User talk:Goethean - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Future (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 9 September 2006 (another 3RR warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:41, 9 September 2006 by The Future (talk | contribs) (another 3RR warning)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

goethean is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives: User talk:Goethean/2004 User talk:Goethean/2005 User talk:Goethean/2006a

McLuhan/Joyce

I'll admit, I don't know much about Marshall McLuhan, but your reversion to a previous article made me question the necessary inclusion of the "nonsense" from Finnegan's Wake in the article. Perhaps it does merit inclusion, but it is utterly unclear to the layperson as to why. I'm not going to edit it out, but perhaps there should be some discussion as to making it more accessible. beekman 19:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag on Marshall McLuhan, and after looking at your remark on Merosonox's talk page, I think it may have been in haste. Should I put the tag back up? Or should we just press Merosonox into adding more info to his/her (in my opinion, quite informative) paragraph? beekman 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Goethe

It would appear this article has a terrible infection that persistently attacks its host at all costs and now has "reverted vandalism". I'm not too sure in what way we ought to go about this, but it very clearly needs to stop, for this individual reads into this small section that Goethe is being titled a "homosexual" and this reading was above all prevented since there is no evidence for it, and thus this activity itself purely constitutes vandalism in the highest degree, even trolling._scripta 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

For the while I have reverted the last instance of vandalism, but I'm of the assumption it will happen again._scripta 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

élan vital

Hey! Elan vital was being incorrectly used as a disambiguation page, so the disambiguation page was shifted to Élan vital (philosophy). I wanted to let you know if you wanted to change yr "created pages" link instead of me changing it on you. mxdxcxnx_{T C} 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Science Defender

Sorry for not replying to your note on my talk page. I'm too busy these days and have lost the inclination to mess with non-constructive edits to "Holism in science". The way I see it, I did what I felt was needed of me, and now if someone wants to re-do it into something else, that's their affair. The "Holism in science" experience really taught me a lot. Among other things, it exposed some ownership and territoriality issues that were lurking in my psyche. By closely watching these issues as they operate, they gradually lose their grip and I can let them go and feel much lighter. I have seen the idea of responsibility for a chunk of encyclopedia turf for what it really is -- bogus. Thanking you and wishing you all the best, Smithfarm 11:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

{{User Saints WikiProject}}

This user is a member of
WikiProject Saints.

Thanks! --evrik 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Message from User:Andries

Delete. As someome who has been attacked on an external blog (scroll down to "Never Mind The Pollocks....") for my views on Misplaced Pages, I have to say that I would fight (although probably not to the death) for the right of people to attack me on their blogs. Misplaced Pages simply has no business with what any Misplaced Pages editor does in his time away from Misplaced Pages. Sets a bad precedent. — goethean ॐ 14:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, at least you are consistent in your views: linking to a webpage with a personal attack against me on user:Goethean was acceptable according to you, in spite of my complaints about it and in spite of endorsement of my view by mediator user:BostonMA (false, now retracted claim by user:SSS108/Joe Moreno that I am a marajuana/hash user). Thanks. Andries 10:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder + Suggestion

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

I'm not going to immediately revert it again, but please consider

In fact it was extened per talk page, Village Pump and Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks/Extension, which is reasonable procedure. (The disscussion was also advertised on Policy RfC and other pages.) The extension stayed in place for about 3 weeks. Only than heated dispute, revert war and polling started.
The line to prevent Wikipedians being insulted outside of Misplaced Pages is misrepresentation of the case. The extension was inteded to stop bypassing the policy and that is clearly stated: As such, personal attacks made by editors of Misplaced Pages against other editors of Misplaced Pages in online forums and personal websites, for the specific purpose of bypassing this policy,
Given the current results of the poll, I would repeat words of Strom: If you take nothing else from these results, please keep in mind that neither "side" is an overwhelming majority, so no one can pretend they represent an "obviously correct" position; I think those supporting "strong throw out" were bold enough by removing the extension & defending that in revert war.

I hope you will consider my objection, and either revert yourself, or try to incorporate more fair representation of the off-wiki part and more ballanced representation of question of wether the extension procedure was ok. Thanks. --Wikimol 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks. --Wikimol 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Plato - Humanism...

hi, I've taken your advice and gone back to translating Kafka's short stories more full-time; my purpose here in this so called encyclopedia was actually pretty much based on self-interest in any event as I thought it might be a place to Link people up to my translation of Plato with a free download of the dialogue Charmides... see

 http://home.earthlink.net/~ushaphil/id5.html

if you would like to see my translation work (and my current POV website).

if you have any ideas that might help me, I'm happy to be contacted there too...

thanks again. phillip.

A project and much besides

Good day, Goethean. I've decided, since I feel I must at least express in full or in whatever part may be the result, to speak on the nature of my attitude toward the project into which I jumped headlong. Although, I have done little that would be considered a contribution to its purpose I nevertheless feel I should make clear that my many other contributions have so far hindered or withheld me from doing so, and I at the very least still am a "participant" regardless. As that would have it, whenever I come to such situations that would demand that of me, though I do hold to the central principles of Misplaced Pages (when they are of essential use), you may be assured I will be of assistance. Please accept this small "apology", and I hope the best for whatever comes your way. — _scripta 22:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, igni. I'm not understanding you. What project? Nietzsche? Goethe? Weimar Classicism? — goethean ॐ 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon! I mean the Countering systematic bias against religion project (to which I signed not too long ago)—I suppose it is little wonder my post seemed so vague… My sincerest regards, be that as it may. — _scripta 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Well, not much has happened with that project since its inception, which is mostly my fault, not yours. No problem, and thanks for the message. — goethean ॐ 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Morphic field

Please come to Talk:Morphic field and discuss your desired changes. Edit-warring is counterproductive. Al 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please don't insert the link again. You already have violated WP:3RR, by repeatedly inserting the link:

But I realize you have never been blocked before, and were not warned this time. Thus, I will assume good faith and refrain from taking any action this time. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Talk:Sikhism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

This block will expire in twelve hours. To contest the block, add {{unblock}} to your talk page or e-mail me. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a request for comments regarding this dispute Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy. Andries 08:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Diffs on your userspace

Do not use your usepage to post personal attacks on others. Baseless accusations such as the one I just removed will not be tolerated.--MONGO 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You removed a diff to one of your own comments. I have replaced it. — goethean ॐ 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your userspace is not "yours"...it belongs to Misplaced Pages and you borrow it. It is not the place to post attacks against others...just as that usersubpage was doing. This is an even more blatant example of misuse of this resource on your part than that subpage was. I am not the least bit embarassed.--MONGO 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not the least bit embarassed

That's not my problem either. — goethean ॐ 19:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Advice

Strongly advise you remove the word whim and replace it with something more neutral. As it stands it is a violation of NPA against any administrator who ever removed any content from User talk:Goethean or User:Goethean. KillerChihuahua 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Fundamental Rights in India

Please see a reply to your comments and Fundamental Rights in India#Critical analysis, and then review the article for GA status. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I happened to see your question to Nikodemus on {{Unbalanced}}. Since Nicodemus is on Wikibreak: My understanding is that it refers properly to an unbalanced selection of sources, and should, like other dispute tags, be explained on Talk; and it looks to me that your tag was removed as unexplained. Regards. Septentrionalis 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Goethe as philosopher

I don't mind a reversion at all, and think your suggestion to add a note is fine; feel free to do that. Is it necessary to also insult me and a class of people in the process? Universitytruth

Within the realm of evaluative considerations, we oughtn't to be hasty to give too much regard for the user by way of "friendliness" for the mere sake of not incurring any skirmishes in categories; how these categories are in fact tractable and malleable to the contingencies of the eras and placement in which they breathed must be given attention, but these issues must not be subjected to normative modes for those in the 21st century alone—this would in actuality be against Misplaced Pages's aims to be as informative as much as possible. My reasoning behind Goethe not as philosopher but who was a philosopher is grounded in the contextuality in which he lived, and those that would disregard this simply by way of contemporary conventionality I find to be fundamentally absurd, and they over simplify a matter that scarely lends itself to such an infringement. In short, there is no reason to find Goethe as philosopher nor as non-philosopher—he in essence was a philosopher, and this, brought to us by historicity, cannot be denied, excepting only whilst one ignores the time in which he lived. — _scripta 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, if I may address this on a much more basic level, under what circumstances would List of German-language philosophers even be considerable as a necessary functionary within the Misplaced Pages dynamic? True, there is already Category:German philosophers—and thus it would appear this blanched list is an exiguous, and altogether superfluous, article—therefore, haven't we obliquely discussed a non-issue undeserving of our attention? Perhaps what ought to be conditioned within the fore of our minds is the list's unreserved deletion; although it could be said that it does well to make matters simpler by way of presentation, I do not find it to be so when the identical category serves as a direct implicative construct for whatever particular article to which it may relate—in other words, the category suits its inferred purpose more than the list does its own whilst their dimensions are thus contrasted. The first step, in rhythm with my proposition, would be to categorise those philosophers—who haven't already as shown in the list—within their respective articles, after which we may go about blotting the list from Misplaced Pages's memory completely. Do you find this in good order? — _scripta 16:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Goethean, see the following on the talk page of the List in question. (I hadn't seen igni's cogitations until now, on your talk page.)

Oh, I see: you meant Category:German philosophers (in the plural). Still, it's not an entire duplication. Your own beloved Goethe, as well as others I've added recently, are not represented there. Also, since that's a list of German philosophers, as opposed to writers of German-language philosophy, there is in fact potential non-overlap between this list and that category. Which makes this list useful, I think. What do you think? Universitytruth 20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Goethean, that Universitytruth has been misguided in a few particulars regarding this issue, hence his statement "Goethe... are not represented there ", which is entirely untrue and his deletion of the deletion template, which I replaced with the appropriate link to the category, from the list: these are the general features of this misunderstanding (which is in part elucidated by the confused nature of this discussion that is now spread fourfold: here, my talk, original list's talk, and renamed list's talk). In any case, within the category itself I have specified it refers to those philosophers of the German language, so there will be no need to make a new category or to do anything unnecessarily drastic (and we can assume those of German ethnicity—and I don't think the category implied ethnicity anyway—were, for the most part, writers/philosophers of the German language). Be that as it may, we shall eventually see how things flow in this digital hourglass, and the sands will most probably follow the predetermined inclinations with no ado as I had outlined in my previous post above. — _scripta 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

German philosophers, German-language philosophers, or Writers of German-language philosophy

Greetings,

Please see my comments on relevant talk pages. Meanwhile, I would ask that you look at this important writer, and consider the grounds for including vs. excluding him on this list (or in this category, should the list be deleted): Salomon Maimon. Thanks! Universitytruth 20:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

LoveMonkey is worried that you are deliberately reverting his work and making alterations that are incorrect, simply to spite him. I haven't looked at everything but just letting you know that he mentioned this issue to me on my talk page and I have responded on his here.--MONGO 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thompson

Thanks for the friendly welcome. you are a gentleman. I'd like to see his page reckon with his place in philosophy. He is a bard/intellectual of note and worthy of comment. The emphasis at least in the intro should be on his relevance to as many readers or reasoners as possible. I'd also like to bring in some criticism and debate. DocFaustRoll 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My Article

I didn't create it, but you're free to do so on that other wiki you talked about, I can help you if you want. Karmafist 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk

Hi Goethean. I am concerned at what people are saying, and I do wish to get to the heart of the problem. Clearly there must be an aspect or aspects of my editing and/or attitude that is annoying and frustrating people like yourself. The incidents that are mentioned are small in themselves, and - to my eye - are part of the collaborative editing of Misplaced Pages, moving it forward. I make very many beer edits, much of which is stub sorting which either entails a merge, a redirect, or an expansion of the article. It is not, to my understanding, in the nature of Wiki that consensus is sought for what are essentially everyday edits. But I can feel from your frustration, that there must be a pattern in my editing that you are uncomfortable with. I totally apologise for any aspect of my behaviour in the past that has annoyed you, and promise to do better in the future. I am hoping that with your help I can learn from this experience and move forward. Please talk to me and let me know your underlying concerns which the recent edits have highlighted. SilkTork 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, that is appreciated. I'm now going through my talk archive and listing the conflicts since I have been here. There are quite a few! My mistake, I suppose, was assuming from the initial communications that edit conflicts like that were normal, especially as I read details of such conflicts on other people's talk pages. The people who got in touch with me were by and large rude and unhelpful from the start - but that is a general failing of internet communication. I have been involved with internet groups for a long time (I have been an Admin on RateBeer for about three years), and I'm quite used to poor communication skills and rudeness from internet users. I just didn't make the link that it was my actions that were causing the rudeness, rather than that was the way these people communicated anyway. I suppose Mais oui! unsettled me more than I cared to admit at the time, and gave me a poor flavour of Wiki editors. It seemed that people were moaning and shouting about trivial matters to a person who didn't quite know how Wiki worked, and on the essential matter of the work I was doing there was never a real discussion. I would point out the reasons I was doing something, and get no further response. It all looked rather petulant to me. I suppose I may, in retrospect, have become a little arrogant, as there was little understanding of beer knowledge shown, just hostile remarks about procedure. I got snappy, bad-tempered comments from people who admitted they knew little about beer. And congratulations from those who did know about beer. That sort of thing would sow the seeds of an arrogance. It would have been nice in those early days if someone had given me a proper welcome, and guided me through the system. But that, sadly, didn't occur. I am now, I suppose, reaping the negative benefit of that lack of early guidance. Thanks again for your comment, it is helping me reflect more deeply on what the issue is and see where I am going wrong. If you need any help in the future, you have a friend here. SilkTork 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Brewery vote

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: SilkTork 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

removing text

the following text was moved from User:Goethean

Well, why you removing my edits... and edit warring then? your unilateral edit must stops it works both ways...

if you don't like, then discuss, don't call me a vandal and the like and use trickywiki tricks and wiki-lawyering to get your way and me in trouble. --Joehazelton 17:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to like to remove well attributed quotes and information and engage in unilateral edits without discussion as well as engage in wikiedit wars with out discussions. Also, trying to paint and label me, and the condescending tone you have is self-evident to me and I will not allow it.

Please Stop it... It's the walk that counts not the talk and I can see how you walking this article to the left of center.

--Joehazelton 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Goethe, a philosopher? NPOV: Yes.

Just so you know, in Goethe, Kant, and Hegel p. 25, Kaufmann wrote: " was not a philosopher and did not claim to be one." This might be well to understand Kaufmann never made such a direct claim about Goethe's status, but, as List of German-language philosophers's history will show, I've added the two sources you mentioned from Google scholar. Either way, Goethe will be where he rightfully should be.Non-vandal 08:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot about it since over a decade ago? I wouldn't call your memory "faulty", but the opposite. Anyway, you're welcome.Non-vandal 03:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Theory of everything - proposed deletion

The article Theory of everything (philosophy) was tagged for speedy deletion on May 23, 2006, rescued, then retagged for uncontested deletion on July 28. I removed the tag, but it may now be nominated for AfD. References to the use of the term TOE in philosophy are being demanded. I notified Alan Kazlev, who created it. --Blainster 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Gamaliel 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Where to go?

I come here to ask for your opinion regarding where this material best goes, since my request for Smahoney's opinion has gone mysteriously unanswered. But I feel you are able to give me sound, consensual advice. The discussion just below leaves the two options quite apparent, but there could always be more to choose from. Thanks for your help.Non-vandal 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That really sounds like a great idea! Maybe we can truly look forward to great improvements to the article. Serious effort is required though and not very many seem interested in exercising their abilities but rather whining about this or that and all that childish nonsense.Non-vandal 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Integral yoga and Integral psychology

Hi Goethean

I think that some of the suff on the integral yoga page (about the various faculties of the being) shouldn't go on a new page called Integral psychology (Sri Aurobindo). Not that Sri Aurobindo used the term "Integral psychology" as far as i know, but Indra Sen did, but this level of categorisation, while important and necessary for understanding if one is to take up an Aurobindonian path, is not central to the practice of Integral Yoga (and Integral Yoga is ultimately about practice). I've been reading passages from The Synthesis of Yoga, an increadibly powerful book, and there S.A. is very strongly mystical, with little interest in the sort of ontological gradations such as one finds in Letters on Yoga, The Life Divine and I would assume from the glossary Record of Yoga (although i'm not sure as i havent seen that work, I still need to order a copy). However, relevant to Integral Yoga would be matreial on the transformation of the physical, vital, and mental, and the subconscient, as well as, obviously, the triple transformation and the dangers on the path

Anyway, once we've decided what material should go where, I'll trim down some of the material on these main pages, either that or add more material on the specialised pages, because there is no point in simply repeating the material verbatum. M Alan Kazlev 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Goethe; Integral thought

You think you're "Goethean"? You are far from Goethean to call yourself that. Keep this in mind: Goethe was not a mystic (he had a certain disgust for mysticism, too). Have a jolly good time reflecting "integrally"; post-modern thinking is the trough of depravity and you would do well to avoid it, but it seems it's too late to go back, eh? You're soaked in it. Don't take this as an offense... even if it is vandalism or trolling. Toodles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do-re-mi-La-ri-fa-ri (talk • contribs)

Oh, I think you know precisely what I mean. But it would be my pleasure to remind you or to redress what I said.

"All effects... we observe in the world of experience are interrelated in the most constant manner.... It is inevitable... that we should separate them and contrast them with one another; but this necessarily created an endless conflict in the sciences. Stubborn analytical pedantry and indiscriminate mysticism both do equal damage." --Goethe, Die Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft, herausgegeben im Auftrage der Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher (Leopoldina), Weimar, 1947 ff., I, 8, p. 232.

But that is only the finger of the problem. It's too bad the "integral" (a fine euphemism at that) movement satisfies itself with useless "psychological" tabulations and idiosyncratic codifications of views. (I find it one of the most abhorrent and wearisome hustings under the modern sun.) Why can't people simply admit they're extending their petty individualities across the ages in a comforting, mendacious, collective way? And then all this laughably idiotic chatter about "consciousness-as-spirituality"! I even find it hilarious some have gone so far as to say this age is a "Dark Age". There's nothing in this time that is remotely different from the preceding ones (except those-other-ones)! But, whatever, if happiness is about dishonesty and illusions. You can be this certain, however: if this is a dark age, everything about "integrality" confirms its darkness -- only by the sheer amount of derth such a movement implies. To say it bluntly: those "integralists" are the dark ones.

Have an -- for lack of any more apt word -- "integral" day. May you fare well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Do-re-mi-La-ri-fa-ri (talk • contribs)

(How can I sign so I don't look like I'm doing this chat furtively?) Yes, I know about Hafiz, but how do you really think Goethe thought about him? It's very clear: It isn't a problem that Hafiz was "mystical"; Goethe recognized the great brilliance of the man and his poetry. You can't attribute his recognition of Hafiz to mysticism, even if Goethe didn't reject him due to it (he wasn't a dogmatic thinker). My retort would be to you: he isn't as simplistic as you think. But that isn't the entire point of my discussion with you, just a very small, but significant, part of it. Gruss.

Concerning "proof", which is ridiculous: that was not my aim at all, but rather to convince you that Goethe held mysticism in its proper element and that he himself was NOT a "mystic" -- the quotation I gave isn't the only indication of this -- and that perhaps proved impossible, unsurprisingly. The other matter: I agree with the "central thesis", as you put it, of integral thought more than you think, but I disagree with its methods (amply shown above), which are thoroughly and utterly flawed -- it is a useless project, except for the fact that it makes people aware of the thesis itself. As it stands, this is a matter of taste: integral thinkers, or whatever they call themselves, and I part our ways when it comes to these matters; when it comes to Goethe, you and I do likewise. May your path be toward, and not away from, yourself. Do-re-mi-La-ri-fa-ri 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Roskam

I was asked, as I set out, in a bit more detail, at Talk:Peter Roskam, to act as an advocate for Joehazelton relative to the Roskam article, and I have attempted to delineate precisely those issues about which Joe is concerned and to frame several questions rather clearly in order that a focused discussion might be undertaken. On Joe's behalf, and in view of my appreciation for the advancement of the project, I'd ask that, at your leisure, you offer your views at the Roskam talk page. Thanks very kindly in advance! (The boilerplate text exhausted, I ought also to thank you very sincerely for your note with respect to my diff analysis at User talk:Joehazelton; even as I was asked to serve as Joe's advocate, it is for the advancement of the project for which any editor—as I—ought to advocate, and I am quite happy that you chose to construe my comments as having been offered decorously and constructively.) Joe 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Integral theory, Ken Wilber categories

Hi Goethean. Just throwing up some ideas here:

Since we have both an "Integral theory" (Wilberian) and a "Integral thought" category, i think that the "Integral theory" category is redundant and should be scrapped, because all relevant entries listed there be moved either to the "Ken Wilber" category or the "Integral thought" category. Also the "Integral theory" template could then be named either "Ken Wilber", or "Wilberian Integral theory". The former imho would be preferable, because as well as being shorter it is also comparable to the "Sri Aurobindo" category; both can then be subsets of "Integral thought". M Alan Kazlev 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Paglia

Thank you for your suggestion as far as updating the Paglia page. As I said when I initially commented on the page on the 29 June I don't feel I'm properly qualified to do justice to a section on controversy surrounding Paglia, especially considering the level of detail and effort that's gone into the article already. I'll start a section with an expand tag, but I'd appreciate any help you can give. Driller thriller 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:NRCC mailing 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NRCC mailing 3.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dzien dobry Mr. Goethean... dont make me scan some of the more colorful Deomocratic Flyers I have received from The Duckworth campaign... I live in the sixth district and have a nice collection WP:SENSE as well as Tit for Tat.

Don't do it...dont set this precedent Do widzeniaJoehazelton 05:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NRCC mailings

I noticed you tagged the NRCC mailing images you uploaded as being created by you, but according to your summary you only scanned them in. Please note that scanning something does not make you it's creator or copyright holder. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sufi Muslim Council

Gothean, Please do not create a site for Sufi Muslim Council based on allegations from 1 Blog and a concerted effort to destroy the reputation (with innuendos and lies) of a new group that does not support many of the things that you have written (Occupation of Iraq etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiMeefoosky (talk • contribs)

Zaadz

hi Goethean,

i've noticed that you already helped out in editing the wiki page for Zaadz. thanks. as much as i want to continue editing and fine-tuning this page, due to my affiliation with Zaadz, i think it would be more appropriate to pass on this article. so moving forward i'd like to request for you to handle most of the updates on this page to preserve neutrality. however, it would still be on my watchlist just to keep track of the changes and verify their accuracy whether they're pro or con, and also to avoid future potential vandalisms. let me know if you're cool with this. and thanks again for the help :) ~C4Chaos 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

You observed that FeloniousMonk has a strong bias against religion, and it shows in his editing. He's at it again on the Paul Weyrich page. Any assistance you could render would be appreciated. He's setup a User conduct Request for Comment against me because I have dared to standup to his interpretation of the rules.

I just saw you observed what I am dealing with, so I thought I'd ask your assistance.--68.45.161.241 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner edit warring

This edit warring has to stop. I am warning all parties involved. I am also not going to be a mediator in this content dispute. But I am warning all three of you, if anymore diffs I see are revert warring on this article or any other related article, all three of you will be reported for 3RR vioations. Please don't put yourself and others in conflicts which result in edit warring. Please discuss this until resolved and then make the appropriate change, ok? — The Future 19:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)