The Joe H. challenge to Goethean Options Rating

[victim of censorship]

=Hello pathetic and cowardly little man=
AKA...Goethean (T-C-L-K-R-D)
As you know where I live, I know were you live as well, so I have committed to confined my augments with you to this cesspool and Wikpeidia Review so as not to have it spill out in the street and I hope you do the same.

Make no mistake, I have ABSOLUTELY no respect for your beliefs and methods of intellectual thuggery, bullying... You're a little man, pathetic and cowardly - intellectual, spiritual, and morally corrupt...your shameful ways of gaming Wikirulez, and other equally low games, in order to foist your rotten and flawed point of view, is reflective of your ethics I have seen on wikipeidia for years now. What is sad is no one calls you to task, with out getting wacked by your admin friends.

Now if you like to hide here, fine, but I make you a challenge, assuming you are brave enough and so sure of your beliefs, to crawl out from this dark and dank hiding place and on to Wikireview (a venue where you can't call an admin with tools, where you have to stand toe to toe on the merit of your augments and defend your sorry self, to the charges I make there, that your new age beliefs are garbage, and Ramakrishna's is just power mad homo erotic addict and your a sorry little thuggish boor.

Again, if you should MAN UP instead of being a coward, then I await your presence at Wikipedia Review so you can tell me and the, world at large, why your so right and the world is so wrong. MAN UP or hid like the weak bully boy you are.???

Any rate I be waiting for you there.

JoE

Addendum:
Looks like Goathed is crying to his little owl face turkey.. ...Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D) ....
MAN UP GOETHEAN COME HERE AND SHOW WHY YOUR RIGHT!!

This is how Goethean "Mans up" with the help of his lacky wikiadmin buddy Acroterion

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Alison]

And Goethean weighs in to have it kept. Shocked, I am!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[victim of censorship]

And Goethean weighs in to have it kept. Shocked, I am!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Looks like Wiki is Goeathed's personal ashram...

[victim of censorship]

And Goethean weighs in to have it kept. Shocked, I am!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Looks like Wiki is Goeathed's personal ashram...

Goethean (T-C-L-K-R-D) appears to be using Wikipedia for his personal ashram... see his
user page, and contribution and article he wildly defends and then consider wikipolicy...

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
"WP:SOAP" redirects here. For the Soap Operas WikiProject, see WP:SOAPS.
Policy shortcuts:
WP:NOTSOAPBOX
WP:NOTADVOCATE
WP:NOTOPINION
WP:NOTSCANDAL
WP:NOTADVERTISING
WP:PROMOTION
WP:SOAP
WP:SOAPBOX
WP:NOTGOSSIP

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]
2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
3. Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
5. Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.

[victim of censorship]

And Goethean weighs in to have it kept. Shocked, I am!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Looks like Wiki is Goeathed's personal ashram...

Goethean (T-C-L-K-R-D) appears to be using Wikipedia for his personal ashram... see his
user page, and contribution and article he wildly defends and then consider wikipolicy...

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
"WP:SOAP" redirects here. For the Soap Operas WikiProject, see WP:SOAPS.
Policy shortcuts:
WP:NOTSOAPBOX
WP:NOTADVOCATE
WP:NOTOPINION
WP:NOTSCANDAL
WP:NOTADVERTISING
WP:PROMOTION
WP:SOAP
WP:SOAPBOX
WP:NOTGOSSIP

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]
2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
3. Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
5. Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.

"Bumped and grind" or as the typical Wikipeidiot would say. Troll onward.

PS... I have nominated "Mr Barnstar of the month" right here. I think this guy may be a sock of Baseball bugs. Note.. Gogo Dodo

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: