. --Ludwigs2 00:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Jonathan Gruber (economist). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 13:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin notes: Whilst not a WP:3RR, due to a past 3RR block you should know full well not to engage in edit warring. The overall reasoning for a block is to prevent more disruption as it appears to be a content dispute, and again you have a prior 3RR block and no discussion had taken place on the talk pages. Whilst edit summaries are appreciated, they are not to be used in lieu of proper discussion when in a dispute. NJA (t/c) 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This block is unjustified for several reasons. my edits removed poorly-sourced negative material from a biography of a living person. Thus my edits amount to the reversal of simple vandalism. Additionally, the two editors with who I am edit warring are both obvious sockpuppets of banned user and long term abuser of Wikipedia User:Joehazelton. An SPI case was started here. Please do not feed trolls by blocking real contributing editors at the request of sockpuppets of banned users. Thank you! — goethean ॐ 13:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I do now realise that probable socks have also edit warred on the article (they've also been temporarily blocked for edit warring pending the outcome of the SPI). That doesn't negate the fact that you repeatedly removed information without discussion. Their edits were not clear vandalism or copyright vios. You may try to rely on the BLP excuse, but considering the text in question that would be a stretch unless you've fully explained it somewhere, ie a talk page or noticeboard, eg WP:BLP/N. If you wish to end the block early because you think you were justified, then say so here as I will watch (or use the unblock template). Essentially I believe we need to address the reasoning for the consistent removal, and where you had made it known (ie a talk page or noticeboard). Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I discussed my reasoning on my talk page here, as well as at my edit summaries here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. What is going on this that there is the Republicans tried to create a mini-scandal on an Obama admin staff member, but apparently, the papers didn't cover it. So all that they have are blog entries and a bland NYT correction which is attached to an op-ed piece by Gruber. There is no news story, but they are manufacturing one. I don't think that that is kosher in a BLP. None of the editors — which have all been anonymous, redlinks, or socks — have discussed the matter on the talk page. — goethean ॐ 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see the discussion above with Grundle. Whilst you're convincing me, I think a post about it at WP:BLP/N would be appropriate as opinions vary widely on op-eds, particularly in papers usually considered notable. Without more community consensus the reverts can easily border on disruption, and I wouldn't classify them as removal of simple vandalism. Again, edit summaries are helpful, but not a substitute for discussion when in dispute. Anyhow, taking all things into account, I will unblock you as I can't say the block will prevent disruption at this time. I believe the issue won't just go away however, and I do recommend a brief note at the BLP board and/or the reliable source board to get some consensus on it. NJA (t/c) 14:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have another question. I usually revert the edits of obvious sockpuppets of banned users on sight per WP:DENY. Do you have any suggestions in that regard? — goethean ॐ 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an opinion/essay, and not a policy. I'd concentrate more on this text (as it is within the policy). Usually repeating offenders re-add useless rubbish that is harmful to the encyclopaedia, such as inserting hoaxes or misinterpretation of facts, which should be removed. Opinions vary, but if the changes are a net positive, I don't remove edits just for the sake of doing so. It really comes down to the reasoning for the ban and what they've added. NJA (t/c) 14:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

Thanks you for your message. I am not a right wing Hindu nationalist nor a Doniger supporter. All I want is a balanced criticism of her. I agree with you entirely that the first criticism of her was not at all NPOV. That's why I added a Prakash Mishra article too to make it fair and balanced. I hope that you understand. I am not a demagogue! Yet I respectfully understand your concerns regarding some kooky nationalists. Raj2004 (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Then stop doing the bidding of militants. Write a section which accurately retells how Doniger is one of the foremost authorities on Sanskrit literature. Don't copy and paste defamatory BS written by the Rajiv Malhotra egg-throwers. And stop edit-warring. — goethean ॐ 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not doing the biding of militants. These were excerpts from BBC and other journals. You are unbelievable. Raj2004 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, why you are such a fan of Doniger? Are you a former student? I don't do the bidding of any and just want to present both sides, and remove the unnecessary such as egg throwing incident and the blatantly false statement that Mr. Malhotra is the only one critical of Doniger; he Hindu American Foundation is critical of Doniger. CORRECTION: THEY RECENTLY PUBLISHED A COMMENT: http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/imagined-hindu-history And they are not even a right wing group like the VHP. Moreover, Goethan himself has been blocked for excessive disruption in the past. Raj2004 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you are removing my well sourced edits on the Wendy Doniger again and again. You call the sources 'contentious', 'poor, and now 'right-wing editoralizing". What makes you think Hindustan Times and The Tribune to be poor sources? They are one of the most popular newspapers in India with nationwide circulation. And, what is the reason for calling these right-wing? Please quote reliable sources to prove these are right-wing sources. Just putting forward your POV wont do. Further, even if they are right-wing (which I have never heard to be right wing newspapers), which Wiki policy prevents right-wing criticism to be mentioned on a leftist's work? If you have reliability issues with The Tribune and Hindustan Times, please check with Wikipedia:RSN. Until these are proved to be poor and unreliable sources as you claim my edits should be retained on the page considering these two national dailies of India to be reliable sources. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are editorial pieces and not reliable sources for anything by the opinions of the author. Please see WP:RS. Thanks! — goethean ॐ 18:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wendy Doniger, you will be blocked from editing. You are not allowing any other view, other than what aligns with your POV, on Wendy to be mentioned in this article. You just happen to attach a certain tag to these edits like 'poor', 'right wing', 'editorial pieces', 'not reliable', etc Critical observations made by reliable sources like Hindustan Times and The Tribute must find space on this article to make it balanced and as a whole reliable. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The infamous egg

Doubtless you will take refuge in having found "reliable sources" for the incident, but if you do take it upon yourself to dig a little deeper, you will find that there is no independent corroboration, e.g. an eye-witness account, or a report of that event itself (where the incident allegedly occurred). In fact, all the "reliable sources" trace back -- haha, woonchanowit -- to a claim by Doniger herself, that she once had an egg tossed at her. There is also an eyewitness counterclaim, by someone who attended the event, that it didn't happen, but that's problematic because the person is a known gadfly/flake (ergo not worth citing). Doniger is an expert publicity hound, and she knows well how to play the angles. rudra (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You go ahead and believe Rajiv Malhotra and his team of Hindu fascists. I prefer to believe the New York Times, Wendy Doniger, and the civilized world. — goethean ॐ 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about Malhotra? (Although it's quite revealing about you that you think he has a "team" of "Hindu fascists". Now, is he himself or is he not a "Hindu fascist" too? What was that, you don't want to answer that? Great smear!) It turns out that the incident was somewhat more complicated than that: something was indeed thrown at the stage (but while small it was not an egg) and thereupon the person responsible staged a slow, defiant, public walkout. So, in theory, his identity is known and he could have been asked what he threw. But Alison Goddard didn't bother, and the rest is (manufactured) history. rudra (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about Malhotra?

He is the financial and philosophical force behind the dishonest attacks on academics which you gleefully perpetuate.

(Although it's quite revealing about you that you think he has a "team" of "Hindu fascists".

We has a website, on which authors which he presumably recruited, publish articles which smear any academic who discusses Hinduism in a way that he doesn't like. All of the academics who have been smeared on his website have been threatened with violence. Malhotra seems to have no problems with the threats of violence against the academics. So Malhotra is effectively directing a campaign of violence against academics who discuss religion. Yeah, that's political thuggery, or fascism. Right-wing politics plus the scape-goating of a particular group plus directed violence can fairly be called fascism, because that combination accurately describes the tactics of political groups in Italy and Germany prior to World War Two (as well as by the recent government of Gujurat).

It turns out that the incident was somewhat more complicated than that: something was indeed thrown at the stage (but while small it was not an egg) and thereupon the person responsible staged a slow, defiant, public walkout.

I prefer to believe mainstream media accounts rather than the alternate history of fascists. I'm weird that way.

But Alison Goddard didn't bother, and the rest is (manufactured) history.

Someone who defends Hindutvan fascists should know something about manufactured history. It is the ocean in which they swim. — goethean ॐ 12:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, all that just to avoid answering the question. Is Malhotra a "Hindu fascist"? Answer that first , a simple Yes or No, and I might address the rest of your screed. rudra (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother. If I want the latest in propaganda, I will turn to sulekha.com. — goethean ॐ 13:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Still couldn't answer the question. /* shakes head sadly */ rudra (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there Goethean, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Goethean. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen

Goethean, I'm wondering why you saw fit to delete the "Positive" and "Critical" sections from the Andrew Cohen page? Thank you. Humanheartknows (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:EL:

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. — goethean ॐ 12:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chris Cowan

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chris Cowan. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Cowan. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks

My political views are none of your business, but I am not a Nazi, and for you to imply that I am one is grossly insulting and unacceptable to me. Please immediately stop implying that I, or other editors, are Nazis. UserVOBO (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not call you a Nazi[9]. You my wish to consider that if you do nothing with this account other than to make ameliorating edits to the giants of Western racialist thinking, there may be some confusion. — goethean ॐ 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"...so I guess that I'll just let the article be vandalized by users who appear to have sympathies with Nazis."

For us simple folk, this sounds like you (Goethean) called Mr.VOBO a "Nazi". Why does Wikipedia tolerate Goethean incessant bullying any one not buying in to his radical religious ideas is beyond me? Goethean appears to have no respect for others whose ideas differing from his and has a long history of this kind of insult, rage and bullying, in the name of his God(s). Its people like Goethean which religious wars are stated. Goethean, You should learn to get along with others better.I. b. yew (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Goethean did make a community promise that s/he would tone down the aggression when this was raised so I think we should trust in that promise rather than raking up the past. I read the original comment above as a "Nazi" accusation but Goethean has made it clear that this was not the intent so I suggest we accept that. --Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Goethean, regarding your comment here [10] at the Nietzsche talk page, please be advised that its tone is inappropriate and that it borders on a personal attack. I am not complaining about this, I'm simply letting you know that anything much worse than that I would take exception to. Please moderate your comments. UserVOBO (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactored. Thanks. — goethean ॐ 00:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

'history' tags not place for attacks

History is not the place to argue points (a breach of Wp etiquette.) Bring up your issues in talk. I made my point there. You didn't address it. its not a rule. Its logic. I made the Kundalini link at first - read the link and saw that it was inaccurate. Cited sources say it is not 'kundalini yoga' in any conventional sense of the term. So I'm reverting it.Tao2911 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Linking and WP:BRD. — goethean ॐ 03:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goethean

You may wish to make a comment at this page. Durova⁴¹² 05:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you are so interested in me as to concoct wild sockpuppetry theories, maybe you could help keep my user page free of vandalism.[11][12] — goethean ॐ 14:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, that's nasty vandalism. Wasn't online when it happened, although if you'd like I'll start watchlisting your page. Durova⁴¹² 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Change in Gospel of Thomas article

Although I had specified in my change to the External Links section of this article that the reason for the change was what I called "belief bias" (ie., a violation of NPOV standards) on the part of the H.M.Ross webpage and the Sofiatopia translation, you have undone the change and are apparently not satisfied with the short explanation. If you looked at the links in question you would have noticed:

(1) The translation at Sofiatopia has capitalized all of the pronouns referrring to Jesus. This is not standard translation technique, but rather is a mark of Christian piety not supported by the original language (with which I am conversant, BTW). There are many fine translations of GTh on the net, and I don't know why links to them were removed from this article earlier this month, but Sofiatopia is not one of them.

(2) The H.M.Ross website announces at the very beginning that it is "For spiritual seekers and those dissatisfied with the teachings of the established Church, the Gospel of Thomas Collection is a series of spiritual writings that provide unique explanations and insights into Jesus' teachings in the Gospel of Thomas." In the next paragraph it refers to "the Life-Giving quality" of "the spiritual Teachings of Jesus". A collection described by the web-owner himself as "a series of spiritual writings" clearly violates the NPOV standard and is not a reputable site.

Now having said this, could you not have looked at these sites yourself to determine whether what I said about them was true, rather than undoing the change and demanding a further explanation? In any case, I would appreciate it if you would now undo your undoing. Mwgrondin (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL External links do not have to abide by NPOV. "Belief bias" is not a valid reason to remove external links. — goethean ॐ 14:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Goethean: Although I am a relatively unskilled user of Wikipedia, I am unable to find support for your claim in WP:EL. To the contrary, I find the following:

"Avoid undue weight on particular points of view On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight."

... and this:

"No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."

... and this: "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?"

Now if you have some official capacity with Wikipedia which allows you to give authoritative interpretations of site policy, please let me know and I will accept your position without further ado. But if you are simply an individual user like myself, then please explain both why you have an interest in this particular article, and the justification for the external links in question (in light of the fact that the burden of providing such justification lies with those who wish to maintain such links). Mwgrondin (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the external links in question give undue weight to a POV, bring it up on the talk page per WP:BRD. — goethean ॐ 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done as you suggest, and you should join me there. But I am still wondering whether you have either any special interest in the Thomas wiki, or any expertise relative to its content. Do you?Mwgrondin (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read several books on the Gospel of Thomas. However, your question is not relevant or appropriate. No special qualification or expertise is needed to edit any Wikipedia article, as long one's edits abide by Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of my questions is this: I am trying to understand why you singled out my edit for reversal. Is it that my brief explanation "belief bias" struck you as being contrary to Wikipedia policy? If so, then perhaps the best thing to do to avoid being reverted by someone whose interpretation of Wikipedia's policies differs from your own, is to give no explanation at all (which many folks do)? — Mwgrondin (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apropos John Derbyshire statement

I really would like to know if you believe that John Derbyshire is lying, or if you think that he was deceived. Do you believe that he is wrong and that there actually were no death threats?
Assume that he is not lying and was not deceived – and there actually were death threats – which resource that you trust would report it? What kind of source would you accept?
Shouldn't people be able to meet and talk in a hotel located in the land of the free?
I'm just curious.
217.236.199.227 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
PS IMHO there shouldn't be a fuss about people who want to meet and talk, but there really should be a fuss about death threats. If those are considered normal iff directed against certain people – then "something is rotten in the state of ...".

Derbyshire's blog is a reliable source for his opinions only, not for any statements of fact. I will insist on removing any supposedly factual statement referenced to Derbyshire's blog. Any sympathies that you or I might have for the conference-goers are irrelevant. — goethean ॐ

Please, I really would like to know whether you believe that there where death threats or not? Very simple question, very simple answer. Like I said, I'm just curious and it's not too personal, is it? 217.236.199.227 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would need to access a more reliable source than John Derbyshire in order to make a determination of that question. — goethean ॐ 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Extradition request for JA

Are you confident there's been an extradition request for John Anderson? Not quarreling with you at all, but there seems to be conflicting information in reliable sources about the point, for example a New York Times editorial from late last year said "[the] Indian government has yet to pursue an extradition request" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/opinion/03mehta.html). I did look around before making that edit and I saw other sources that said the request hadn't been made. I don't care one way or the other as long as we are accurate. DanielM (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not certain. I merely quoted from the source cited. You are of course free to change the article in accordance with other sources. (I'm not terribly dogmatic on the issue, although undoubtedly some are...) — goethean ॐ 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts to your userpage

I ve made these reverts 1 2 to your userpage in case you didn't notice, take care MaenK.A._Talk 18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche

Goethean, I can see why you might have a problem with mentioning, without qualification, that Nietzsche has been seen as the inspiration for Nazism and fascism in the lead, but you're making a serious mistake by removing this information entirely, rather than by improving it to say that the connection has been disputed. Nietzsche's being an alleged inspiration for Nazism is a basic piece of information that needs to be there; it's just silly to suggest that he is mainly associated with existentialism and postmodernism (and the validity of those connections can also be disputed). I am going to place a request for comment. UserVOBO (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem to my mind is that if you add qualifiers to the present wording, you make the text longer, and tend toward giving the topic more weight in the lede than it deserves. — goethean ॐ 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree. Nietzsche has been seen as the inspiration for Nazism and fascism far more often than he has been seen as the inspiration for existentialism and postmodernism, and Nazism and fascism are in any case more important historical phenomena than existentialism and postmodernism. Let's discuss this on the Nietzsche talk page, though. It would be helpful if we could agree on a wording for the request for comment. UserVOBO (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

k. — goethean ॐ 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger

Well, we want to create a NPOV article, don't we? You had some legitimate criticism so does Rudra. It appears that Rudra has cited Professor Witzel of Harvard University to question Doniger's knowledge of Sanskrit. Only one who is a Sanskritist can properly label another as a Sanskritist. A person who lacks competence in Sanskrit can't really critique another as a Sanskritist. One can be a professor of Christian religion without necessarily be an Aramaic linguist. Raj2004 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the debate rather than wasting my time by endlessly repeating easily-debunked falsehoods.

Only one who is a Sanskritist can properly label another as a Sanskritist.

Find some precedent in Wikipedia policy for this clearly false and inherently absurd claim (a claim which was demolished here and here), and we can continue this discussion. Please note: User:Rudrasharman can not create Wikipedia policy by fiat. — goethean ॐ 17:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that he can't create Wikipedia policy by fiat. However, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states that reliable sources include authors "who may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question." Thus, a person who is a Sanskrit linguist can identify one as a Sanskrit linguist." Raj2004 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What sources have you produced which contradict the assertion that Doniger is a Sanskritist? None, of course. — goethean ॐ 19:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you chopped off the sentence in the middle and extracted the second part. That is trollish behavior. The complete sentence is: "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." — goethean ॐ 19:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, But it seems that Rudra and others question whether your published materials are a reliable publication process. It's not trollish behavior to question whether your source is a reliable publication process. Especially when respected users, such as Buddhipriya and people who seem to have some knowledge of the Vedas such as Rudra question your sources. Raj2004 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the first sentence, from an interpretation process, seems to suggest that authors may be 1) regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question or 2) regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question, and published materials by authors with a reliable publication process. So the first statement seems to suggest that a first criterion, the authors are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question, may be required. Raj2004 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi!Goethean,i appreciate you for your neutral point of veiw towards Doniger article,i have not understood why some users like Rudrasharman is abusing you,i donot know what he want to prove.he reverted my edits that support doniger as a Sanskritist,i think he is violating wikipedia policies,please do something about him.--Vedvyasa (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. If you defend scholars on that page, be prepared to be attacked personally in the most vicious terms possible, both on- and off-wiki. Several administrators are involved in the conflict and refuse to do anything about Rudrasharman's blatant and habitual violation of Wikipdia policy. Thus we are on our own. — goethean ॐ 17:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, me,i donot know what is he proving,just see Abecedare talkpage New SPA?,he is tring to prove me a sockpupettier of your,what kind of person he is?--Vedvyasa (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On my suggestion rudra has removed abusive statement from doniger talk page,i think he is recovering,cheers --Vedvyasa (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

what r u doing gothean,i didnot expect this from u,i think rudra and raj2004 was right,everybody has got a lot of frustration from u--Vedvyasa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Goethean, your suspicions of sockpuppetry were obviously right. But turned out to be another troll, Mkbdtu (talk · contribs). Indeffed. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. — goethean ॐ 21:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Unit commensurability

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your removal

Yes, I agree that it was a weblog. However, I am little puzzled that you removed [[13]] , as I was stating Professor Doniger's defense, as to why she felt that she was mischaracterized. (i.e., ^ Wendy Doniger has stated that Professor Witzel has misunderstood her use of the liberties that she had taken with the Penguin translation of the Rig Veda as she could not employ a lot of footnotes and had to to "smooth out a lot of lines in ways that did in fact take her farther from the literal meanings of the words." http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/univercity/a_response_by_wendy_doniger.html rejoinder]. I had thought that the article should be fair on both sides. The current version only has Professor Witzel's view.

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Weblogs are not reliable sources. Do not source content in a BLP to weblogs. If you have any questions or comments about this Wikipedia policy, please inquire on the talk page related to the corresponding policy. — goethean ॐ 18:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, weblogs are generally not reliable sources. The weblog in this case was a defense of Doniger by herself, "in her own words.". Doniger was defending herself against an attack by Professor Witzel of her Sanskrit competence. If you, a supporter of Professor Doniger, object to her defense, then I won't stand in your way. Raj2004 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You assume that the text on the weblog is an accurate transcription of a letter from Doniger. Weblogs are not reilable sources for such information. Therefore, your assumption is faulty. If you have any questions or comments about Wikipedia policy, please inquire on the talk page related to the corresponding policy. — goethean ॐ 19:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

<clue>WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB</clue> rudra (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not Doniger's blog, so the material isn't published by Doniger. It is unreliable, and precisely in line with the rest of the fiction that you have added to the article. — goethean ॐ 19:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Who's arguing? Why so hyper? I had agreed with you that weblogs are not reliable. Geez!!! Therefore, your argument is a waste of time, as I had already agreed.

Raj2004 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In any event, the blog editor claims to be Manan Ahmed, a Ph.d. in the history of Islam in South Asia from the University of Chicago, at http://www.chapatimystery.com/about He presumably knows Doniger. It is possible that she sat at his dissertation defense. Raj2004 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What a weblog claims is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia in any way. Please use your head and stop wasting my time. — goethean ॐ 19:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity. All this pettifoggery is because someone can't stand the fact that Doniger acknowledged Witzel's critique. (This has been known for years.) rudra (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and see how your confident assurances fare. — goethean ॐ 19:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Goethean, you had said that we are not working in good faith. However, you consistently go ahead and insult us, instead of listening to us. I had already conceded that weblogs may be unreliable but was pointing out to your thick skull what the blog editor claimed to be. You are the one who is wasting our time. Raj2004 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:3RR

• 00:47, 18 March [14]
• 23:40 17 March [15]
• 23:19 17 March [16]
• 23:09 17 March [17]

Buddhipriya (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reposting private correspondence

Goethean, please do not post private email correspondence on-wiki, least of all with email addresses and full names, etc. We've already had plenty of precedent to have this sort of thing oversighted as being abusive and in this case, I've done just that. Please don't do this again - Alison ^❤ 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And using the Wikipedia email system to harass editors is a-okay? Fabulous. — goethean ॐ 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. But then again, two wrongs don't make a right. Next time, if it's privacy-related, best take the matter to either Functionaries or ArbCom. We've had plenty of mayhem in the past over posting of emails - Alison ^❤ 18:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

two wrongs don't make a right

Neither does blaming the victim and ignoring rewarding the aggressor. — goethean ॐ 18:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, Goethean. Nobody is 'rewarding' anyone here. WP:AGF an' all that. Put it this way; repost private correspondence on here again and I'll suppress it again and block your account. Try not to stoop to the level of your 'aggressors' here - Alison ^❤ 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Weirdly your user page was editable by IP's even though it had been semi-protected earlier by me. I have redone the protection; lets see if it works this time. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Goethean (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please examine the material which I repeatedly removed from Talk:Wendy Doniger. I believe that it violated WP:Talk and was inappropriate to be posted repeatedly to that talk page. — goethean ॐ 8:56 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

The material itself has nothing to do with your block. The "repeatedly removed" part does. Future unblock requests should address the reason for your block (edit warring) and how your behavior will change to avoid future blocks. TNXMan 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just as a public record, here is the content which I was blocked for removing:

• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

User:Rudrasharman received no sanction or warning for his edit warring, personal attacks, spamming, and abuse of edit summaries. — goethean ॐ 20:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Parvati. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --All knowledge is free for all (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who is edit warring. Your edits go against Wikipedia policy and talk page consensus. — goethean ॐ 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you, but the image you added, may be an UNDUE. As an image in the same style already exists. See Parvati talk. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool

I have nominated The Political Cesspool, an article that you have contributed to in the past, as a featured article candidate. Feel free to contribute to the discussion here. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Urrutia

Good catch there, I'd missed that. I'm not surprised it was there though. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Goethe

Please go to the talk page of Goethe and see read my comment.Thank you!--Knight1993 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This concerns you

[24]. Mitsube (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI -- an idea for possible long-term resource for dealing such situations.

Go to: User_talk:Mitsube#WP:Essay_on_Scientism.3F

-- Health Researcher (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks / response

Thanks for the FYI. Let me interject that I didn't intend to call you any names (I almost never do that with anyone), and I think a careful reading would show that I didn't call you any names (I would characterize the statement you italicized as a criticism of some behavior, but not name calling). But I acknowledge that you disagree with at least one of my earlier statements, and I support that it is your perfect right to disagree. At any rate, thank you for the info about the user report. It appears that the report page is only gathering evidence about events dealing with those particular pages. So it doesn't appear it would be appropriate for me to contribute. But I have certainly had experiences with that user on other pages that converge what what you and others are reporting. The user's behavior has repeatedly made it impossible for me to assume good faith on his part. If at some point there is an appropriately-forumed expanded discussion of that user's behavior - which I suspect could be quite helpful for improving Wikipedia' work environment in certain sectors - I imagine that huge numbers of people could potentially attest to similar inappropriate behaviors on his part. Thanks again and be well -- Health Researcher (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ben Lowe

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. moɳo 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)