User talk:Goethean/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Doniger

Mr Goethean: There are 191,000 pages on Google connecting Wendy Doniger and Sarah Palin. There were articles not only in Wall Street Journal and National Review but dozens of other journals and blogs and I remember this as a major thing on TV in late 2008. Why doesn't that make it a big controversy?

I am going to restore my edit on Wendy hoping that this clarification will satisfy you. Roberto25 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies including WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:EW. Under Wikipedia policy, the Google hit numbers that you mention do not count as a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is a partisan source, as is the National Review. They are reliable only for the opinions of their authors.

What you need is a reliable source which says that Doniger's statement about Palin was controversial or significant. Until you cite such a source, I believe that Wikipedia policy dictates that your proposed addition stays out of Doniger's article. — goethean 17:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Friends of Hamas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Friends of Hamas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Hamas 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.

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. Soman (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Kaufmann (philosopher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Encounter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

An RFAR has been filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 06:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed in your statement you referred to me as a "high profile admin". Am I really that high profile? I guess I just don't think about it, but now you've mentioned it, I'm wondering. KillerChihuahua 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

KC

saw your banner you left on the KC talk page .. even got the right picture. Amazing and wonderful gesture. Truly impressive. — Ched :  ?  00:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. — goethean 00:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was amazing. Well done you. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larry Arnhart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jonathan Wells, John West and History of political philosophy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Say what?

Goethean, I just noticed your edit summary. [1]. If you review my edit, you'll see that my edit summary begins by referring to the removal of teaparty.org which is not notable and comes from a primary source. It has nothing to do with the NYTs. There's no NYTs source for that edit. As for the Al Hunt edit, I don't see anywhere in my edit summary that I claim to be calling the NYTs not notable. If you examine the Al Hunt edit it is essentially unchanged except for correctly identifying it as a column and that it is published by the IHT. I don't see how you were able to read it as my calling the NYTs not notable. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I realized that after I made the edit, and admitting my mistake in a comment[2]. I couldn't change my edit because I would have been accused of violating 1RR. In the past, I have been falsely accused of violating 1RR by the conservative editors at the article. — goethean 13:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your post at the ArbCom evidence page is really good. It's focused and doesn't cherry pick diffs. Well done you. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! — goethean 17:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hey, one thing I just noticed, on the exchange we had about the fork, on my second comment, could you put in Malke explains, rather than just another Malke says it wouldn't be a fork? Appreciate it. But otherwise, that is the best post there. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I used "says" to describe most of the comments, so I think I'll just leave it. Thanks again. — goethean 17:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, okay. But you could say, Malke says why it's not a fork, lol, but do as you want. It's your post. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Great work there, I can imagine it was tedious. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Add diffs

To your statement here. Even if they're already in evidence, it will help the arbs so they don't have to dig through the evidence page to locate what you're referring to. KillerChihuahua 13:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding that same statement, [3], don't forget to go back and strike through Malke 2010 since I never participated in that discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a diff that shows me "joining this effort," please strike your comment. Thank you. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A fair point; most of your contributions to that discussion, like most of your contributions to the page, were irrelevant off-topic non-sequitors[4] that could be removed as chat. — goethean 14:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

then perhaps you could supply a dif of my off-topic, otherwise, plz strike that as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I just did. Now please stop wasting my time. — goethean 15:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

please add it on the page where you made the allegation as well as difs for the others you mentioned please, thanks! asking for difs is not wasting time, you can retract that also please. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:VA

There are a number of discussions occurring at Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded that may be of interest to you pbp 19:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of NPA

I refute that I made a personal attack against Specifico. He made an analogy that gun control was an unrelated topic to Nazi atrocities, and that discussing Hitler's Mayonaiise choice is an argument of equal validity. I called that trolling, and I stand by it. The statement is not about Specifico, but about his argument, which is not a PA. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That gun control is related to Nazi atrocities is an argument — and a highly contentious one — made by editors who dislike gun control. Saying that your opponent's argument (which happens to be the mainstream, neutral position) on gun control is "beyond the pale" and "reeks of holocaust denial" is a personal attack. You should be warned for attacking fellow editors, and a repeat should result in a block. In my opinion, if there were any accountability at all for one's actions at Wikipedia, you would already be indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing. — goethean 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about gun control. Historical misuses of gun control is a perfectly valid subtopic on a gun control article. There are NUMEROUS primary and secondary sources making the link. That is not in any way controversial. The most pro-guncontrol anti-gun people in the world agree that gun control was used as a tool by the Nazis. The holocaust had many tools and methods used to implement it. No single tool was necessary, and no single tool was sufficient. That does not mean that you cannot mention the link on pages discussing those tools/methods in their own larger context. I admit the comment was uncivil, but not that it was a personal attack. If you think an uncivil comment should result in an indefinite block, I am very glad you aren't in charge. focus on the article not a comment made in passing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun control didn't start with the Nazis. But on Wikipedia's non-neutral, NRA-inspired, piece of shit article that you are defending, it does. Why would one start a history of gun control with the year 1935? There is one, and only one, reason why one would do so. The reason is that one wants to associate gun control with the Nazis in order to prove a political point, and one is willing violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy in order to do so. The fact that you are willing to say that people who oppose your clear and repeated violations are Holocaust deniers, is...well, it is unfortunately typical of contemporary right-wingers. — goethean 23:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the PA. My "attack" was NOT about ANY position of gun control. Specifico said that " Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage." That is trolling. I stand by my statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin you have consistently misrepresented my remarks about Mayo. Please review them by searching the article talk page for mayonnaise. I was referring to the way in which facts are used in WP articles -- not that your statements are not PA on their face, regardless of the context. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, the mayo thing is going right over their heads. — goethean 23:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mayonnaise is complicated stuff. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

on the contrary, I understand perfectly. The Mayo argument is that something that merely being true is not necessarily relevant. Its a fair argument, except for the multiple contemporary newspaper articles, diary entries, telegrams, etc all discussing how confiscating guns from the jews was beneficial to the Nazi efforts. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Per the suggestion of an admin, I have moved the discussion to the appropriate venue. Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting_self Gaijin42 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

revert

I saw your re-add, which I am fine with, although I moved it to a more appropriate location in the section (IMO). Question : I got notified of a revert, but it seems that you did not actually revert. Did you manually notify me in some way? Or did you click revert and then somehow edit the revision to change the edit? Just curious on how the new notification system is working. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I clicked undo and then changed the edit summary. The source had been used in a way which was misleading. — goethean 18:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I don't disagree with your edit. The counter-opinion of the ADL is relevant, and I do not know where it was lost. When you clicked undo tho, it didn't just undo my edit tho (removing the count) it went back to an earlier bit of text that included the ADL opinion. Did you manually copy that bit back in as part of the undo? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I clicked undo to retain the ref and then re-wrote the content using the source. — goethean 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

3rr

By my count you are at 5rr. I think there has been enough beurocratic wikilawyering on this article, so I am not going to report you, but you might want to take care of ti, since I have done an FPP request, so admins will be looking at the history. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

dispute resolution

[5] you are mentioned here. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

Would care to explain why you feel those two minor issues, which have very little to do with Cheney are necessary and why you removed the see also to the Iraq War? I started a section on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lincoln (2012 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lebanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Southern nationalism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Southern nationalism. Since you had some involvement with the Southern nationalism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Thomas Nagel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Subjective, Third-person, Objective, First-person and Dissociation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Goethean/Malke2010

User:Goethean/Malke2010, a page you substantially contributed to, 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/Malke2010 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Goethean/Malke2010 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

off talk compromise proposal

Would you accept the following situation

• Gun control around the world/by country (moving the existing gun politics article to handle this)
  • Probably broken out into per-country articles for any countries with significant detail
    • Current state of gun control in each country
    • History of gun control in each country
    • Major political debates/opinions for that country
• Gun control as an independent article discussing gun control as a general concept
  • Associations with authoritarianism section under Opinions
    • That states the use of gun control by those regimes as an objective fact
    • But that leaves the importance or non importance of those facts, and relevance to modern debate as opinions (with harcourt vs halbrook (or whoever) as the voice of those opinions)
    • Depending on length of that section, a standalone "associations with authoritarianism" article, with a 1 paragraph summary and hat-tip link in the above two locations.

There would be some overlap in this situation between the "Gun control in the US" article and the overall gun control article (in particular this disputed content), but I believe the meme is notable enough for (some) coverage in both locations. If the back and forth opinions gets lengthy, that can be shuttled off to the standalone article, with just the high level summary indicating that there is such a debate etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Corporatism New Deal

I don't know about that article. Are you suggesting that its ok and needs improvement or do suggest it should be deleted?Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I see now you proposed deleting it.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)