| Revision as of 02:04, 13 October 2007 editM Alan Kazlev (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users3,151 edits Integral thought and Wilberian Integral← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:12, 25 October 2007 edit undoFlamingspinach (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,896 edits Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of Abdallah Higazy. using TWNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| <small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account operated by the ] to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please ].</center></small> | <small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account operated by the ] to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please ].</center></small> | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| <div align="right">''This message delivered: 00:16, 24 January |
<div align="right">''This message delivered: 00:16, 24 January 2 | ||
| ==Zen== | |||
| The Bodhidharma paragraph is mutually agreed upon after extensive discussion and though I would like to have a stronger mention I'm content with the neutral version of the paragraph. I'm sorry for reverting your edits and my apologies if you took offence. | |||
| <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I became involved after objections from other editors on the misleading introduction. The Taoism introduction ''was'' misleading, my friend. I incorporated Duomlin's paragraphs in the article and mentioned Taoist influence. I even refrained from the mention of Hinduism to accomadate the other party. The mention of Bodhidharma was crafted and modified by neutral third party after a full scale dispute on Bodhidharma. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Kenny vandalized the ] and ] articles. His past actions and intentions are covered in detail on the ] and the ]. Kindly do take a look for yourself. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reopening of arbitration== | |||
| I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review ]. ] 15:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Does ] violate ]? What evidence do you have that he will announce on this date, because it is ''highly'' likely that the article will be speedied. <b><font color="#6495ED" face="georgia">]</font></b> 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't forget this as well...] This article should be deleted as is is just a bold face political advertisement. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == RFC Link == | |||
| On the ] page you pointed the link for ForrestLane42's RFC page at JJay's RFC page by mistake - it's fixed now. ] 00:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Anatta == | |||
| Thanks for your help reverting the aggressive changes to ] lately. This is the work of ], who usually edits under a variety of IP addresses beginning with 4. He's not generally worth paying very much attention to, due to a casual disregard for civility, 3RR, and other community norms, and due to the fact that the sources he cites tend to be questionable (such as in the examples I mentioned on ]). I'm going to go on a wikibreak for a while，so I'd appreciate it if you could check his contributions now and then if he pops up—he concentrates mostly on ], but sometimes also targets other pages too. It would be great if you could help keep an eye on that. Cheers, ]<sup>(]·])</sup> 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC/ForrestLane42 == | |||
| Dear Goethean, I made a commentary of sorts ], and I hope it may prove useful and propitious. — ]]] 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Roskam/Hinnen == | |||
| I've had it. I'm out of there. Let this nut WP:OWN the article for now. I'll be back after he is banned. --] 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I notice that you weren't gone very long, Ben. And I haven't been banned ... at least not yet, despite the relentless baiting and ]. I just went ahead and formed a consensus that did not include the two of you. Let's see how the Good Article Review turns out. Will the two of you agree to accept the result? ] 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for those kind words. --] 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==re:dallman== | |||
| I am not sure if you gave me the right link, it seemed to be a discussion about Obama and his comment on wasted lives. While I know its not PC for what he said, I personally feel that we have wasted precious lives in an effort to destabilize the Middle East. But all in all the blog exchange was amusing. But was the alleged intregal blogger u were mentioning? ] 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42 | |||
| ===Barnstar=== | |||
| <gallery> | |||
| Image:Barnstar.png|I award ] barnstar in appreciation of contributions to article related to ]--] 05:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </gallery> | |||
| == Re:] == | |||
| Hi there. When you're in a content dispute with other editors, please don't write "rv v" as your edit summary. This implies that the other users' edits are vandalism. Content disputes and vandalism are two different things, and calling another user's edits vandalism is uncivil. Thanks. ] 05:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I have reminded you goethean, dont make revisions without substantiations, you have not given evidences here in talk but reverted anatta countless times. Whereas myself, I have given more than ample logic and citations. That you rather "dispute content" must be substantiated, further 'rv-ing' of Anatta is a commision of vandalism by yourself.- User Attasarana | |||
| ==Request for Mediation== | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="width:80%" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| | | |||
| |A ] to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, ]. | |||
| ::::::::''For the Mediation Committee,'' <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> | |||
| <small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account operated by the ] to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please ].</center></small> | |||
| |} | |||
| <div align="right">''This message delivered: 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)''.</div> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I've requested an arbitration regarding the conduct of ] and listed you as a party because of your involvement at ]. | |||
| Can I trouble you to write a brief statement at ] about your impressions of Freedom skies' edits and conduct? | |||
| Thank you. | |||
| ] 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Category:Books by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe== | |||
| Hi, the situation as I found it was all number of different types of "work" by Goethe was lumped together as "Works of .." which normally would be under the main category "Works '''by''' artist". However they were under "Books by author" which didn't apply to maybe half of the work if I recal correctly. I could have just moved the "Works of ..." to place it under "Works by artist". But that would have meant that true "Books" by Goethe would not have appeared directly under that category. So hence the split. They could be merged again, but already some discussion has suggested some support for the split (somewhere under "Categories under discussion"). All I would ask is that we don't go back to exactly the way it was. Thanks :: ] : ]/] 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at ]. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Recent Wilberian edit== | |||
| I see your point goethean, but I dont think "drawn on" a variety of disciplines makes sense. I think it can imply that Wilber has a good grasp of each of the listed disciplines, it gives the reader the false impression that he is in command of these disciplines which I think is far from true. While my use of "interpretation" might not be good as well I think something should be added or reworded to emphasize that the fact that Wilber is taking bits of info from different discipline to make his "integral theory of consciousness." Can we come up with a solution? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| Well as usual, I beg to differ.... with your reference to Adi Da, I actually thinks fit a little better to the wilber line in question; | |||
| I say that because it gives more accurately the impression that he is drawing from pscyhology, etc rather than adding disciplines which to me implies an expertise on the matters listed. In reference to open to other compromises, what exactly are you implying? ] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42 | |||
| From your comments on talk page, what do you mean "I will consider it." Are you implying that you have control over the editing? I just would like clarification since your wording seems to imply ownership?... ] 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42 | |||
| Gotcha, be careful with your wording; it easily could have been misconstrued happy trails] 21:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42 | |||
| == List of pubs == | |||
| As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on ] and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found ]. Thanks. - ] 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Quadrupel == | |||
| Hi, buddy, how are you? I saw you put a "citation needed" on the quadrupel page. Cool idea, but maybe you need to look up the meaning of the word "references". Have a nice day, buddy. ] 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| sorry dude...i had to revert your bibliographic entry, because it was not formatted per mos guidelines with the all caps and malformed citations. i've found using ] to be really helpful when adding that much data. check out ] for an example. --] | ] 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Integral theory talk page== | |||
| I am a little confused as to why the ] for ] is redirected to ]. Do you remember why you ? The discussion at Integral thought doesn't explain why Integral theory doesn't have its own talk page. --] 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, but shouldn't the theory article have its own talk page? Would you object to dropping the redirect? --] 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, I replied before I saw your second message. --] 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. | |||
| *] is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. | |||
| *Freedom skies shall select one account and use only that account. Any other account used may be indefinitely banned. Pending selection of an account Freedom skies may not edit Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period of time. Blocks and bans are to be logged at ]. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee --] 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Goetheanum == | |||
| Hey Goethean, building such a large and significant structure as a memorial to Goethe seems important enough to me to put it in the Wiki about J.W. von Goethe; could you explain to me why not? ] 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The relative historical importance of Steiner's building is a matter of opinion. And it is an issue on which the opinion of Steiner advocates differs greatly from the rest of society. That said, I have added a reference to the Goetheaneum into the article. But honestly, I'm not sure that it improves the article. — ] ] 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| Thanks, I think it does. ] 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello Goethean, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as ]. The image (]) was found at the following location: ]. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the ] or ] license or released to the ]. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. ]] 04:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == George Soros page== | |||
| I do not appreciate your revert. | |||
| And since you are such a champion for WP:BLP I challenge you to remove a statement on George W. Bush's page that is, as Goethe would say, archetypally identical to the one you removed from George Soros's page. | |||
| Here's the statement so that you won't have to look for it: | |||
| "Activist and filmmaker Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, making a plethora of accusations against Bush, most notably using public sentiments following 9/11 for political purposes, financial connections between the Bush family and the prominent Saudi Arabian families such as the royal family and the Bin Laden family, and lying about the cause for war in Iraq." | |||
| It'll be interesting to see what you do here.] 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I assumed that you didn't actually believe in your own interpretation of WP:BLP and I was correct. ] 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You demand that I edit a particular article and when I ignore you, you accuse me of bad faith? Please stop trolling my userpage. — ] ] 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I won't post on your userpage anymore, but I am not going to sit still while you reduce what I'm doing to trolling. | |||
| I want to point out to you that you twist policies to fit your agenda and revert my edits. All I did was call you out on it. I wanted to show that you don't seem to care for Misplaced Pages's best interests when it conflicts with your personal beliefs. I apologize if I hurt your feelings in doing so, but I simply don't like to be reverted by editors who have an obvious bias. ] 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No one can make you look like a troll except yourself. Please go tell someone else which pages to edit. — ] ] 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It appears to me that you want your way on Soros's page despite any amount of policies or reasoning. I told you a long time ago that I lost good faith and your latest revert, despite proof contrary to your reasoning, is what I'm talking about. ] 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Joehazelton is back, as "Willie Peter"== | |||
| Hi. Another editor has discovered that "Willie Peter" , who magically came out of nowhere to revert you on the ] page, is a sock of Joehazelton, whose sockpuppetry I see you've unearthed in the past. . I'm trying to get the admins to take the look at this, so the permanent block can be issued. At the moment, the Hazelton sock is taking advantage of a sympathetic admin. Any info you can contribute would be much appreciated. Thanks. ] 06:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Straw poll on Soros matter == | |||
| I'm asking for a straw poll to settle the Soros discussion. Please participate. ] 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New Poll== | |||
| Hey, I understand your objection to inserting the old material w/out strong consensus, but this is new material that we had worked hard to make as neutral as possible. I'd really appreciate any input you might have. ] 15:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've posted my thoughts about this on the Soros page, in which I hope I've accurately referenced your concerns. Please let me know if I got it wrong. Thanks! ] 06:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apparently frustrated by his inability to build a consensus, Bellowed has decided to resort to untruths. He is attempting to state the 5-4 divided vote on the ] Talk page as an overwhelming consensus for including the O'Reilly material.. Please stop by the Talk page; your help would be greatly appreciated. ] 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Goethe== | |||
| How would you cite Goethe as a quote? | |||
| As... | |||
| Johann Goethe | |||
| Wolfgang Goethe | |||
| Wolfgang von Goethe | |||
| Could use you're help..thanks ForrestLane42 | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi again. Would you mind stopping by the ] Talk page and weighing in with your opinion? The same situation on the ] page--wherein two editors are claiming that attacks by Bill O'Reilly should be included as legitimate "criticism" of the article subject--is breaking out on the Moyers page. Any thoughts you have on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --] 05:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talkpage== | |||
| Mine. Don't post there again.--] 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Then stop posting on mine. I guess abusive <s>administrators</s> editors who regularly make false accusations and who are by corrupt administrators can afford to give out orders like that. — ] ] 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Pic Removal == | |||
| First, when I looked at the picture I couldn't tell it was linked to the RFA. Second, why do we need the picture of that one? If you feel like mentioning that a user (could be mongo) left that comment, just link to it, just as the other were linked (and not pictured). '''] ]''' <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello - do you have a link to that commentary where you took the pic of? Could you please post the link here? Thank you. ] 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no static link; that's why I used a screenshot instead. You have to search through the postings . Of course, by ], a partisan Republican abusive administrator. — ] ] 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't find it anymore! I wonder if it was deleted or changed to this less hard version: | |||
| :::"Keeping Conservatives Down: A vast, left-wing conspiracy has been put in place to keep a self-described conservative from becoming an admin by using sockpuppets and single purpose users. Why? Because he believes in God, opposes affirmative action, and supports authority" ] 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since when is deleting a copyright violation that has no fair use criteria "abusive"? I advise you to study ]. You can't just upload any images or text that you wish from any site you wish. I believe that you have been around the project long enough to know this. Also, please refrain from making generalizations about other people's politics and views. --] 23:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am still waiting for you to substantiate your charges of my being a "partisan Republican abusive administrator". Thank you. --] 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, let's take the first two adjectives. Do you object to being called a partisan Republican? — ] ] 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I try to keep my personal politics out of wikipedia and maintain NPOV. My views should be no one's concern but my own. I don't claim have a perfect record of NPOV, but I don't think I have done badly. Most of my activity in wikipedia has been on uncontroversial subjects, and I try to stay neutral on both the controversial and non-controversial issues. So yes, I object to that characterization. But now, let's talk about the third word "abusive". If you really think that I am abusive, I recommend that you open a ]. As far as the fourth word "administrator" is concerned, I suppose that the arbitration committee will decide if that will still be a correct description. Peace. --] 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I guess that it's not surprising that that's how you ''present'' yourself, but it would be shocking to me if you actually ''saw'' yourself like that. — ] ] 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::(indent reset) You purport to know a lot about me. Again, what evidence do you have that I am a "partisan Republican abusive administrator". What are you trying to accomplish by attacking me? Good day. --] 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was trying to accurately describe the situation as I saw it. — ] ] 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't know how else to ask this....please provide evidence of my being a "partisan Republican abusive administrator". You should then provide this same evidence to the arbitration committee. Thank you. --] 21:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am asking this for the '''6th time''', sir. Please provide evidence to back up your claim that I am partisan and abusive. Either that or retract your accusation. You have attacked my integrity, and we need to clear this up ASAP. I don't think my request is unreasonable in light of the fact that my character has be attacked. Thank you. --] 04:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Whenever I've come into contact with you --- for example, your ultra-speedy deletion of the screenshot that I posted --- your edits are either helping Republican causes or hurting Democrat causes. That's not what I call neutral. — ] ] 16:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sir, that image was a clear copyright violation and its speedy deletion was completely within wikipedia policy. If you feel that the deletion was unwarranted, why didn't you contest it? You have been around the project long enough to know this. IMO, that does not justify the use "abusive" charge that you have leveled. --] 17:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My recent edits == | |||
| Dear Goethean, | |||
| Since you are familiar with me and, more significantly still, my work here on Misplaced Pages, I have come to request a small consideration on your part, in the case that the need truly arise, to form a judgment upon my edits in relation to this developing quarrel on Eric Lerner and other recent edits of mine, which I find to be so strange that I fear I will require third-party validation, that is, to prove through outside opinion that I have no ill intent and that I was never in the wrong on this matter. True, you are a busy human being, but I hope I have not reduced my stature here so as to merit such a ridiculous Wikipedic beating as this. You have my sincerest thanks, in any case.— <sup>]</sup> <span style="position: relative; left: -30px; margin-right: -30px;"><sub>]]</sub></span> 14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As I indicated above, I can only thank you for your comment on my talk page pertaining to this nonetheless troubling circumstance. What still, however, appears confounding is the time ] had actually initiated this wholly uncivil tactic against me on the and articles; this obviously nullifies your hypothetical account that it had to do with the plasma cosmology articles' imperilment on Misplaced Pages. Truth to tell, I rarely edit as frequently as I had done previously, explainable through a myriad of reasons, but does that so much as merit such stark, almost baseless suspicion against me? I suppose, when I have more time, I will attempt to address these counter proposals to Arthur directly (that is, if he does not take notice before then) and hope that this Wikipedic mess is washed clean. Only on Misplaced Pages can one desire—with fulfillment—to cross the paths of such enduring misunderstandings.— <sup>]</sup> <span style="position: relative; left: -30px; margin-right: -30px;"><sub>]]</sub></span> 16:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Goethean, any additional comments you might add in the on-going discussion would be increasingly and momentously helpful. My fears have been more than validated. The man continues to hawk me very closely. It is almost abusive in nature and not only irritating.— <sup>]</sup> <span style="position: relative; left: -30px; margin-right: -30px;"><sub>]]</sub></span> 21:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I retract my attempts. Misplaced Pages is obviously suited to individuals who enjoy flaunting their vanity through empty credentials, who ] others out of abuse of administrative privileges, and so on. "igni" will no longer exist as a user, that is, for a long time to come.— <sup>]</sup> <span style="position: relative; left: -30px; margin-right: -30px;"><sub>]]</sub></span> 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Goethean, | |||
| Sadly, or not so sadly, I have been forced by my concerns to return, even if under the gaze of another questionable editor. I merely wish herewith to inform you of this, but my contributions, as is usually the case, will be quite sparse due to many causal influences. I look forward to any possible future collaborations I might have with you again. — <sup>]</sup> <span style="position: relative; left: -30px; margin-right: -30px;"><sub>]]</sub></span> 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi! Thanks for introducing corrections. I'd be grateful if you pointed out what fragments need correction or if you could correct them. Do you think this article is near to GA? Best regards, ] 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notification== | |||
| As a first step in the dispute resolution process, I have filed an . - ] 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Would you like to help? == | |||
| Hello, I have been noticing that almost each conservative blog and commenter has an article on wikipedia but liberal ones dont. Even blogs that dont exist any more like allahpundit have big articles. IMO the RW wiki editors have done a very good job promoting their people and sites and blogs on Wiki. Much better than the liberals! I guess we're too worried about <B> real</B> issues to write all the self-promotion! I was reading some comments and I discovered that there is no wiki article for the <B> very </B> important website and blog newshounds.us. It tracks Fox news and other RW media, and is very regarded like Mediamatters. Its with ] of ]. Would you help me write this article in my Sandbox a little before I move it to the 'mainspace'? I was advised not to put it there as a 'stub' as the RWs who watch me wil 'AFD' it in a NY Minute. I was advised that it would be better for me to stay away from the high profile 'battleground' articles where I get into fights from being provoked and write <B> new</B> content and edit articles where there are no giant wars. I will not edit Larry Craig again for now, for instance. This seems like good advice. Any way, I started the article here, and you could really help. English is not my first language and I don't know all the Wiki rules yet. Thank you. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Quadrupel == | |||
| I have reverted the articles. The vote, before your late appearance, was 3-1 in favour of the merge. You chose to use your vote to make a personal attack rather than justify your vote. Call it a half vote. That's 3-1.5. But, look at it from your POV, it is still 3-2. That is consensus. | |||
| Feel free to revert it as often as you like. I am taking administrative action against you for violation of WP:NPA and reverting something you had no right to revert. Oh, and I'm doing it off-site, so don't bother trying to respond. ] 07:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Oh, and I'm doing it off-site, so don't bother trying to respond.'' | |||
| :Very sly! — ] ] 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sai Baba== | |||
| I've introduced corrections. Do you think it's OK now? ] 17:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Can it be nominated again for GA? Best regards ] 09:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've re-nominated it. ] 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sociocultural evolution FAR== | |||
| ] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ]. | |||
| ==Integral thought and Wilberian Integral== | |||
| Hi Goethean. | |||
| I think we need to reorganise the Integral Thought template; only list there people who are specifically considered or consider themselves integral thinkers. Others like Baldwin, Graves etc can go on the Wilber template. Others again don't have to be listed in the template, they can just be mentioned in the main article. What do you think? ] 02:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:12, 25 October 2007
 | goethean is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
goethean
goethean, I am not harrassing you, please stop making such abusive remarks about me or my character. I am learning how to edit, so yes I make mistakes, sorry I can't be perfect. So actually, you please leave me personally alone. I will only talk to you on relvant wikipedia issues and edits. I am free to do so, this is wikipedia?? Clearly on your own user talk page, there is a history of antagonizing fellow wiki editors adding to the fact u have been partied to many arbitrations and revert edit wars...ForrestLane42 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
User:ForrestLane42
I've noted that you accused ForrestLane42 of harassment for going through several attempts to have Chicago Humanities Festival deleted. I know that you and ForrestLane42 don't exactly agree on the topics you share knowledge of, but I must advise you to assume good faith. It's not as if ForrestLane42 was attacking other articles that you might have created. He initially took the opinion that Chicago Humanities Festival was worthy for deletion; then he seemed to have trouble figuring out how to get it deleted. His steps—from blanking the page, to tagging it for speedy deletion, to listing it on AfD—seem to simply be a fairly inexperienced editor getting his bearings regarding how Misplaced Pages works.
You may or may not disagree with my assessment. However, I will advise you to be less confrontational in the future. Cut down on the accusations and concentrate on rational discussion. If ForrestLane42 does something similar in the future, refute his arguments with solid facts and rational points. If his motive is indeed harassment, this will quickly become apparent, and other editors will side with you. However, if you continue confront him every time he makes an edit, you may begin to come off as something of a jerk, even if you are entirely correct in your actions. Take the high road.
On the other side, I am advising ForrestLane42 to employ talk pages far more often, keep his cool, present his arguments clearly and completely, and to make inquiries when he has questions about Misplaced Pages procedures, so as to minimize misinterpretations of his actions. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- All right, you seriously have to chill out. Even if ForrestLane42 did intentionally look through your contributions and choose Chicago Humanities Festival to pick on, there really is no way to prove this. Action taken upon one article does not constitute harassment. In addition, he seemed to honestly think that the article was unencyclopedic; this does not appear to be intentional disruption. Further actions on articles that you are involved in may qualify as such, depending on the circumstances.
- Putting the everything else aside, you have done nothing so far to mitigate the dispute. While ForrestLane42 has at least accepted my suggestions on improving his editing, you seem to be intent solely on proving ForrestLane42's malfeasance. This is hurting Misplaced Pages more than helping it. He may or may not be harassing you, but until it can be proved, cease accusing ForrestLane42 of wrongdoing. There is next to no evidence for it, and you are just being uncivil and creating an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion.
- I will be advising ForrestLane42 to forgo his desired "apology."
- He may or may not be harassing you, but until it can be proved, cease accusing ForrestLane42 of wrongdoing.
- That is why I asked User:ForrestLane42 a simple, civil question: How did he happen upon Chicago Humanities Festival? He could easily have responded with a simple answer, confirming or disconfirming my suspicions, or he could have ignored the question. He chose instead to evade, and to disingenuously claim that the question was an attack on his reputation. Unfortunately, you, User:Larry V, seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between incivility and a simple, ordinary, quite obvious question. This is potentially about a user nominating an article for deletion in retaliation for me making edits that a user didn't like. It is extremely unfortunate that you feel that the best response is to scold me. — goethean ॐ 21:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I "scold" you only because you are the far more experienced editor (over three years of experience), who should know better than to continue "feuds" like this. I'm not sure that ForrestLane42 knows any better, having only a month of experience on Misplaced Pages. I can see that your question was intended to make a simple query, but I can also see how an agitated, distressed editor such as ForrestLane42 could misinterpret its somewhat pointed style as indicative of a bad-faith accusation. I can also see how an inexperienced editor could perhaps attempt to delete an article in retaliation, ignorant of the explicit Misplaced Pages policy against such actions. Then again, one doesn't have to know Misplaced Pages policy to figure out that such an action would be somewhat unethical in any sense, so that wouldn't really be excusable, if it were the motive.
- In any case, I'm not trying to blame either of you; I'm trying to mediate this conflict, and all I'm asking is that you, as the senior editor, provide an example by not escalating it. I'll be asking other editors for their views of the situation in an attempt to get a better view.
- Thanks for your candor. — goethean ॐ 17:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
F.Y.I.
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Nonviolent Communication
I noticed that you contributed to the Nonviolent Communication article at some time. A friend just recommended NVC to me because I am trying to mediate for Sri Lanka related articles. I really love it - I'm just devouring the eponymous book, but I am still very inexperienced. Moreover, applying the techniques to Misplaced Pages-style communication has its own challenges. Therefore, I could use some help from people who have more experience with NVC. You could help Misplaced Pages, Sri Lanka, the nonviolence movement and me greatly by looking at some of my edits and giving me honest feedback on User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC. — Sebastian 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"butchered" SQL entry
Actually, I'm fairly comfortable with removing the SQL entry on the grounds that it isn't really a misnomer. But as it stood, if "butcher" means "bring in line with known facts", it needed butchering. -Dmh 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Epic of Evolution
Hi Goethean,
Why have you removed the article on the Epic of Evolution? I am new to Misplaced Pages and don't understand the process of it's deletion. 67.174.179.59 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Momosean 05:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
i again. I looked over what happened. It seems that at 17:06 on Dec. 20, you proposed the article be deleted. 5 minutes later you deleted all but a stub. 4 minutes later you rewrote it into something that was vastly different that the original. Then, with this totally different version, 2 others voted to delete because it wasn't notable. One said it was neutral and one voted to redirect. These comments were made after your edits created a non-notable stub. Their tone also sound like they were based on major revision of yours and not on the original article. Is this what happened?Momosean 07:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Zen, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
reverted your edits on Zen
Freedom skies has reverted your edits on zen by the way Kennethtennyson 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"Reverted Goethean's apperent vandalism"
political bias and wikipolicy
Why would you retract what that person has confronted you with? Afraid of people seeeing it. ForrestLane42 06:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
Indeed, we are all hypocrites, are you just content on wasting your time on harassing me and showing my errors? The difference in why I removed those edits, is that they are irrelvant and were sent as advice on what not to do, the question still remains why you afraid of people seeing it? Should I just post it for you? ForrestLane42 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
Thank you for his blog, I intend to look at it myself. I can certainly sympathic to your cause. ForrestLane42 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
I just took a glance at his blog, which shows for the first time, something we seem to have in common which is our political views. Who would have guess? But regardless, political POV should not be included in any wiki articles. ForrestLane42 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
Yes, its true, but he can't go on abusing this. Bring it to the attention of LarryV, sys adminstrator beore he does it to you and me. ForrestLane42 19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Zen.
|