User talk:Goethean
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Bodymind
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bodymind, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — goethean ॐ 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Origin of nondual
Nondualism, Or Dualism, Or Duality, etc. etc. come from the Latin 'Duos' meaning Two, Sorry to break your Bubble, You seemed to really be on a roll with the New Age edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.254.135 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations on being unhelpful and insulting in equal parts. You think I don't know that the word nondual derives from dual? But nonetheless, if there are no examples of the English word nondual before the reception in the West of the Sanskrit term advaita, then the term nondual is probably a translation of advaita. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky
An editor has nominated Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your User:Goethean/Human (disambiguation) subpage
The subpage shouldn't be around because of: "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." which is found on Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages. If you have no interest in the page, I suggest using {{db-author}} on it, instead of leaving it inactive. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Wikipedia subpages aren't permanent storage for articles. I suggest some cleanup and db-author tags to a majority of the pages in [1]. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Schopenhauer
Good work! Thankyou.Andycjp (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] MfD nomination of User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy)
User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy), a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Post-rational
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Post-rational, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Post-rational. Mattisse 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Mother zieht uns hinan
Sup Goethean. I see you editing Sri Aurobindo, and I just had to drop you a line. I only know what Wikipedia tells me about the Supermind and Supramentalisation, so I'm a bit newb here, but I couldn't help but see the linkage between some of the Sri's lovely (if intimidatingly mystic) ideas and a commentary I've recently read on Goethe's Faust. This wonderful Texan liberal arts prof TK Seung has a text Goethe, Nietzsche, and Wagner, in which he contends that the defining works of each is a "Spinozan" deification of the world/nature.
I wonder what you'd have to say to this? Also, I wasn't quite sure if Dr. Seung was being madly radical in proclaiming that Romanticism blossomed from Spinoza, or from the thought embodied by Spinoza. Have you read this or considered this yourself? Also, as you apparently are interested in both Sri Aurobindo and the G-man, what do you envision as linkages between the two? When I read in the Supramentalisation section of supermind about Aurobindo's conception of descent and a return to Earth, it echoed as Seung's consideration of Goethe and his "mystical naturalism".
I'm rambling, but I don't think there are many people who are interested in Sri Aurobindo and Goethe, so I thought I'd harass you a bit. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's an interesting exchange. Although I think one may contend that Goethe was no mystic (or vice versa), to flatly declare that he had a "disgust for mysticism" is either not sustainable, or just pointless. I mean, c'mon, there's a freakin Earth Spirit. And I also tend to prefer not to prod and poke at the artist behind the work so much, anyway--Goethe's cool because he made this wonderful work, not for gossipy speculation about his true personality.
- I'm glad to mention this Spinoza thing, it was really kind of disorienting. My dear TK Seung just opened up in the first sentence with, "Spinoza's pantheism was the chief inspiration of the Romantic conception of nature", as if I should have already known that; that was the foundation of his argument, not his argument! So that made me think there was some important text I was unaware of. But it's a very fascinating thesis, especially if you word it less strongly than the professor has: could Spinozism's God/Nature and Romanticism each describe the same phenomenon? Is to recycle, piety--piety to perhaps an 'Earth Spirit'?
- It's been years since I've read Faust, but I tend to think back to it as the man Faust embodying the dialectic, the man amidst the storm of dialectic, and for that reason amenable to diverse readings. Of course, on teh internets, you're most likely to find argumentative anti-social readers, like your abrasive Do-Re-Mi friend! DBaba (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Holism in science
Hi, remember me from Holism in science? I don't do much editing on Wikipedia anymore. It's gotten too Nazi for my taste. You can't post a new article here anymore; everything gets summarily deleted. (Well, I just tried posting one again -- H2PIA, the first hydrogen city (www.h2pia.com if you're interested) -- presumably the internal link will be red in a few minutes.) Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Holism in science article has survived and even seems to have found a place for itself here, although I see someone just slapped another "article doesn't cite its sources blah blah blah" banner on it. Smithfarm (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New section
Don't ever show your face where I live and don't ever let our paths cross in this life or the next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.178.110 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry
Sorry I didn't know. I was doing a bunch of things quickly, checking my watchlist, and the word "weasel" didn't seem to make sense, but I see that I made a mistake now. Sorry. David G Brault (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Ramakrishna_close.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Ramakrishna_close.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU≈talk 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I FOUND A NEW BOOK
Wikipedia Bureaucracy and “Culture”
1. Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge. Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature and uneducated ones.
2. Wikipedia’s culture of anonymous editing and administration results in a lack of responsible authorship and management. Wikipedia editors may contribute as IP addresses, or as an ever-changing set of pseudonyms. There is thus no way of determining conflicts of interest, canvassing, or other misbehaviour in article editing. Wikipedia’s adminsitrators are similarly anonymous, shielding them from scrutiny for their actions. They additionally can hide the history of their editing (or that of others).
3. Wikipedia’s administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors. Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin’s editorial point of view. There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor, and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for misbehaviour.
4. Wikipedia’s numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally on the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted. Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are frequently allowed to trangress (or change!) Wikipedia’s numerous “policies”, such as those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of personal information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in editing.
5. Wikipedia’s quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt. ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent, operates on non-existant or unwritten rules, and does not allow equal access to all editors. It will reject cases that threaten to undermine the Wikipedia status quo or that would expose powerful administrators to sanction, and will move slowly or not at all (in public) on cases it is discussing in private.
6. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally responsible for Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is insufficiently independent from Wikipedia’s remaining founder and his business interests. The WMF lacks a mechanism to address the concerns of outsiders, resulting in an insular and socially irresponsible internal culture. Because of inadequate oversight and supervision, Wikimedia has hired incompetent and (in at least one case) criminal employees. Jimmy Wales’ for-profit business Wikia benefits in numerous ways from its association with the non-profit Wikipedia.
This is what I know about wikipeidia
also I have been reading a fascinating book by a Chicagoan...Saul Alinsky and there some thoughts for which I can apply to the swamp of lies in wikipeidia and the critters that float in it's dank, dark waters...
"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it."
"One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract."
any rate, this go around you will not win....
PS...PM your meat puppet friend.... btw I have time and friends too...
[edit] Page Protection will not work
I have a army of well ripen sockets as well as meat puppets.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.181.136 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A Dose of Misinformation about You
Assuming you have not already, look over this, if you please.
I found this and thought of you. Take it for what it's worth -- the guy seems to dislike you with a sprinkle of misunderstanding. In my opinion, at the very least it is best to be aware of an attack when it is being made. NobodyThatParticularlyMatters (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, if you google "user goethean" (without quotation marks), you will even come across another attacker by the name of Joe in Google's cache. It is funny to see how he attempts to rally others on www.donmurphy.net boards, for example. NobodyThatParticularlyMatters (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the comments, but I am well aware of both of these people. I'm not sure which is worse. User:Joehazelton is only semi-literate, but very persistent. As far as I'm concerned, Geoff Falk's screeds are self-refuting. I have no inclination to be pulled into his psychodrama. Please read some more of his e-book and let me know if he comes off as an honest or well-adjusted person to you. I think what really made him angry was the fact that I temporarily frustrated his attempts to use Wikipedia to promote his e-book. — goethean ॐ 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
To some like you, you think your a god and anyone else is a liar which is the sin of pride. and you and your kind demonstrates that so well.
You are a hateful, hurtful, little man, misguided in the arrogant notions that your beliefs, and you, are better then any one else and you are justified to fill wikipeidia with your lies, slander and libel and to look down your nose at any one that don't kiss you feet and ass because you think your better and right and justify censorship because you think you are the only one with the wisdom for the masses.
You are an arrogant, and over educated nitwit, so full of wrongheaded ideas and hate filled non-sense which would be incomprehensible to an average person. You seem educated, but your actions are that of a petty thug nevertheless, and your record speaks for it self loud and clear (on wikipeidia and other places on the web) and any words you may say are pale in comparison to your deeds.
"I vomit", (An "educated" term you used on "YOU TUBE" to describe another person (Mr Roskam)and his family. You such a well spring of eastern elitest balony and love, I guess the fruits of your religion,politics are lies, hate, and hurtful slander and libel, with your wikipedian tool, which you use like a coward in the dark.
I qoute..."
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Matthew 7, 15~20
It don't take much education to see what you are about... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.182.12 (talk • contribs) 2008-04-29T08:34:25
[edit] Vital articles
I appreciate your interest in representing various places on Vital Articles, but please discuss changes on the talk page first. Thanks! Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Gaudapada
I have nominated Gaudapada, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaudapada. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MBest-son (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sup
I really enjoyed that Aurobindo link you gave me. Given the proliferation of fashionably atheist-scientist wankery these days, it's pretty salient stuff. I much prefer to read in paper form; where should I start with Aurobindo? What's a reasonably priced publication? Cheers, DBaba (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed deletion of NRSC Pledge
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article NRSC Pledge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Avruch T 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus
Thanks! Good move to self-revert that. :-) --BenBurch (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
