Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:56, 14 June 2012

Archives: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Archive 4 Archive 5

This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Mediation Request Re: Adi Da page

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Mediation case name has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Tao2911 (talk)

Queen WikiProject

Hello, I've seen you around editing some of Queen's articles. Would you consider becoming a member of Queen WikiProject, a collaborative effort which works to improve the coverage of Queen related articles on Misplaced Pages? If you're interested, join us!

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians interested in Integral or Transpersonal theory

Category:Wikipedians interested in Integral or Transpersonal theory, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon

I'm pretty new to wikipedia

I don't understand how to send messages between users apart from this talk page, but could use your voice on the Limbaugh page. I started a section under the talk page re fact checking orgs. Feel free to join in if you have a strong feeling one way or the other. Thanks!Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, that article, like much of Misplaced Pages, is over-run with right-wing douchebags. Why would a series of articles in the Washington Post showing Limbaugh to be a liar be relevant to the Rush Limbaugh biography? — goethean ॐ 16:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a high level of willful blindness going on in that talk page. They're spinning in their own illogic trying to come up with new reasons to exclude it. If you could voice your two cents, it'd be appreciated.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

i feel your pain on this, we have been trying to work solendra into the Obama page for months. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44638883/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/solyndra-leaders-invoke-th-amendment-hearing/ Darkstar1st (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh sure, because Solyndra is so important to Obama's biography. Thank you for illustrating the brain-dead imbecility that I'm talking about. — goethean ॐ 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Goethean, I think you have a stalker...this is your talk page...how did he insert a Fox News talking point into the middle of our chat? Misplaced Pages is weird.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jason, the link is to msnbc, not fox. 02:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

btw, what you are doing is calt canvassing, peep this WP:CAN. i like new people in wp and hope i dont scare you, just showing u the ropes, peace and chicken grease. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

goethe, Solyndra is very significant to one of the two dominant political parties in the United States as an illustration of the merits of the Obama administration. Br77rino (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrections Corporation of America

Hi, Goethean. I noticed a couple of new editors were having some trouble on the talk page for CCA, and that they mentioned your most recent edit there. They seem to be well-intentioned, but are also casting about, a little, trying to figure out how to respond to the problem they raise there. For example, they took the dispute here, to DRN. Since your recent edit is mentioned by them, I think it would be appropriate to suggest that you might like to weigh in on the talk page to try to help resolve the problem there. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In an attempt to lower my blood pressure, I will no longer be dealing directly with right-wing douche bags. — goethean ॐ 23:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I just wanted to stop by and say sorry for my revert. I believe you were correct in your section blanking, and in aggressively trimming back poorly sourced material. It bears watching. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. — goethean ॐ 17:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin

Hi, Goethean. We miss you at the ALEC and CCA articles, but one does what one must re blood pressure. I noticed your edits to the Kimberlin article, though, and wanted to direct you to WP:BLPPRIMARY. All the material in that article that's cited only to legal documents needs to go. Court documents are not to be cited that way, in BLPs. I'm not going to make the changes myself, since I have too much on my plate already, but I'd suggest you post to talk with a link to BLPPRIMARY, and politely warn others not to restore the court docs at all, or the material that was cited to them without new reliable, permissible sources to support it. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism talk page

Please see this section, and give your input. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Cosmos and Psyche listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:Cosmos and Psyche. Since you had some involvement with the Misplaced Pages:Cosmos and Psyche redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've noticed some worrying things about the sourcing on the Cosmos and Psyche article, particularly note the following guidelines and policies: WP:FRINGE, WP:VALID and WP:BALANCE. On wikipedia it is important to not give a misleading impression of the acceptance of pseudoscience and fringe theories. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a neat trick you played — you asked for comments on a noticeboard, and when editors responded that the article had been written in a fair and neutral manner, you disregarded their comments and removed large sections of well-sourced content from the article anyways. I'm going to have to try that the next time that I see material that I disagree with and would like to suppress. On the other hand, I don't normally try to suppress content just because I disagree with it. I usually leave that to religious fanatics. — goethean ॐ 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the response again: However, the complete lack of any source evaluating its factual claims leaves a huge gap in the article, and the positive literary reviews easily give the impression that the factual claims have also been weighed and accepte, But since we don't have any secondary sources to determine e.g. whether the author's claims about correlations between culture and planetary alignments are statistically meaningful, there's not much we can or should say about this subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't sound to me like "suppress much of the article in a Draconian way so that it corresponds to your personal ideology." — goethean ॐ 18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I will not respond to this section further as you seem intent to make everything personal. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)