User talk:Goethean/Archive 6

4249:

being in Siberia because "all sources must refer to topic of the article" and the source that connects Novosibirsk to Siberia might not also "mention" person X. If we adopt your view, besides rendering much of the value that Knowledge editors add beyond mechanically quoting sources illegitimate, all sorts of Taiwan government sources are off limits for use in the Taiwan article. Why? Because the Taiwan government officially calls itself the Republic of China (ROC), such that there may be no mention of "Taiwan" per se in government sources. Now you might respond that you wouldn't dispute that when another source connecting the ROC with Taiwan is readily available. Of course, but that means applying the same principle when the connection is just as real but not as obvious to the layman. If there's "original research" the connection ought to be "original", and that doesn't just mean less than obvious to the layman, it means dubious such that it wouldn't be obvious to a subject expert either. If there are reliable sources out there that draw the connection, drawing the connection is not original.--

4275:

serve Knowledge's purpose? As I explained on the article Talk page, the reason why the Fed source is used is because it says right on it that it is meant to be "accessible" for students instead of professional economists. It's fine to suspect that someone is trying to advance some sort of pet or novel theory, but in that case the appropriate action would be to take issue with that theory. All too often I see editors who write an article in a coherent, accessible way accused of "original research" because instead of just copying and pasting, they draw on their understanding of the relationships between the various elements to present them holistically. The superficial separation from the sources in these cases isn't "original research", it's rather what makes Knowledge better than just link farm or source dump. Just because you don't appreciate the similarity to QE doesn't mean the similarity doesn't exist. Here, one of the sources explicitly states the similarity.--

738:

improve the article (by the objective definition of "improve"). I want to end up where op-ed opinions are only in there identified as such. I'm unaware of any place where I "accepted" an op-ed opinion contrary to this goal. And I've been encouraging, not rejecting high quality sources. In the recent discussion, IMHO any source that says that the main TPA agenda is religious is down on the level of "the sky isn't blue" dumbness, and so my comments against using that comment by that source are consistent with that. And, if I ever took the easy way out and failed to go to the mat supporting the above objectives, such would certainly not warrant calling such "Any fucking moron can see the game that you are playing......transparently habitual abusive editors like yourself."

3430:. This is one of the ways that WP editors of such pages can be kept more informed of important changes and proposals. The astrology project was once very active but like other related projects currently suffers from having lost a lot of its members. I'd like to try to boost its membership because I think it's important that editors working on pages which have the difficulties of fringe associations don't feel isolated, and are able to pool resources on pages in need of development. Hope you'll consider joining. -- 31: 3368: 3133: 1986: 2711:. All the material in that article that's cited only to legal documents needs to go. Court documents are not to be cited that way, in BLPs. I'm not going to make the changes myself, since I have too much on my plate already, but I'd suggest you post to talk with a link to BLPPRIMARY, and politely warn others not to restore the court docs at all, or the material that was cited to them without new reliable, permissible sources to support it. Cheers, 2041: 1876: 2255: 2196: 978: 2360:; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive. 2900: 3976: 3935:, you removed a reference verifying that Suwa won an award. If you don't think the given citation was sufficiently reliable, it's probably better to leave it in and tag it with "better source needed" than to leave the assertion devoid of any reference. While the source may be imperfect, I think it's better to have at least some verification than none. Thanks. 2976:, you disregarded their comments and removed large sections of well-sourced content from the article anyways. I'm going to have to try that the next time that I see material that I disagree with and would like to suppress. On the other hand, I don't normally try to suppress content just because I disagree with it. I usually leave that to religious fanatics. — 781:

have nothing, literally nothing to do with this process, except to get in the way and obscure the relevant issues, which have to do with Knowledge policy and what reliable, notable sources have covered. By relying on your personal, ideologically-informed opinions, and by using that as a basis to accept or reject sources for use in the article, you are

3219:

the beliefs of Shakespeare, Kepler, Goethe, Jung, Northrup Frye, and others. But the way that the debunkers have expansively and selectively interpreted WP:FRINGE, there is no discussion necessary or possible. They can simply remove whatever content they want, with no more argument than their say so. —

4289:

It is telling that you cannot respond to my position without mischaracterising it as advocating the use of plagiarism or cutting and pasting. It is possible to write an article without engaging in plagiarism on the one hand, and on the the other using sources which have literally nothing at all to do

4248:

This is not Knowledge policy. If a source says that person X was born and raised in Novosibirsk and a Wikipedian writes this as person X spent his early life in the Siberian city of Novosibirsk, you seem to be of the view that that may be "original research" even if there is a source for Novosibirsk

3257:

The answer to your question is yes for Kepler. If you change the phrase "solar system" to "universe" or "cosmos", then I think the answer is yes for the others, and you can put Nietzsche in that group, too. It would probably be more accurate to use the term "cosmos" rather than "solar system" for all

624:

has resulted in several edits on all of the pages you mentioned, all of the edits affirm the points and ignore the minor or non-existent arguments you presented in opposition. you have every right to use whatever words you wish, even if it does limit the reach of wp. perhaps you dont care, which is

545:

if you don't, i will report you for being disruptive and have you banned and dipped in a steaming vat of gerbil vomit, as most/all of your foul language is contained in comments that offer no argument other than :wp:idontlikeit, which no one cares if you do or don't, either make an argument, fly off.

4274:

So you stand on your belief then that it would be illegitimate to make the observation that Novosibirsk is in Siberia (or Russia) unless the source that connects the city with the larger entity happens to also talk about the topic of the article in which the observation is being made? How does that

4264:

If one of the sources which I am disputing had used the term "platinum coin" instead of "trillion dollar coin", I would not have tagged the section. But the sources used in the article do not refer to the topic directly or indirectly in any way, shape, or form. They have nothing to do with the topic

3746:

Please see what I had done. I am not referring to AP as liberal, I have provided references to liberal commentators, and named them as such. Why is it that conservative commentators are so labeled, but liberal commentators are not. It can be said that others are edit warring as well, and to say that

3218:

They are two different topics. Archetypal astrology is a example of an archetypal cosmology. Certainly there are people who adhere to an archetypal cosmology who do not subscribe to astrology. An example would be most thorough-going Jungians. As the article says, the phrase has been used to describe

163:

which has a nice intro paragraph, basically saying that at some point after biological evolution comes a higher type of consciousness. This term, however, is not found in any mystical system of thought I know and certainly not in the ones it claims (Theosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism). In my opinion this

1530:

I'm actually sympathetic to finding and using an RS that supports Rush continueing defame Ms Fluke, and if you could find, that would be great. In the meantime, you have violated 3RR*. You could take advantage of no one filing an ANI on you, find the RS and post it on talk to get feedback on it. We

780:

in writing a neutral article on the Tea Party movement. In fact, they make it more difficult. If a sociologist writes a paper which analyzes the TPM as religious in character, and if reliable sources report on that paper, the article should mention the paper. Your opinion of the merits of the paper

1694:

Usually, yes (I'm an active editor on MMfA article). But in this case they had skin in the game. They were critical in starting the boycott. That is why an RS had to found elsewhere. Which was no problem. Everybody should declare victory and move on. This issue is now moot and everyone seems happy

343:

do you have an issue with the source other than it being me who found it? until my edit there was not a source for the 1st few paragraphs. why dont you add one supporting the text you want to be put back in the article. ps, saw my 1st panic show in 93 at world's fair park knoxville, seen over a

3275:

as opposed to the real world. As far as I can tell, its use of the word "cosmology" is unconnected with the solar system or the physical universe. Therefore, that one at least looks like quite a stretch to me. It's still not clear to me that the others are genuinely related to the topic of the

706:

begin to abide by Knowledge policy and stop ab/using the article in order to advocate for Tea Party/crypto-corporatist ideology." Despite immense evidence of what I am actually trying to do there, you read it completely wrong, and instead stated baseless, wrong, nasty conclusions. I would think

4299:

Included within the topic of the article is its economic effects. The sources cited describe those effects. The first source says "In economic terms the Fed's purchase would resemble 'quantitative easing' (QE)" and the second source is titled "Quantitative Easing Explained." If the connection

1850:

Tough question. Nietzsche explicitly denounced Schopenhauer's belief in one single will (I think this is in the Gay Science). But as you point out, his later thought (although unpublished in his (conscious) lifetime) is more metaphysical. I'd leave it off, but wouldn't object to the addition too

737:

One more attempt before I write you off as being per the nasty, baseless-insulting, spit-flinging loose cannon behavior that you are exhibiting. You are missing AGF by about 4 levels; instead inventing imaginary bad faith despite immense evidence to the contrary. Sincerely, my only goal is to

724:

You are on record as accepting op-eds into the article when they suit your ideology. When they don't, you demand that the article adhere to the highest level of reliability, and then you reject the sources anyways. Any fucking moron can see the game that you are playing. Unfortunately, Knowledge

4136:

Hi, my involvement in the Ramakrishna-related articles was limited to attempting to have the articles abide by Knowledge's neutral point of view policy. My proposals were rejected, and I was threatened with a block if I edited the article in a non-hagiographical way. Devotees of the Ramakrishna

3327:

The sources exist. What we are doing now is disqualifying sources so that we get results in line with the ideology of the debunkers. Let's only include sources which have negative information about the topics that we don't like. Everything else is fringe. And then let's call that neutral. It is

2479:

Hi Goethean, thanks for helping out at the Timeline. A couple of things about McCormick. The article is in the midst of an FL nomination, so we really need sources for additions at this time. The bar for inclusion is a bit higher than a regular "history of" article and I wonder if he's notable

264:

unlike mead, i am actually in the tea party and may have a better grasp on it than you and he both. my "grown-up" choice was not pov, although i did see the humor afterwards. rather it was an attempt to scramble the words of the poll as to not be accused of plagiarism twice in one day. the

3461:, as well as your soapboxing and griping about how WP works are very disruptive. Please confine yourself to commenting on content, backed with reliable sources and WP policy. Continued sniping and griping can earn you a trip to ANI, with a block or topic ban being a likely outcome. This is a 3243:? That seems to firmly anchor the topic to astrology. If Jung and Shakespeare are listed simply because someone has used the phrase "archtypal cosmology" to mean a world-view based on archetypes, it's not clear that they belong in the article. A phrase is not quite the same as a topic. -- 1742: 3303:

That seems an unhelpfully personal response. The question is not whether individual sources can be removed but whether the sources exist to write a balanced article with proper context. Slightly off topic, but I'm sorry to see that you've suffered from long-term harassment from a (rather

1679:

Media Matters for America is a reliable source. It has never been shown to be unreliable. Thus there never was any problem with sourcing, except in your mind. I'm glad that you find the wingnut dittoheads so accommodating and reasonable. My experience has been rather different. —

4068:

Hi Goethean, I notice you've recently contributed to Aurobindo. I'm the GA reviewer, and have put the nomination on hold for work on the article - refs being the most critical thing. If you can help, or can invite other editors to do so, that would be great. All the best -

2409:

Hello, Goethean. I received your e-mail. I'm afraid that I cannot do as you suggest, as I don't believe it would serve any useful purpose. Please don't be surprised that I'm responding here; as per the note on my talk page, this is how I will usually reply to e-mails.

2733:

I don't understand how to send messages between users apart from this talk page, but could use your voice on the Limbaugh page. I started a section under the talk page re fact checking orgs. Feel free to join in if you have a strong feeling one way or the other.

3998:

related articles in Knowledge. As a user who has shown an interest in Shaktism related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the Shaktism. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page

3290:

I don't see that there is any discussion to be had. The debunkers have decided that any source which refers to Tarnas' work in a positive manner is fringe and can simply be removed. That's not a conclusion based on Knowledge policy, that's a religious crusade. —

3270:

The reference to Shakespeare is from a single source and appears to use the word "cosmology" in quite a different way. The book has, for example, no mention of "solar system" or "planet", and uses "universe" only to refer to the fictional universe of the play

168:, which is an article you have started and till now nothing essential has been added by anybody else. So I was thinking to somehow merge this paragraph to your article so the other one can be nominated for deletion. Can you help me with this merger please? 830:

Well, that settles my earlier question. As an aside, the last time you mistakenly said that WP policies mandated inclusion of particular material, you faded out when I asked where where you found that. Now you are repeating the same error. Signing off.

625:

odd since you have been an editor for so long. or perhaps your own ego desires the attention and is not concerned with the dissemination of knowledge. what is clear is the next one word expletive you use as an edit will be reverted and reported.

2374:

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where

196: 3394:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

3159:

2012:

2480:

enough. The 1930s section where you added him is best suited for an intro to the decade/events which affected the entire decade, not really for discrete info. If you have no objection I'll move it to the talk page. (I'm watching this page.) –

4096:). This post is to mention that fact to you, in case you were in a position to do something about getting such an article created - either yourself, or by calling it to someone's attention who might want to write such an article. Regards -- 2633:

for CCA, and that they mentioned your most recent edit there. They seem to be well-intentioned, but are also casting about, a little, trying to figure out how to respond to the problem they raise there. For example, they took the dispute

1633:

Another editor found a RS that allowed the whole 3 day thing to be put in. Consider that this source was just as available to you, and I would have defended your reliance on it. This is what happens when emotions don't guide us. -

2999:

But since we don't have any secondary sources to determine e.g. whether the author's claims about correlations between culture and planetary alignments are statistically meaningful, there's not much we can or should say about this

316:

Knowledge is not about desperately searching Google books for a citation to back up your own personal beliefs and then using that citation to impose your beliefs on the article. It is about writing a balanced, accurate article. —

889:

Actually, if it were identified as his opinion, I'd have no problem with it being in. Even if it is "the sky isn't blue" level dumb. And I would only assert the latter if it were pretty no-brainer obvious, not just based on my

3853:

article dealing with Freud's scientific legacy. I appreciate that you may be busy, but if you could comment at the talk page, even briefly, it would be helpful. I'm asking you as you have edited the article from time to time.

757:

In the recent discussion, IMHO any source that says that the main TPA agenda is religious is down on the level of "the sky isn't blue" dumbness, and so my comments against using that comment by that source are consistent with

2749:

As you can see, that article, like much of Knowledge, is over-run with right-wing douchebags. Why would a series of articles in the Washington Post showing Limbaugh to be a liar be relevant to the Rush Limbaugh biography? —

3926:

Hi Goethean. I see that you've been removing some references from various articles that you've characterized as unreliable sources, and replacing the former references with a citation needed tag. I encourage you to use the

1665:"well-referenced", by me, matter of fact, and that was always the issue. The editors are never the issue, it's the edits. If you had focused on that, you would not have made it so other editor's needed to find a decent RS. 251:

I trust that 'Darkstar1st' is not your given name. Thus as far as real life is concerned, you are anonymous. The point is that Mead is a more reliable source on the Tea Party Movement than some random guy off the street. —

876:

is dumb'. The fact that you personally disagree with an author's view is not a valid reason to exclude that view from the article. Your suggested basis for exclusion thus violates the above-quoted Knowledge NPOV policy. —

546:

otherwise when making comments like "bullstuff", if you would simply use "balderdash, or poppycock", it would prevent wp being censored in schools, which would make me happy, which should be your sole purpose in life.

2994:

However, the complete lack of any source evaluating its factual claims leaves a huge gap in the article, and the positive literary reviews easily give the impression that the factual claims have also been weighed and

3398:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

3163:

2016:

1057:'s edits were not of the same material, exactly, they were on the same topic and in the lead, so some might consider them a 1RR violation. I'm involved, so I wouldn't block, so this is just a friendly warning. — 3827: 83:

I didn't add the template; I just moved it so that the article would render more nicely. The template informs users that the article uses characters which demand certain character sets on the user's machine. See

3571:

Hey Goethean, Thanks for the Barnstar! I never thought I'd get one of these things, but hey! Now I have one! I'm not sure if I'm supposed to thank you here or some place else, but thank you! I appreciate it :D

2763:

There is a high level of willful blindness going on in that talk page. They're spinning in their own illogic trying to come up with new reasons to exclude it. If you could voice your two cents, it'd be

3276:

article rather than to distinct ideas that could possibly be described with the same phrase. But anyway thanks for your answer, and I think it would be helpful if you would explain on the AFD page. --

1146:

Hi - There is a thread about this BLP and the noticeboard - I again removed the as undue weight to trivia in a BLP - please don't replace it without some consensus support for its inclusion - thanks -

4120: 4137:

Mission control the content of the Ramakrishna-related articles, and they use this control in an abusive and dishonest way. So I'm not exactly someone who can contribute to articles on Ramakrishna. —

956:

Yes, the two articles appear to be on the same topic and may be merged. I am not an expert on the subject. I removed the material because is was of poor quality/unencyclopedic/poorly sourced, etc. —

2507: 2638:, to DRN. Since your recent edit is mentioned by them, I think it would be appropriate to suggest that you might like to weigh in on the talk page to try to help resolve the problem there. Cheers, 4221:(both added the DOB). Obviously they're long since inactive, but they were never marked. I wanted to ask you to take an independent look and if you deem it warranted, please add another one of 2503: 222: 4225:

to make a record of it. I'd do it myself, but I feel referring it to another for a second look is more equitable, especially since you know him so well. Also, you might want to look at this

866:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

3480:

or the talk page of the specific policy in question, or ask an adminitrator or more experienced editor for advice. Article talk pages and AfD pages are not appropriate fora for these issues.

2891: 2429:

I wasn't the person who added Bergson to the list of people who were influenced by Schopenhauer, but when I examined Bergson's writings, they were almost a paraphrase of Schopenhauer's works.

1711:"In 2010 MMfA declared what it called a "War on Fox". In 2011 Fox ran several news segments questioning MMfA's tax exempt status", MMFA may be biased, perhaps we could find an alt source? 4126:

India notice board. Since you are the top contributor to Ramakrishna article, I thought I should bring it to your attention, or you could suggest it to someone who knows Bengali. Thanks!--

2674:

I just wanted to stop by and say sorry for my revert. I believe you were correct in your section blanking, and in aggressively trimming back poorly sourced material. It bears watching.

2707:

Hi, Goethean. We miss you at the ALEC and CCA articles, but one does what one must re blood pressure. I noticed your edits to the Kimberlin article, though, and wanted to direct you to

1140: 4243: 1612:

You may not be the savior of WP, and hurling pejoratives and insults gets nothing done. There are blog comment sections to carry on like that, if the need to do so is that strong. -

3304:

incompetent) banned troll. Knowledge discussions like AFD can be stressful enough without that sort of deplorable distraction. Also, you've answered my question, so thank you. --

2915: 1464: 4088:

Greetings, Goethean. I don't have time/expertise to do much on politics-related articles, but I notice that you do. I notice that there's no article on the organization/campaign "

413:

It looks like I confused you with another anonymous editor. 216.xxx constantly posts comments that make no sense to the Tea Party Movement and other talk pages. My apologies. —

1460: 329:

you removed a reliable source and replaced it with text that has no source? unless you make you point in the discussion page, i will revert if there are no other objections.

2907: 3886: 465: 210: 2927: 265:

previous text i copied was "7 of 10 american adults think...", so i changed the 7/10 to a % and adults to grown-up, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

3882: 2827:

btw, what you are doing is calt canvassing, peep this WP:CAN. i like new people in wp and hope i dont scare you, just showing u the ropes, peace and chicken grease.

218: 4258: 2841:

goethe, Solyndra is very significant to one of the two dominant political parties in the United States as an illustration of the merits of the Obama administration.

2090: 1918: 1295: 126:) in TLS March 4, 2011 p.p.10-11. Since it reveals quite a lot of her thinking about Hindutva identity politics, you might find it useful for the article on her. 4147: 3868: 3839: 3690: 3357: 3122: 1649:

I don't need someone who repeatedly violated Knowledge policy in order to remove factual, well-referenced, relevant material to lecture to me about nonsense. —

1359: 3600: 3423: 3375: 3359: 3200: 3192: 3188: 3180: 3140: 3124: 1704: 1687: 1674: 1656: 1621: 1607: 1595: 3787: 2154: 1291: 3813: 2489: 2024: 1432: 1199: 1070:

As you admit above, it was not a revert. Nonetheless, I appreciate your excess of zeal, especially when exclusively applied to your ideological opponents. —

667: 2810:

Goethean, I think you have a stalker...this is your talk page...how did he insert a Fox News talking point into the middle of our chat? Knowledge is weird.

1355: 1263: 3408: 3391: 3173: 3156: 2136: 1975: 85: 2150: 1231: 4195: 3916: 3819: 2048: 2034: 1993: 1977: 1883: 1869: 3648: 1492: 1327: 1259: 183:

I don't see anything there worth keeping, other than adding higher evolution as a synonym for spiritual evolution, which would be fine in my opinion. —

3099: 2537: 1520: 1427: 245: 3117: 2184: 1227: 555: 4130: 3178: 2610: 2556: 2009: 377: 227: 1488: 1323: 310: 4110: 3805: 3533: 2836: 2793: 540: 4078: 1970: 353: 3212: 2782: 2696: 2650: 3733: 3719: 3594: 2819: 2757: 2663: 2315: 2298: 2242: 2131: 1826:

I noticed that you added Schopenhauer to the "Monism" category. Do you think that Nietzsche should also be added? I am thinking of his words in

1077: 505: 491: 477: 456: 442: 420: 408: 394: 4054: 4047:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. —

3957: 2850: 2805: 2798:

Oh sure, because Solyndra is so important to Obama's biography. Thank you for illustrating the brain-dead imbecility that I'm talking about. —

2029: 1864: 1720: 691: 646: 634: 615: 588: 572: 363: 338: 324: 296: 286: 274: 259: 4165: 4141: 4000: 3561: 1161: 1110: 3321:

The question is not whether individual sources can be removed but whether the sources exist to write a balanced article with proper context.

3085: 3057: 3031: 3011: 2983: 1815: 904: 884: 842: 813: 749: 732: 190: 148: 4309: 4294: 4284: 4269: 2468: 1858: 963: 3549: 4161: 3581: 3024:

Yes, that doesn't sound to me like "suppress much of the article in a Draconian way so that it corresponds to your personal ideology." —

2972: 2773: 2743: 1391: 109: 95: 4015: 3468:

If you are disatisfied with how our policies deal with fringe topics and sources, either take your concerns to an appropriate forum like

3339: 3313: 3298: 3285: 3265: 3252: 3226: 2614: 2597:

articles too, both of which include it? There would be some serious history-unwriting, but above he doesn't seem sure McCormick was even

2576: 209:, as they do not promote a pure free market ... they continue to take subsidies (not free market activity). If of further interest, see 3760: 3618: 2560: 2399: 2345: 1064: 4093: 4060: 2624: 4041: 2974: 2326:

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

1387: 678: 4175: 3896: 3628: 3380: 3145: 2517: 2305: 2280: 2248: 2164: 1998: 1448: 1215: 3944: 3724:

Up to you... :) After reading some of the stuff, I figure you'd know better than anyone else, but it sure looks like DUCK to me...

3614: 3489: 3931:

in these instances, especially when the references you've removed are corroborating largely uncontroversial facts. For example, at

3863: 3706: 2886: 2495: 1181: 1171:

When a claim is ascribed to a source, which is not in the source, it is wuite reasonable to remove the claim. In the case at hand

565:

begin to abide by Knowledge policy and stop ab/using the article in order to advocate for Tea Party/crypto-corporatist ideology. —

68:

do? I've tried to find it in templates but cannot - the plenty of India ones but no Indic that I can spot. Just curious. Thanks. -

4300:

there is too "original" for you I stand by contention that potentially anything that isn't a cut and paste is too much for you.--

3990: 3965: 2969: 2630: 2321: 1808:

Is that a joke? I was consistently blocked from improving the Ramakrishna articles by a group of Ramakrishna Mission devotees. —

1643: 1540: 1134: 3508: 2111: 1939: 4168:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3889:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3621:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2728: 2723: 2510:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2157:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4171: 3892: 3694: 3624: 2513: 2160: 1700: 1670: 1639: 1617: 1591: 1536: 1444: 1441:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1211: 1208:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 482:

Why ignore? To who/what do you suggest I pay attention? If this is an "I am better than them" moment, I'll need evidence.

177: 2419: 1097: 301:

US national defense for the twenty-first century: the grand exit strategy By Edward A. Olsen. did you read p 179 and 181?

4218: 4105: 3241:

correlations between "discernible archetypal patterns in human experience and the structural order within the solar system"

2953:. On wikipedia it is important to not give a misleading impression of the acceptance of pseudoscience and fringe theories. 1802: 1586:

Probably not for yourself, but WP works by consensus, so what other think matters in that regard, as in any good society.

1013:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.

872:

Your above-suggested basis for excluding a source is, to paraphrase accurately, that 'in my opinion, any source which says

496:

Since you weren't even in the discussion section, and I haven't heard back from you, you are the one I'll ignore for now.

461: 214: 4222: 2363:

If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to

993: 4226: 4210: 3771: 3686: 3566: 3539: 3443: 2229: 3775: 3767: 3587:

Just keep up the good work! Thanks! Also, you can move it to your user page for greater visibility if you would like. —

3199:(distinct from opinions for deletion as such). I think it would be helpful if you could elaborate on whether (and how) 1129: 535: 2893: 2683: 527: 497: 483: 469: 448: 400: 369: 2333:

Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in

4214: 3682: 1767: 1005: 969: 718: 3235:"archetypal cosmology" has been applied to Jung, Shakespeare, and others, but are they actually associated with the 2962: 669:

please do not engage in personal attacks, instead comment on the material. continued attacks may result in a ban.

4021: 2458: 1696: 1666: 1635: 1613: 1587: 1532: 662: 135: 4238: 2484: 2438: 3427: 3105: 2388: 2204: 2115: 1943: 1843: 1456: 2635: 1194: 950: 3921: 2379: 1024: 945: 3963: 2656:

In an attempt to lower my blood pressure, I will no longer be dealing directly with right-wing douche bags. —

1581: 4152:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3873:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3859: 2783:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44638883/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/solyndra-leaders-invoke-th-amendment-hearing/

2415: 2263: 77: 3671: 3849:

Hello, Goethean. As you may be aware, there is currently a dispute over the contents of the section of the

3741: 3676: 2200: 1775: 1036: 997: 3874: 3835: 3783: 3756: 2569:

Thank you, although it looks like User:Lionelt intends to remove the material because it is unsourced. —

2341: 2103: 2052: 2030: 1931: 1887: 1865: 1565: 1560: 1555: 1550: 1040: 601: 1173:

and is heavily involved in political activities aimed at reducing regulation of the oil and gas industry

1088:

Hi - please don't revert like that - wait for consensus to arise from the discussion on the talkpage. -

3557: 3448: 2868: 2364: 2107: 1935: 38: 3818:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

2454: 1570:

The sources that I supplied are sufficient. I don't need the predictable "feedback" from the likes of

725:

lacks the will to enforce its own policies on transparently habitual abusive editors like yourself. —

3485: 3384: 3149: 2874: 2371:. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration. 2272: 2212: 2002: 1046: 768:

opinion, which is based on your ideology. Knowledge editors are supposed to write articles which are

154: 64:

Hi, please excuse my ignorance but what does the IndicText template you have recently inserted into

3855: 3504: 2882: 2411: 1438: 1205: 3104:

Hello, Goethean. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

4083: 4074: 2702: 2679: 2590: 2548: 2544: 1083: 605: 466:

Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Add_Energy_Policy_section.3F_Resource:_Get_the_Energy_Sector_off_the_Dole

211:

Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Add_Energy_Policy_section.3F_Resource:_Get_the_Energy_Sector_off_the_Dole

2781:

i feel your pain on this, we have been trying to work solendra into the Obama page for months.

1182:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-koch-brothers-20110206,0,4692342,full.story

4234: 3928: 3831: 3823: 3779: 3752: 3729: 3702: 3659: 3577: 3515: 3494: 2815: 2769: 2739: 2718: 2645: 2293: 2224: 1287: 1061: 1032: 985: 531: 501: 487: 473: 452: 404: 373: 3552:. Your suggestions and comments would be extremely helpful. Please have a look at it. Thanks. 3078:

Well, this certainly isn't policy-driven, and you are lying to yourself if you think it is. —

4037: 3940: 3844: 3553: 3413: 2832: 2789: 1716: 1351: 900: 838: 806:

By the way: your opinions regarding my character are also of zero consequence or interest. —

745: 714: 674: 630: 584: 551: 349: 334: 306: 270: 241: 4030: 3481: 3048:

I will not respond to this section further as you seem intent to make everything personal.

2971:, and when editors responded that the article had been written in a fair and neutral manner 2708: 2142: 2061: 1116: 1093: 2384:

Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage

893:

Clever renaming of the section. Don't blame you for wanting to hide the original subject.

8: 4265:

of the article at all. Which makes one wonder why they need to be used in the article. —

4101: 3525: 3500: 3404: 3169: 3113: 3053: 3007: 2958: 2923: 2878: 2594: 2334: 2119: 1966: 1947: 1799: 1764: 1255: 1028: 384: 173: 165: 131: 2601:, so perhaps just delete that entire article? *sigh* The manual Knowledge editors need: 4305: 4280: 4254: 4206: 4070: 4051: 3954: 3716: 3591: 3336: 3295: 3262: 3223: 3082: 3028: 2980: 2846: 2802: 2754: 2693: 2675: 2660: 2573: 2465: 2434: 2312: 2239: 2189: 1855: 1839: 1812: 1684: 1653: 1604: 1600:

When dittoheads dictate the contents of the Limbaugh biography, Knowledge is broken. —

1578: 1223: 1125:? The article is protected because of a content dispute and your name came up. Thanks, 1107: 1074: 989: 971: 960: 939: 881: 810: 729: 688: 643: 612: 569: 439: 417: 391: 321: 283: 256: 187: 145: 92: 47: 17: 4205:

Howdy Goethean! With regard to your old friend, I see you rounded up his most recent

3203:

is a distinct idea, and whether the terms have significant usage apart from Tarnas. --

4230: 4191: 4182: