User talk:Goethean

Archives: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

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

Your recent editing history at Spiral Dynamics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 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)