User talk:Ald81

Welcome!

Hello, Ald81, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Investigations

Hello, Ald81. Please review the comments I have left at Talk:Logical Investigations (Husserl). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Ald81, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while logged out

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Logical Investigations (Husserl) while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks Using vandal blocking mode is intolerable on Wikipedia

I told you I am new. You are using my formal ignorance to punish the good in trying to fix a disastrous page that has no clear explanation of the value and importance. It is probably the misreading of the work by the last contributor. Blocking possibility to edit claiming I am vandal is a partisan analysis and a personal attach on me by the editorAld81 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ald81. In regards to your comment above, could you please review WP:NPA, Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a vandal

I will pursue you legally and I am very rich and will not tolerate your claims of me being a Vandal by trying to fix the mess the page is. You put the name of vandal on me and I will pursue your Hegelian falsehoods. You are a historic revisionist that is blocking the correct and balanced view of husserl. You should be banned forever from all peer to peer knowledge reviewing systems. I will do what is in my power to fix this mess were small egos are used to spread lies on Wikipedia. Also i will be likely banned also means it depends on the substance of your and my argument. Yours like the encyclopedia builders 300 years ago isn’t in the first impression but is hidden in the wrinkles in your meta narrative, what you think but don’t write but still emerges from your mind to put it in simple terms. You use the technicality of Wikipedia to threaten people that are not knowledgable on how to edit wiki pages but have good intentions. You crowd out the knowledgeable due to the heavy unbalanced between your life and your archetype. You make knowledgeable people run away by trying to support your pityful vision where only English authors and their perspective is relevant. Laughable.like The comment of Bertrand russel. If he can’t digest a masterpiece it says more about the littleness of the latter than the greatness of the former. I urge you instead to get your head straight and to recognize that Husserl is the father of phenomenology a truism that only you and some dubious English thinkers puts in doubt by defending an aweful page. And I am a LSE Graduate. I thus recognize very well the smell of anglosaxon mental farts such as the current state of the page and of your bureaucratic hiding behind rules rather than Truth. If you can’t even understand that a book can give birth to a new method it’s because after Hegel there should no longer be new methods. But there are. I am sorry to sadden you with another truism. So let me do my job or I will do all that is in my power to fix this. And I am very very very very very very patient.

Ald81 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ald81, I urge you to remove that comment immediately and to never make any kind of similar comment. Wikipedia has a strict policy against legal threats. Per WP:LEGAL: "If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GoldenRing (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ald81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Declared Hegelians and Kantians like freecontentknolege don’t have the tools to understand the Logical Incestigation and thus think it’s like swallowing a whale. As the Wikipedia page suggest. All my reasonable changes have been reverted on bureaucratic excuses and not genuine interest for truth. Instead they use Wikipedia to right their on confortino truth and bullying me out of Wikipedia first with my formal flaws as an editor then by defining me a Vandal. An Hegelian can’t properly explain phenomenology thus Husserl as Husserl himself destroys Kant and Hegel in the logical investigations. They are very dangerous to the faith to absolute spirit hegelians challenge the concept itself of offenbarung and putting to dispute all their beliefs. The page is full of this envy an of misunderstanding of Husserl and proves the underlining rage and disgust of Hegelians for anything new and different from what I believe is a severely flawed philopsophy as quantum evidenced prove. Hume is wrong, Kant is wrong freeknowledgecreator is wrong, Wikipedia is playing with fire by blocking me~~

Decline reason:

Until the legal threat is unilaterally and unconditionally withdrawn, you'll do no editing here. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Who blocking me is unfit to say that Husserl is not the father of Phenomenology as he indisputably is all over respectable sources. Thanks to these Heglians Wikipedia is not reapectable. Until they get banned and free citizens can actually create knowledge and not these lies Ald81 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to TomStar81's remarks above: Even if the legal threat is unilaterally and unconditionally withdrawn, your unblock requests and comments such as the above are no way to get yourself unblocked. I strongly suggest you read the guide to appealing blocks before you make another unblock request. Your ability to edit this page is provided solely for the purpose of making productive unblock requests; if you continue on your current course, this access will also be blocked. GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ald81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the article gives a unidimensional judgment on husserl and of the Logical Investigations that it must be victim of psychologism. There is no counter argument. Arctic le is biased because there is a thesis that husserl is quite unrelevant and to antithesis that he is. Not even on the core judgement of the article on the different judgment. The article using Aristotles without showing virtue to truth instead is one sides. No thesis a thesis and synthesis only banning people. Look up the Italian wiki page and feel shame for being heretical Protestant pastors of Hegel. Without shame there is no truth. Is also provide a feeling of shame for winning a logical argument possible on Wikipedia. Do you want to ban this. I will come from afar and destroy your Hegelian lies masked in the Albionic stupidity now proven live the phenomenologist in my the true scientist would say. I have patient I will destroy and undone all the wickedness that your heart things is eternal like Wikipedia. Babylon will fall you poorly trained Hegelian monkeys. The Logos runs deep in the German mind and that of husserl and the real history that is emerging despite your efforts will whipe everything and leave you naked with your own stupidity. That day will come before you die I prophetize let Wikipedia here be the forever memory of your eternal residing of logos for the comfort of the lies embedded in the Hegelian fairytale. There is only one true fairytale. Christ has risen from the death and your mental farts are enourmous Ald81 (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

April 2019

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Huon (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Ald81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24575 was submitted on Apr 03, 2019 14:55:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the UTRS request above, administrators should note that Ald81 is actively evading his block, as is apparent from recent IP edits at Logical Investigations (Husserl). These geolocate to Italy; Ald81 previously edited the article while logged out, and those edits also geolocated to Italy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]