User talk:Freeknowledgecreator/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Unfair on David Icke?

Hi, You reverted a post saying, "(Reverted 1 edit by Arrivisto (talk): Per WP:BLP - that is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding articles about living people." I disagree. I wrote: "Although Icke has become a successful author and a well-paid (albeit long-winded) public speaker,[15] [16][17] he has struggled to escape from the overwhelming public view that his opinions are incoherent nonsense with no scientific basis, and that he may be mentally unhinged.[18][19].

I think this was fair. I did edit this myself to change "mentally unhinged" to "deluded" ("delusional" would be even better), but that was reverted. It is clear to anyone who adopts Karl Poppers's scientific method that there is nothing scientific nor valid in Icke's ramblings. He may have got a couple of things right, such as Jimmy Saville was a paedophile (no surprise!), but his overall theories are absurd.

So, let's consider what I wrote and see if, as you allege, it really is "Per WP:BLP - that is a serious violation ". He has" become a successful author" (tick), even though he writes drivel. A "well-paid (albeit long-winded) public speaker" (tick) one address lasted 11 hours! "he has struggled to escape from the overwhelming public view that his opinions are incoherent nonsense with no scientific basis". (tick) Mainstream opinion is precisely as I stated. "and that he may be mentally unhinged." This is the majority view, but I would be happy for it to be reworded so as to cause no offence. I changed "professional conspiracy theorist" to "career conspiracy theorist" (tick); there is no such "profession', nor is he "professional". (If you are American, for "tick", read "check".)

What I am not prepared to do is to sit and watch this page become as impossible to amend as the Mormons page or the Scientologists page. It MUST represent encyclopaedic truth, even though cultists and groupies hate to see their crazy idols criticised. Arrivisto (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Arrivisto, you would do well to heed SlimVirgin's comments on your talk page. You are entitled to hold whatever view you wish of Icke, but Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding articles concerning living people (WP:BLP), and you could find yourself blocked if you do not make an effort to follow it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Arrivisto, it's a question of how to phrase things. We don't say "this person is mentally unhinged." We do say: "Relying on Douglas Kellner's distinction between clinical paranoia and a "critical paranoia" that confronts power, Lewis and Kahn argue that Icke displays elements of both ..." And note the doubt that three academics raise about whether Icke believes what he is writing. SarahSV ^(talk) 09:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed " a question of how to phrase things". Perhaps it's meant to be helpful, but declaring "you could find yourself blocked if you do not make an effort..." might rankle! To repeat, I did NOT say Icke was unhinged; I wrote, "he has struggled to escape from the overwhelming public view that ... he may be mentally unhinged". I quickly thought better of it and changed "unhinged" to "deluded", but another editor reverted! I consider that the paragraph I added to the lead serves a purpose, and if it needs refining, then why not help me do so rather than making me wait outside the headmaster's study?! And do we really say, "Relying on Douglas Kellner's distinction between clinical paranoia and a "critical paranoia" that confronts power, Lewis and Kahn argue that Icke displays elements of both ..." ? If so, no reader will make any sense of it! I did indeed note previously "the doubt that three academics raise about whether Icke believes what he is writing", and that view is valid, if unlikely; but to suggest that Icke is a modern-day Swift is (how to say?) unconvincing. There really is a need for a paragraph in the lead that is essentially similar to what I wrote, to make it clear that most rational people consider Icke's utterings to be no more coherent than Hitler's Mein Kampf. Best. Arrivisto (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Arrivisto, though I don't really want to have a long argument or debate with you about this, I think I should note that most people, rational or otherwise, have probably never even heard of David Icke, and that one thus cannot truthfully make claims about what they think of him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Me neither! I have now posted a new lead paragraph that I hope is both accurate and unprejudicial. if it is reverted, I shall bother no more. (By the way, although you say "most people, rational or otherwise, have probably never even heard of David Icke", in fact he is a household name in England). Thanks again. Arrivisto (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dirty Dancing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mambo. 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) 09:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kuhn Black-Body Theory.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kuhn Black-Body Theory.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sexual Preference (book)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sexual Preference (book) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Perceiving God.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Perceiving God.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Freud Evaluated (first edition).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Freud Evaluated (first edition).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Foucault (first edition).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Foucault (first edition).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frege, Philosophy of Language.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frege, Philosophy of Language.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Extended Phenotype (first edition).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Extended Phenotype (first edition).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sexual Preference (book)

The article Sexual Preference (book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sexual Preference (book) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

God Is Not Great

Regarding this edit, I was wondering if you could clarify your position on removing this article from the intro. In any case, one revert on my part does not constitute an edit war, especially when my minor, good faith edit has been removed twice now without explanation. Jg2904 (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss anything related to the article is on its talk page, not here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Duly noted; drafting the post now. Jg2904 (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sexual Preference, Statistical Appendix.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sexual Preference, Statistical Appendix.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove the edit on Julie Bindel?

It was true, and it was sourced. 188.122.86.254 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. Your edit was a serious violation of the policy. It has been pointed out before that reporting Bindel's comments, not apparently meant seriously, at face value as a seriously meant proposal is a BLP violation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DQuasi-elemental lightning.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DQuasi-elemental lightning.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Potential copyvio

You might be interested in this website, which seems to be a mirror of Wikipedia. I'm a bit fuzzy on the copyvio stuff, but apparently, as I have not contributed to the article Philosophy, I cannot send a DMCA if need be. Could you take a look at it? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 23:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, however, I am not a copyright expert, and I am not entirely sure why you are contacting me about this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm doing this because per WP:FORK, if someone violates the terms of the license, then enforcement needs to come from the copyright owner. Consequently, complaints about violations need to be made by a person who actually wrote part of the improperly republished material. See #Non-compliance process for one typical method for dealing with publishers who violate your copyright. If your own copyright has not been violated, then you may contact one or more of the editors who own the copyright for the material in question, and suggest that they follow the steps in the suggested process. The Wikimedia Foundation and the community cannot do this on behalf of the copyright owner. Since I have not contributed to the specific article, I cannot issue a DMCA takedown notice. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 01:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Apparently I am going to have to repeat myself: this copyright issue you have brought to my attention has nothing to do with me and I cannot do anything about it. You should seek help from an actual copyright expert. That person is not me. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

D&D articles

Is there a particular reason for that revert or are you trying to force discussion for the sake of discussion? You must know that pretty much all of these are dead, abandoned articles. Nobody is going to discuss them. There is no way to obtain a consensus. I'm in for the long-haul at this point, so I'll gladly take all of them to AfD over the next year to keep anonymous people from reverting them all four months later. But at the same time, is it really necessary to pretend this is some kind of controversial move? If you truly believe any of them to be notable, it is entirely in your right to revert a bold redirect, but can you please not do so just out some kind of feeling that there absolutely needs to be a discussion of every single article? TTN (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect that "nobody is going to discuss" Dungeons & Dragons articles. Wikipedia has a project - WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons - dedicated specifically to Dungeons & Dragons. Ask project members what they think. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure a pretty much dead WikiProject will greatly help in establishing this imaginary consensus that you believe can actually happen. This project is barely edited, many of these articles are barely edited once every two years (if that), and I don't think any of the merge discussions started by J Milburn have seen a response. This is just a dead, defunct section of this site long overdue to properly be trimmed down. All you're doing is being unnecessarily bureaucratic in a process that's likely to happen either way. Certainly, there's no reason to remain silent if you think an article has potential, but do you really have to get in the way of merging articles that are obviously never going to be anything more than non-notable, in-universe information? TTN (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A quick read of the list of project participants shows that, while some participants have been inactive for years, there are still about 45 active project members. The project does not look dead to me. In any case, you should make a good faith effort to seek help from the project. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Been there and done that years ago. Nobody cared. The very fact that these articles are like this proves that nobody cares. Good faith sort of goes out the window when articles have been sitting stagnant for a literal decade in some cases. What will satisfy your criteria? How about a post on the project page that will be ignored or receive three comments that lead to nothing? As I said, I'll gladly AfD everything, but it would be nice to be able to just merge some of these without having to worry about someone going back and reverting them all two weeks later. TTN (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Noticing your revert on Bael (Dungeons & Dragons), what exactly is your point? Are you reverting because you feel the topic should stay despite not being notable stay while using the idea of consensus as a convenient excuse? Do you truly think the topic can be expanded to establish notability? Or do you truly, actually care about consensus on near-dead articles to the point where the content doesn't even matter? If you're reverting because of the second point, that's perfectly fine to hold that opinion and I hold that your revert and desire for discussion is fine. It if is for one of the other reasons, you're just wikilawyering to make things difficult for no reason. You must know that the grand majority of these articles are not suitable per Wikipedia standards. You must know that only a small percentage will actually remain when everything is done. You must know that the project member have put little effort into solving these issues over half a decade at this point. As I said, I would love to be able to just merge some of these without fear of being randomly reverted for no actual reason beyond being petty (at least from my point of view). TTN (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. If there is a question about the notability of a given subject, then an AfD becomes appropriate. It can sometimes happen that evidence supporting notability is presented during the course of an AfD discussion - evidence that might not surface otherwise. That is why I reverted the (undiscussed) redirect; an AfD might yet turn up evidence supporting notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

And again, you completely avoid the issue. These articles are not in a state where they would ever be discussed outside of AfD for the most part. There are some exceptions where notability may actually be possible (out of all these god/demon articles Demogorgon (Dungeons & Dragons) seems to be the only one I've seen), but 95 out of 100 are clear cut cases. I'm still going to AfD a grand majority of them, but why is it that you cannot practice proper BRD etiquette where you only bring back article you actually feel have some merit in existing? My biggest pet peeve is people who take consensus as some kind of holy law even on articles that clearly do not possess any current or potential merit in acting as full-fledged articles. If you only selectively brought back articles based on some kind of personal opinion on potential of notability, that would be perfectly understandable, but there is world of difference even between something like Bael and the quasi-elemental. TTN (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I have not avoided the issue. You asked why I reverted the redirect. I explained why clearly. It is you who has failed to respond to the points that I made. My suggestion to you now is to simply nominate the article for deletion, if you think the subject is not notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What I would like to hopefully ascertain is that if you truly think any of these have potential or if you're just staunchly acting as a roadblock for no particular reason (outside of maybe personal sentiment for the articles). The excuse that articles may gain new sources through AfD is silly when all of these AfDs are just exactly the same, where only 1 in 30 seems to be a keep. Again, I ask why you cannot take it as a case by case basis where you, objectively or subjectively, revert based upon your own opinion of the potential of the article. Do you honestly think that Quasi-elemental‎ will ever have any chance of being an independent article? TTN (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming tendentious and time-wasting. Please assume good faith, which you have not done so far. I can see that you disagree with the reason I gave for the reverts; nevertheless, I stand by the reason I gave. I repeat my suggestion to nominate the articles for deletion, as the only reasonable course open to you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

And why exactly is that the "only reasonable course"? Why are you the protector of these articles? This is wikilawyering to the letter. If you just at least came out and said "despite any objective criteria for inclusion, I think all of these articles should stay," I would just let it end at that and continue on. I would disagree obviously, but it would make sense. This current viewpoint that "AfD is the only way to deal with these articles" makes no sense. What about Merge Tag > No discussion at all for a month because nobody actually cares > then merge? Would that be acceptable? TTN (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You are free to do anything you like that does not involve repeatedly turning articles into redirects without consensus. Now please leave me alone. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as you are acting as the singular roadblock to what should be a very easy and non-controversial process I don't particularly care if you feel annoyed. If you could please answer the question, I'll be done. Will you accept silent consensus from an unanswered merge discussion left for a reasonable amount of time (three or more weeks) as consensus without suddenly reverting it and demanding an AfD? TTN (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

My past comment should already have answered that question for you. The answer is yes, however, if it absolutely has to be spelled out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Karl Marx shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rocan Pandaso (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You are the one engaged in an edit war at Karl Marx, Rocan Pandaso, not me. Your changes are opposed by multiple users, and I am only one of them. Your warning is in bad faith. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Garl Glittergold.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Garl Glittergold.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Justin Raimondo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. There are plenty problems here. First, it takes a secondary source to establish whether this or that opinion or article by someone is notable--whether it is worthwhile mentioning it in the first place. This should go without saying. Second, secondary sourcing helps establish whether this summary of someone's arguments is neutral and correct. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies, but I would have thought that Raimondo's articles are a reliable source for the purpose of establishing what Raimondo believes. I would not have thought there was anything at all objectionable about that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, now you know. To repeat: how would we know which of his ideas to list (all of them?), and how would we know whether a summary is neutral and correct? These things are not trivial. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. An article by a person can reasonably be used as a source for what they believe. Anyone can determine the accuracy of the summary by checking the original source. As for, "how would we know which of his ideas to list", editors can reasonably use their judgment about such matters. I see no reason to remove Raimondo's views on gay marriage. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Give me one good reason why his opinions are noteworthy, opinions that apparently others have not found worth noting. What you're doing is simply fluffing up the article of a barely notable person, unduly giving weight to their positions which--again--others have not apparently found worth noting. Are you a fan? Here we go: currently he is on vacation ([1]); please add that to the article. On that same page he notes that his Tweets are sometimes "deliberately provocative" (what? Tweets that are provocative?); please add hat as well. In a tweet 5 hours ago he thanked God for Christopher Hitchens. Please add. Yesterday he retweeted something by someone called Peter Nisley about Gary Johnson. Please add.

What you are creating is what you perhaps want: Wikipedia as a trash can for factoids, and where you talk about "judgment" you exhibit none. For starters, why would you find it surprising that someone like this has paleoconservative views on gay marriage? I don't think anyone else was surprised. Now, I see that this talk page is full of warnings about edit warring; I smell a pattern. TTN, do you smell it too? Drmies (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Raimondo is a prominent political commentator and an openly gay man. Of course his views on gay issues are noteworthy, and a matter of public interest (your bad faith question about whether I am a "fan" of Raimondo is irrelevant, but the answer is no, as it happens). The suggestion that Raimondo's views on gay issues are as unimportant as the fact that he is currently on vacation is quite ridiculous. I invite you to discuss content disputes properly on the article's talk page, rather than leaving aggressive and unreasonable messages here. If you think Raimondo himself is not notable and that there should not be an article about him, then that is an altogether different issue. Go ahead and nominate the article for deletion if you wish. I am confident it would be kept. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Strawman. Now find secondary sources. SELFSOURCE is fine for all kinds of factoids, but not for inserting this kind of information. No, there is no reason why his views would be notable, not without secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

To quote WP:SELFSOURCE:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without :::::::the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The article is not based primarily on such sources.

I believe that all of those criteria are met for the material you removed, Drmies. Hence, there are no good grounds for removing it. Now, as requested, please discuss the issue properly on the article's talk page. If you want to remove the material, then as the editor who wants to change the article, you need to get consensus for your changes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Cover

Hi there! Would you be able to find a cover for The Dawning of a New Age please? BOZ (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Corellon Larethian.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Corellon Larethian.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DJann.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DJann.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DQuasi-elemental lightning.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DQuasi-elemental lightning.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert on CHS

What's up with that revert? That's not a good reversion rationale at the least. Arkon (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Since this issue concerns the article Christina Hoff Sommers, please discuss it at the article's talk page, not here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can justify your revert on the talk page then. As I gave the reasoning in my edit summary. Arkon (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Report at An3 involving you

I reported an editor to AN3 that was involved in an edit war at Sam Harris. I'm not sure if you were pinged or not but I thought I'd let you know as you are involved. It is here. I thought that 6 reverts was a little too egregious not to report it. Cheers. --Adam in MO Talk 03:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

RE Scott Lively

I apologize - I think some of your text got rv in an edit conflict. I restored what I could see was missing but please review and/or check the diffs to see if there's anything left to restore. Sorry, again. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The key change I made was to remove a blog that was being used as a source in the article. Per WP:BLP, the article cannot use a random blog as a source; a blog might be acceptable if it were associated with a major media outlet such as the New York Times, but the one I removed isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know that I did not do it intentionally. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, fine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

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.

The Phantom Plainsmen

added a link pointing to Bob Steele

The Phantom Rider (Universal serial)

added a link pointing to Ray Taylor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:A Theory of Justice (original edition).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A Theory of Justice (original edition).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Freud Talk Input Request

Can you please weigh-in on the most recent post I made for the [Freud talk] discussion that I started? I agree that the conversation is likely to be unproductive at this point. But a final, third-party weigh-in would be much appreciated. I've addressed your argument for due weight directly in the final paragraph. I would extremely appreciate direct weigh-in. Passmic (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ygorl.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ygorl.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Laogzed.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Laogzed.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Covers

Hi there, thanks for getting a cover for Daughter of the Drow. Would you be able to find anything for Chronomancer, The Complete Ninja's Handbook, Into the Unknown: The Dungeon Survival Handbook, The Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond, and Heroes of the Feywild? There will be more, but that is what I have for right now. BOZ (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ. I'll look and see what I can do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, let's talk about Bruno Bettelheim, and I welcome your help

It's a difficult subject. There are multiple sources saying the guy misrepresented his credentials. I could very much use your help steering a middle course.

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the article's talk page. Discussion should proceed there, not here on my personal talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Revert on Sam Harris article

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator. I noticed you reverted some changes I made on the Sam Harris article, namely, my deletion of some of the criticisms quoted in that section. I undid this revert because I think deleting those criticisms was necessary to improve the balance of that section (which is largely focused on criticism of Harris rather than articulating his views) and the criticisms deleted in particular were grossly misleading accounts of Harris' actual views. It's not merely about disagreeing, it's about getting rid of criticisms that misrepresent the views of a living author. I'm happy to discuss this further but if you could articulate your concerns on the talk page rather than just revert, I'd appreciate it.

See WP:BRD. It does not matter how right you are in making your changes, if they do not get agreement it is up to you to create consensus for them instead of simply repeating them over and over again. Please stop reverting and leave the article as it was. If you want to remove that content, you have to establish consensus for that. You should try to do that at the article's talk page, Talk:Sam Harris, not here on my personal talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Bettelheim

Hi, if we can have a better subsection title than "‎Nonresponse of psychiatric community," I'm all ears. Please join me on Talk page. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Anita Bryant

Thanks, somehow misread that as adding Jerry Ford. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User page content

I think I'll keep content on my user page as it is (in fact might be expanded in future). A note on the top of the page clearly tells visitors that it is a user page and not a Wikipedia article. And I have clearly highlighted the word Christian Mythology and provided a link to Christian mythology main article. Also I think according to Wikipedia policies users are free to manage their own user pages as they like and not what other users like or dictate as long as what they put on their page is not hate-speech, inflammatory, sexually explicit, pornographic, promoting violence against humans and animals or vulgar. And content on my page doesn't promote any of these. So content on my own user page is perfectly valid and factual. Thanks for your suggestion though. Christian Mythology (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is why your are wrong in your reply on my talk page:

• The word holy is just an adjective. And Christians seem to use lots of adjectives to set apart their Mythology as some kind of special mythology which is nothing but a double-standard and hypocrisy of highest kind. I think Wikipedia should function as a neutral, secular and open knowledge website and not as a Christian propaganda website and even then lots of articles related to Christianity are clearly written/edited by those who strongly favour Christian Mythology over any other mythology and/or religion. Existence of the Ghost or holy Ghost (as you call it) has not been proven so it is clearly a mythological figure just like supernatural phenomena and beings of other religions are classified as mythology by Christians like you. And your usage of words like immanent, transcendent, manifest is ironic since these terms have been plagiarised by Christians (as usual) into their religion as these terms are generally used by Eastern religions specially Dharmic religions the very religions which are regarded as false by most Christians.
• Sometimes Devil is used as synonymous to Satan and sometimes as a separate entity as I have observed on many other websites and forums. So if Christians themselves don't know what is the status of this Mythological figure (just like many other figures in their special kind of Mythology) it is not me who is wrong to list it as a separate entity.
• Not sure what you wanted to say in your last point. Most certainly the highest form of mental deformity one can have is to believe without any reason that most of mankind will be tortured in hell for all of eternity by a so-called loving god and yet that kind of monster is identified as a loving god. Another strong example of their mental deformity is to reject all mountain of evidence in favour of evolution and still claim creationism myth as something true. Another prominent example is to believe that earth was created only some 6000 years ago. If these are not the signs of development of serious kind of mental deformities then I don't know what is. Christian Mythology (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Christian Mythology: You've gotten FreeKnowledgeCreator and me mixed up (you really need to read things more carefully). I pointed out the errors. The term comes from the Hebrew Ruach Kadosh, from Judaism. The word "Holy" (Kadosh in Hebrew) is meant to distinguish it from other spirits. Your complaints about propaganda are more than ironic, given that your user page is nothing but propaganda. Your claim about the devil is based on poor sources; it doesn't show that Christians don't know their own myths, it just shows that you don't know what reliable sources of information are. If you are here to push bigotry toward any belief system, you should find another site to do so]]. We block Agnostics, Buddhists, Christians, Druze, and all on down to Zoroastrians if they are here for reasons besides helping the site. That you seem to assume all Christians are young earth creationists (even though the largest denomination on the planet advocates evolution) leads me to believe you've never actually met a Christian (beyond, perhaps, missionaries from or members of a single small-town cult). Is it really so enlightened to hate something you demonstrably have very little familiarity with? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Bettelheim

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator,

I want to thank you for helping me with my writing. After a hiatus away from Wiki, I needed the help to get back into the swing of things.

At this point, after several weeks of research and mulling it over, I'm planning to make some major changes to the Bettelheim article, primarily moving the factual content from the lead into the body and going with a far shorter lead, and one which I'm convinced is more than amply supported by our references. Out of respect, I wish to give you this advance notice.

On an unrelated note, and this one may not interest you at all, my next project might be to *slowly* work to changing the Christiaan Barnard lead to " . . second heart transplant and first widely-publicized one. . " And this is the change which may be the really controversial one! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DStench kow.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DStench kow.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Advice

Sundayclose seems to be wikistalking me. I have no idea why they have chosen me but the first edits they made today were to revert my edit on H. G. Wells and when you corrected them, they sought out another of my edits (now on The Time Machine (1960 film)) using the same argument (that I need consensus to remove unreferenced material that apparently didn't need consensus to be added). Clearly, their goal is to goad me into an edit war to be blocked (see here) so I wondered if you could advise me on who I might be able to contact to end this wikistalking. Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You should try contacting an administrator if there really seems to be a serious problem. You might know of an administrator who could help you; alternatively, if there is no better option, you could start a thread on WP:ANI. Little or nothing I can do personally. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I might take it to WP:ANI. Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Camille Paglia

I have posted on the talk page a comment regarding your recent edits. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sen and Nussbaum

Why did you revert the edits on the Sen article where it was stated that he had a romantic relationship with Martha Nussbaum? It was in the Personal Life section. The fact that this top economist had a relationship with a top philosopher is of interest to people who wanna know about his biography. It is public knowledge and has been reported on in new articles. Why shant it be placed in this guy's wiki bio? Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.107.145 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the information because it has nothing to do with the reasons for Sen's notability. WP:UNDUE applies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Camille Paglia

I have posted on the talk page a comment regarding two edits of mine. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I remember. I didn't respond because the issue isn't very important. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dinosaur in a Haystack page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DAfanc.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DAfanc.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DMarid.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DMarid.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Bruno Bettelheim

I'm working on some changes to the lead, probably for next week. Think there's a good chance you'll like them. Asking myself, what if I were back in college and a professor asked, Hey, what's the situation with this Bettelheim character? So, an answer which is meaty, substantial, supported, formally written.

Now, I have thanked you for helping me for my writing, and you have. You have not yet thanked me for finding references and adding solid information to the article, which you don't necessarily need to, although it might be a nice idea. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Covers

Hi there, FKC! I had some free time today, so I added several D&D articles. Would you be able to see if you can add cover images to Player's Secrets of Tuornen, Player's Secrets of Roesone, Player's Secrets of Endier, Player's Secrets of Ilien, Player's Secrets of Medoere, Giantcraft, The Iron Throne (Birthright novel), and The Titan of Twilight? Thanks for anything you can do! BOZ (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I'll look for appropriate images for all of those articles soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there FKC! Thank you so much for your edits to the page. We are the media studio that has produced this film. The title of the film has been changed from 'Proposition for a Revolution' to 'An Insignificant Man'. The change has been made in the text by an unregistered user named Sohailk711. However we would like to make the change in the article's title. Could you, being a registered and verified user please do the same. This is the website of the film that confirms the title change- insignificantman.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj Rahul P V (talk • contribs) 10:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

discussion is better

It will be more productive if you are willing to discuss matters rather than use your Twinkle to revert everything. Discussion between us can result in agreement and article improvement. If you are heavy handed, this is not constructive.

Are you in Auckland? Did you cut down the tree in One True Hill? Don't blame Twinkle. Samswik (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to tell me to discuss. I replied to you on the article's talk page; you should have responded there, not on my personal talk page. Sorry, but I think most of your edits at Dirty Dancing are poor and will need to be reverted. WP:BRD explains that you should accept it if changes you want to make to an article do not get agreement from other editors. In such situations, the article simply reverts to the status quo version. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ravager (film) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Benjiboi

What actually happened there, just so you know, is that Benjiboi's user talk page actually exists only as a redirect to his user profile page (that was done as part of the process of blocking him). I will remove the notification from the page, but it's not that I made an error as such — I initiated the nomination through Twinkle's XFD module, so it ended up there automatically because of the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I realize that. This was what happened with all the previous notices that ended up on Benjiboi's user page, and I didn't think you had made an error. The point was simply that the notice didn't belong there - the blocked user presumably isn't looking at their old user page to see what notices might turn up there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous revert

Somehow I read that as adding a second erroneously, my bad. Thanks for catching it. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of a reference in the "Legacy" part of the Linda Lovelace page

Why is the reference to Lovelace by DAC removed while the reference to her by Marc with a C is kept ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliems (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:

I am talking about this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Lovelace&oldid=755428469 Oliems (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You added content with no supporting citation. It was removed in accord with WP:VERIFY. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Covers

Hi there, FKC! I had some free time today, so I added a few more D&D articles. Would you be able to see if you can add cover images to All Shadows Fled, War in Tethyr, and Dark Knight of Karameikos? Thanks for anything you can do! BOZ (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I am somewhat caught up with other issues at the moment - as you can probably see - but I will try in the near future to find appropriate images for those articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks! BOZ (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree, E.D. Hirsh is confused with Allan Bloom

If I think it's a good idea to include E. D. Hirsh among Allan Bloom and Harold Bloom, do you REALLY think it needs to be IMMEDIATELY removed by you, where immediately stands in for "reflexively/thoughtlessly"; I'm assuming you based your thinking on "anybody can confuse two Blooms", i.e. on the name alone, but you are ignoring the political/cultural context. Harold Bloom wrote about "great books" and "E. D. Hirsh" wrote about "great ideas" and both in the context of education reform, but Allan Bloom and E. D. Hirsh were often put together as part of "one movement" even though Allan Bloom wrote about "the closing of the American mind" which is a related but conceptually more different. Harold Bloom himself complains that he is ideologically confused with Allan Bloom, and sure, while the Bloom name figures into it, the ideology is what he's complaining about, and I can't help but think that the convervative press's ideology is what rubbed off onto both of them when Allan Bloom and E.D.Hirsh were conflated by conservative pundits. I don't think it "hurts" to have the "unnecessity" of E.D.Hirsh take up a small amount of space at the top of the page. He has an unusual name, hard enough to recall, and if you are already confused between Allan and Harold Bloom, you may in fact be looking for Hirsch's antecedent to Harold Bloom's book. Reconsider please. 172.56.37.166 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The names "E. D. Hirsch" and "Allan Bloom" are totally different from each other. No one is going to confuse them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Self-promotion

Hi,

This user's edits seem highly promotional/self-promotional. — goethean 17:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If they are, is there a special reason you are bringing this to my attention? I am not an administrator, so it is unclear to me what you expect me to do about this. The edits date to 2007 (!) and I've never even heard of the person the article is about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jewish Supremacism.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jewish Supremacism.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please be aware that adding {{dubious}} and replacing it with {{fact}} is essentially the same thing, and that you have surpassed WP:3RR already on psychoanalysis. Doing so again will likely be cause for a temporary ban. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You are not even describing my edits correctly. I did not add {{dubious}}, I added {{clarification needed}}. Neither is the same as a citation needed tag. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Bhikhu Parekh

You've added to Bhikhu Parekh a "Category:Bhikhu Parekh". I'm puzzled that an individual scholar and minor politician (whom I admire BTW) can need to be a category. Wikiain (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That category - like other similar categories - covers both an author and works by that author. There is nothing inappropriate about it. The category exists simply because there are multiple articles that can properly be covered by it, and it does not matter whether Parekh is major or minor as a politican. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Right-oh. Thanks. Wikiain (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann

I'm surprised. What's your rationale for a Category, rather than a Subject template? And even then, he's just an individual? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Same remarks apply. Author exists. Book by author also exists. Category covers both. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Above? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion immediately above this one, about Bhikhu Parekh. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Category vs Subject template a real choice? Perhaps you want both? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I like categories. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Martinevans123 and I (above) seem to making the same point. See beginning of H:CAT: "Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects." Connections between an author and their works should already be in the article about (the subject of which is) the author. Wikiain (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. "Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects", yes, and the categories I have created do precisely that. Where is the problem? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that an author and her/his works are not separate subjects, unless a work has somehow been notable on its own. I don't see anything like that for the works by Parekh and Hartmann that are in your categories. Wikiain (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You are creating a problem where none exists. If there are articles about both a book and its author, they can be linked by categories. Whether the book is actually notable or deserves an article unto itself is a different issue. Hartmann's book happens to be famous, and there are plenty of sources in the article that establish its notability. Parekh's Marx's Theory of Ideology is not so famous as Hartmann's book, but there is still a reliable source calling it a classic work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I said "separate" subjects. An author and their works are normally adequately linked from within the author's article, as well of course as the article on the work, as is the case with Hartmann and Parekh. Wikiain (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that comment simply suggests to me that you do not understand the point of categories, which are an accepted part of Wikipedia. They are helpful because they provide one way of finding articles on related subjects, and the fact that articles might be linked or connected in other ways is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi please stop creating eponymous categories with 1 subject and 1 work these are not helpful for navigation. Books should be in Books by foo not in foo, prime example Category:Edmund Blunden, Shelley: A Life Story should be categorised under Category:Books by Edmund Blunden. Tim! (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the relevant policy or guideline, Tim!? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:OCEPON "Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." Tim! (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well. It would have been more helpful to simply direct me to it in the first place. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim!. FreeKnowledgeCreator, all users should check the criteria before attempting a general innovation. Now please remove your categories of this kind. Wikiain (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Edmund Blunden has been nominated for discussion

Category:Edmund Blunden, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have requested the originator to remove these (see previous section). Wikiain (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I will note that some of the categories I have recently created, eg Category:Works by Elizabeth Anscombe, Category:Works by Hal Draper, and Category:Books by Paul Sweezy, are appropriate and I will not be removing them or requesting deletion in such cases. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If there are to be such articles, it seems likely that there should be thousands. What can they add to the list of works that will be in the author's article? If they don't significantly add, they are just clutter. But removing them could be a lot of work. Kindly make a clear case for them or desist and remove. Wikiain (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Either quote a relevant policy or guideline or stop commenting here. If you have an opinion that isn't based in policy or guidelines, it is not relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Adorno's Negative Dialectics

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, I'm indeed a newcomer to Wikipedia edition (all my apologies : I just discovered that any edition should be preceded by feeding the talk of a wiki page), and would be grateful, since you're a confirmed member, if you might answer just a few questions. 1. To which point is quoting welcome in Wikipedia (it is very common in philosophy, where the reference to the source is precious to validate any statement, but also to get quickly a clear idea of a philosopher and his work ; however browsing over a few philosophy pages, I realize quotes do no appear often, and indeed Wikipedia policy favors concision) ; any indications on more precise quoting policy (if any defined) would be precious 2. Is there any possibility by adding sections to complete the summary ? (I imagine I've read more scientific Wikipedia pages - which you seem also familiar with - which are often more detailed than this one) 3. Concerning the summary of the page, might it not be possible to complete it a little, possibly based on the German version, for instance ? Thank you in advance for your clarifications :) Kind regards, --StudentInEpistemology (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank for your efforts at improving the article on Adorno's Negative Dialectics, StudentInEpistemology; the article certainly needs improvement. Unfortunately, as I noted when I removed the content you added, it really is not appropriate for the "summary" section to consist of a series of long quotations from the book. Short quotations would be fine and can be used to some extent, so long as they do not make up the bulk of the summary section. Most of the material there should summarize the book's contents rather than directly quote it. I hope that helps. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind answer FreeKnowledgeCreator: I've proposed a lighter version of possible improvement on the wiki talk page (is this indeed the way to proceed ?), keeping only one (clearest) quote at every statement

1. would this new addition be acceptable for the summary ?

2. if quotes are too lengthy, might it be possible / preferable to integrate them as footnotes ?

3. if level of detail inappropriate for summary (?) might it be possible to add another section ?

Thank you, kind regards :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentInEpistemology (talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Rocky Mountain Saints.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Rocky Mountain Saints.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

This other editor's edits at Plato make no sense, as you also see. Hmains (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Accusing me of deliberate "disruption" is a violation of WP:AGF and is itself disruptive. ¡Bozzio! 05:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ¡Bozzio! 05:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior at David Irving shows that you are edit warring, against multiple users. You should not be warning me for edit warring. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You're one revert away from breaking 3RR, just be aware of that. The edit-warring notification is automatic. ¡Bozzio! 05:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet you claim that posting the notification in the same circumstances on your talk page is a misuse of it [2]... and that I should fuck off for doing so. Sure. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just passing by--Bozzio, I might well agree with your edit, but I can't agree with the edit warring, and your comments to Nick-D are not OK; no wonder Nick "facepalmed" after that odd warning you left on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

David Irving revisions

Thank you, I'll try to make better edits in the future.

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DTri-flower frond.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DTri-flower frond.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

is born vs. was born

I noticed that recently you changed "is born" to "was born" on Priti Sengupta. I use "is born" for alive people and "was born" for dead people. As I am not native speaker, I have now question, what is right usage?-Nizil (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Nizil (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Was born" is always correct, as it refers to an event that took place in the past. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canticle (D&D novel).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Canticle (D&D novel).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:In Sylvan Shadows (D&D novel).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:In Sylvan Shadows (D&D novel).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Night Masks (first edition).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Night Masks (first edition).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Chaos Curse (D&D novel).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Chaos Curse (D&D novel).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Fallen Fortress (D&D novel).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Fallen Fortress (D&D novel).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.} Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of disruptive editing, Andrzejbanas, it would be a good idea for you to stop edit warring against multiple users who disagree with you. You justified restoring the template with reference to WP:MTR, but that page notes explicitly that it is only an essay, and has no standing as policy, and isn't even a guideline. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not see how this tag "confuses users" as Gothicfilm suggests any more than a or tag could do. Could you explain it? or better yet, provide a rule or even a suggestion that says "yeah, you can remove tags when you feel like it". Because then I'll let it be. In the meantime, I'd prefer to focus on resolving the issue regarding the production companies on the talk page instead of simply saying "I agree with {whoever}" and not adding to the conversation on the talk page. And besides Gothicfilm (who originally added it stating IMDb as a source), do you have anything to add? research? content? rules? guidelines? Essays? If not, I do not understand what you are trying to contribute, but I am willing to learn and listen. Please explain how removing templates helps a discussion outside of "i don't like it" or "i agree with this user". Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not need a rule that explicitly states that "you can remove tags when you feel like it". Wikipedia generally operates by consensus, which means that a tag needs consensus, just as most other things do. You referred me to WP:MTR to justify your actions, but as I said, WP:MTR is only an essay. I do not have to follow it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus regards to prose and content, not whether rules aren't being followed. Is there an ongoing discussion on a topic? There is. Is it resolved? It is not as we are still at this. Nothing on that page suggests that. In fact it suggest the opposite with this graphic.

File:Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Consensus Flowchart.svg

We are currently seeking a compromise. We have not found one yet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Altaic languages

We use familycolor Altaic as an areal classification. Also, there are another articles that use the colour. (e.g. Turkish language and Mongolian language) --211.54.2.241 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Whitaker

Why do you keep removing my edits on the Robert Whitaker page? I updated it to have citations! Your whole grounds for removing it in the first place was no citation. For the record no citation should be necessary in a section that summarizes a book - it is obvious that the citation is the book itself...

Thank you for asking. Your edit to Robert Whitaker (author) added very contentious material about a living person, and as such is questionable under WP:BLP. It was necessary to remove material that was added without a citation, however, I am not convinced the material is acceptable even with a citation, as it presents an accusation of unethical behavior as fact rather than as the opinion of the cited source. You ought to discuss the issue on the talk page before adding such contentious material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response and sorry for posting it at the top - I am new to this. I understand how some might find it contentious given the nature of the content but the facts are not contested. There are tons of articles about it and even congressional investigations. This was included in court documents as well. I think it's very important that this issue be publicized. Here is one such article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulthacker/2011/09/13/how-an-ethically-challenged-researcher-found-a-home-at-the-university-of-miami/#50bd7ece517b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medkatz (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, 1968 paperback edition.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, 1968 paperback edition.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Homosexual Matrix

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Homosexual Matrix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Homosexual Matrix

The article The Homosexual Matrix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Homosexual Matrix for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DGnoll.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DGnoll.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Asimov lede - "author" vs "writer"

Thanks for the thanks.

That interaction temporarily soured me on WP editing, but I'm starting to recover. I saw that you had a previous run-in with JoeP. I decided to walk away, keeping in mind the "teapot" side of "tempest in a teapot". Although I disagreed with the change, I want to keep things in perspective and not make mountains out of molehills. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I stopped arguing with that user at Gay Talese was that a third opinion supported his position. I stopped arguing with him at Isaac Asimov because the talk page seems to be equally divided between users who support and users who oppose his position, which means that the issue is not worth pursuing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing.

As a heads up as well, it's not at WP:3RR if you are removing vandalism, which is what you are doing. You also have not shown me any rules I've been breaking on my talk page to warrant the WP:3RR. Before removing again, other than you disagree with the statements (but have not participated on the talk page discussion), why is it wrong that we tag something? There is an ongoing discussion and no consensus on what to do yet. Please, before you remove this tag, like you have done with my previous three edits, I'd really like to discuss it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My edits are not vandalism, Andrzejbanas. If you disagree, then you ought to report me (and Gothicfilm) for vandalism and see what happens. I think you are going to find little sympathy for false accusations of vandalism as a way of gaining an advantage in a dispute and ignoring clear rules. Since you have persisted in edit warring after being warned, I will report you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to apologise. I really thought that the edits I was making on the main page was me fighting against vandalism. I hope it didn't cause you too many problems and that we can put behind us. Have a good evening! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Great job in taking The Homosexual Matrix to GA 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Covers

Thanks for getting covers on Blood Hostages, Escape from Undermountain, and Curse of the Shadowmage.  :) Would you be able to see if you can find anything for Van Richten's Guide to Fiends and Age of Mortals: Dragonlance Campaign Setting Companion? BOZ (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ. I'll try soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Hello, I'm TheCoffeeAddict. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ludwig Wittgenstein have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 12:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not vandalize Ludwig Wittgenstein, TheCoffeeAddict, so your warning above is inappropriate and deeply obnoxious. Please do not make a fool of yourself by spuriously accusing editors with years of experience of vandalism. I reverted what seemed to me, and what on further consideration still seems to me, to be edits that were questionable, based on their addition of excessive and unencyclopedic detail. I also think the added text did not mesh well with the existing text. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oedipus in the Trobriands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donald Brown. 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) 10:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Next Decade (book).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Next Decade (book).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Magehound (D&D novel).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Magehound (D&D novel).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Carl Jung

Hi, I noticed you've been involved in some disagreement on Carl Jung, with edits by Laurelhowe (talk · contribs) ([3])

I have no opinion about who is right-or-wrong; I just note that Laurelhowe is a relatively inexperienced user, so I've asked him to stop and discuss his edits on Talk:Carl Jung. See [4] [5]

So please could you monitor Talk:Carl Jung, and discuss it; I'm hoping that will avoid a battle.

Thanks! 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 86.20.193.222. Yes, a talk page discussion would be reasonable. Laurelhowe's additions were quite unacceptable in the form in which they were added, but maybe some of the material would be acceptable in a modified form. It's only fair to consider that. Let me just give you some examples of the unacceptable material, however: "Jung made an empirical discovery of the autonomous psyche and its effect on human beings". In principle, that frankly is not any better than, for example, "Freud made an empirical discovery of women's penis envy". It is language that endorses Jung's work, and that is not part of Wikipedia's purpose. Another addition was, "the narrative of his discoveries over his lifetime is most readily gleaned from his autobiography". Again, I'm sure that was well-intentioned, but it amounts to direct advice or instruction to the reader, and again, that's not appropriate to an encyclopedia. A further example: "They are amplified in detail in his Collected Works and published seminars." Again, unnecessary peacock language, using the most flattering terms possible to describe Jung's work. Still another example: "Jung experienced for himself and saw in his patients that the unconscious is the vast unknown itself, the source of mythology and religion as well as individual dreams." See the problem? That uses Wikipedia to endorse Jung's view that "the unconscious is the vast unknown itself" (!) the source of mythology and religion, etc. We don't do things like that. Final example: "He saw that when we become conscious of the psyche and its unconscious contents, we are more likely to make ethical decisions in the face of its dynamic influence." Again that's endorsing or promoting Jung rather than simply describing his work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Brian Lumley book covers

You recently removed two book covers from the article Brian Lumley, but your edit was reverted. I have started discussions for the book covers at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:Brian lumley the touch.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:TAINT-c19035.jpg. Please feel free to join the discussion there. Aspects (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Why delete?

Because several books about Spinoza are novels or non-philosophical works! Zingvin (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Do these books have Wikipedia articles? If not, they're irrelevant. If there are such articles, creating Category:Novels about Baruch Spinoza would have been a better approach. Books about philosophers can be assumed to be non-fiction unless stated otherwise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your concise and accurate post at ANI. NeilN talk to me 21:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, except that I perhaps don't really deserve it, as I didn't properly follow the advice given at WP:CHILDPROTECT. Still, I am glad that the right thing was done, and I'll follow the letter of the policy strictly in any kind of future situation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And I probably made the wrong type of block. What matters here is the end result is good, thanks to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

SOCE

I'm even more confused now. If you have specific ideas, like the ones you mentioned, why not just add them to the article? You had specific, concrete suggestions, and they sound reasonable enough. Surely actually making these changes would serve our readers much better than a vague tag.Joefromrandb (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The tag can stay in place until and unless substantial improvement is made to the article. Denying that the article is poor quality, by removing the tag, does nothing to improve it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, @Joefromrandb:, you undid BOTH of us? I thought you agreed to stop doing stuff like that as a condition of your last unblock after you'd been blocked for edit-warring. pbp 01:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If there is further concern over this issue, someone could notify El C, who was the most recent administrator to block Joefromrandb. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Please examine Sexual orientation change efforts and Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts. It appears Joe is indeed edit-warring after he promised not to, and in addition refusing to engage meaningfully on the article's talk page AND throwing around words like "horseshit". I have warned him about edit-warring. pbp 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The use of bad language is pretty trivial in comparison to everything else... FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's par for the course with him. He's very incivil to anybody who doesn't toe his line. For example, I just warned him about edit-warring. He reverted the edit as trolling. If El C doesn't get back to us soon, I'm reporting Joe to AN3. pbp 01:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying the article needs to be rewritten entirely is a hefty thing to challenge—merely claiming "poor quality" is not enough, in my view. How so? In what respect? Where are its major drawbacks? And so on. So, I could see why someone who may have contributed to the article extensively might take exception to a tag that significant being accompanied with such scant reasoning. Of course, edit warring is always discouraged, even when one is certain that they are right. *** Nothing too bad happened yet. I suggest all three of you explain your take of the article at more length on the article's talk page, maybe hammer out a compromise that dose not involve rewriting the entire article. The road to resolve this has to start with specifics, though. El_C 01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Strike that, I see that you did start to discuss this in detail. Please avoid calling other editors jerks and generally, let's resolve this in a civil way. El_C 01:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb has not edited the Sexual orientation change efforts article at all extensively. He has made a total of 14 edits, mainly focused on removing certain content. He has not contributed significant content there, so the "article needs to be completely rewritten" tag is hardly disparaging his work in particular. I do take your point that the tag could be considered an over-reaction to the article's problems, however, El C. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Though Joe HAS disparaged Free on the talk page of the article, saying he didn't rate a detailed response...and he called my edit-warring tag "trolling". That's why I'm at the end of my rope with him and wish he was indeffed. pbp 01:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected, FreeKnowledgeCreator. I'm glad you're becoming cognizant, though, of the sheer weight of the total rewrite tag. *** Indeffing, even blocking at all would be a bit extreme, Purplebackpack89. Labeling you placing that edit warring template as "trolling" certainly was uncivil, but it is my hope that both of you would be able to move past all this still. El_C 01:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Susan Sontag

Can we at least not repeat Kevin Myers' criticism of Sontag's production of Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo, given that it's already included in the "Activism" section as well? Aquila89 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It goes without saying that content should not be needlessly repeated in articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What about the rest of the section? Even if the critics have their own article, I still don't see much of a point to it. Is it really that notable that a literary critic once wrote something bad about Sontag? Negative quotes like those could probably be listed endlessly for any prominent person who expressed strong political opinions. Aquila89 (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Aquila89, looking through that section, I certainly believe it could be streamlined or cut back. But the criticism should not be simply wiped away altogether. That is not appropriate when dealing with an obviously controversial figure. It does matter if a literary critic, or anyone else who is prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia article, criticizes someone like Sontag. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all criticism should be deleted, I'm specifically talking about the "Other criticisms" section. Look at that quote from Terry Castle; she's not even criticizing Sontag's work, she's saying that Sontag was too whiny. I really don't think that's notable. Plus, the source linked doesn't even work. Aquila89 (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're not responding, I'm going to assume that you don't object to me removing the Terry Castle quote. Aquila89 (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I really wouldn't make that assumption, Aquila89. As I said before, the correct approach is to properly streamline and simplify the criticism, not to just cut out entirely things one doesn't agree with. By the way, you should properly be discussing all of this on the article's talk page, not here on my talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would respond there. You made the last comment about the picture back in August and no one responded. Aquila89 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Commenting on the talk page is the correct procedure. Oh, and as for the picture of Sontag in the article, I may as well repeat that I find it immensely distasteful. It essentially shows Sontag surrounded by a halo, presenting her as though she were some kind of saint. It damages the reputation of Wikipedia to have that kind of rubbish in articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You made a similar comment on the article's talk page almost eight months ago and you got zero response. And the picture is still there. Commenting on the talk page gets you nowhere with this article. Aquila89 (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't make up excuses not to follow proper procedure. That is not a good use of your time or mine. If you have further comments of that kind to make, I'll remove them from my talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

John Searle

Watch WP:3RR please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I am an editor with more than eight years of experience, so I am well aware of the policy. Thank you for your reminder anyway. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nouvelle Droite

I checked your edit[6] and you're correct, Johnson 1995:239[7]. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ayn Rand lead sentence

About your revert here, I hope you reconsider. The category "writer" includes the roles novelist, screen writer, and playwright. Per WP:BLPLEAD, we whould refer to a person as the person is usually referred to in reliable sources, and we shouldn't over load the lead sentence with various roles. For instance, the article on Vincent van Gogh states that he was a "painter", not a "landscape artist, portraitist, and still-life painter". LK (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not see an advantage to simply calling Rand a "writer", as opposed to identifying her as a novelist, etc. The current version of that article's lead is of long standing and there does not appear to be a need to change it. But by all means discuss it on the talk page, if you like. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Secret of the Blue Room, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kurt Neumann. 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) 09:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at Bruno Bettelheim article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bettelheim

I've made some changes, want to have your input, too. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrath of the Immortals

Hey FKC, do you know if you would be able to find a cover image for Wrath of the Immortals? BOZ (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I'll look and see what I can do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Open Society

Hello FKC. I'm simply trying to do justice to this wonderful book. The existing article is just too brief. Please let me know if you are going to revert my work (more than two hours by now), and I'll stop. I have no wish to get into editing wars. As far as citations are concerned: When not given, it's simply because I cite the book ITSELF. Kindly let me know if you plan to revert my editing--and I'll stop. Thank you!--Bracheny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brachney (talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bracheny. Where did I object to your expanding the summary of the book's contents? Nowhere. I might disagree with the details of some of your edits, but congratulations on trying to expand that part of the article; it certainly needs it. As for the (small) number of edits by you that I reverted, I did that because I considered them to be bad edits, introducing a grammatical error into the lead, for example. I am not trying to stop you from making edits that are actually improvements. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Open Society

Hello FKC. I have been without power the last 18 hours--hence the delay. I'm simply trying to do justice to this wonderful book. The existing article is good but just too brief. Please let me know if you are going to revert my work (more than two hours by now), and I'll stop. I have no wish to get into editing wars and I don't think I have a right to improve the work of others--unless the possess Popper's spirit of give and take and critical rationality. As far as citations are concerned: When not given, it's simply because I draw information from the book ITSELF. Kindly let me know if you plan to revert my editing--and I'll stop. Thank you!--Brachney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brachney (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "If you are going to revert my work"? If you mean, am I going to revert absolutely all edits that you make to the article simply because you made them, then the answer is no. If you mean, am I possibly going to revert some of your edits because I consider them to be poor edits, then the answer might be yes, depending on what exactly your edits are. Demanding that no one ever revert any of your edits is not realistic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. At times though, reversions seem arbitrary. For instance, you reverted my last revision of the lead parag., on the ground that it involved too large a quote. But I inserted this precisely because you didn't like what I've written without a quote. Meanwhile, in all this shuffling and concern about form, substance is lost. We're talking here about THE CENTRAL MESSAGE of the book. Besides all the other omissions in the original summary, that was the worse. I gave you a quotation from Prof. Haworth, showing that indeed the central message is NOT the critique of Plato, Marx, et al., but a DEFENSE of democracy. But you deleted it, on technical grounds. How about a compromise: You let me insert that one sentence, with a citation? If not, my work and yours have been wasted, and the 70 visitors a day will not know what the book's CENTRAL message is. Up to you my friend to exercise or not to exercise Popper's critical rationality.Brachney (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Brachney

If you want to add something to the effect that the book's central message is a defense of democracy, then that's just fine - but it should be possible to do that in a sentence or two, summarizing material from the book, rather than quoting a massive amount of text, which is not appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello FKC. Thanks for being open-minded! I've just read your impressive personal narrative, and am not surprised by your positive response. I'll insert half a sentence in the next 15 min. hoping that you not only refrain from reverting, but actually approve.Brachney (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Bra,chney

Religion articles

Hi FKC; just a quick message to say thanks for your recent edits over at Rastafari. I don't know whether you have a particular interest in alternate religious movements or not, but if you do, you might be interested in the article Heathenry (new religious movement) undergoing FAC at the moment (here). If you did have such an interest, and some spare time, then any comments would be gratefully appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Midnightblueowl. I'm glad you found my edits helpful. New religious movements are a topic of considerable interest to me, though then again, they've never been one of the main subjects I've been concerned with on Wikipedia. I will look at the FAC for Heathenry, though I cannot guarantee that I will be able to make any useful comments, as it deals with a subject I'm hardly an expert on. In the same spirit as your request, I might ask whether you had any suggestions on improving the Main Currents of Marxism article? Marxism certainly seems to be an interest of yours, judging from your recent edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi SKC and thanks for the message. I'm interested in ideologies generally (both political and religious) but yes, I have worked a fair bit on Marxist-themed biographies during my time at Wikipedia. I'll offer a few thoughts over at the Main Currents talk page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see a source in that article that shows that Heideggar "broke with catholicism" I believe what is appropriate is to remove that statement not to confuse readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteKnight138 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Freud

Hi, I don't understand how you can't accept that as a reliable reference. Of course, it doesn't directly say "Freud had influence on kierkegaard". Read these statements "in which he brought Kierkegaard and other philosophers together with psychoanalysis" "People in the psychiatric community began associating Kierkegaard and Freud in the late nineteen-forties".

If you want Kierkegaard to be listed as an influence on Freud, then of course you need a reliable source that actually states that Kierkegaard influenced Freud. Neither of the two passages you quote from that article shows that Kierkegaard had any influence on Freud whatever. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course there won't be a statement directly saying that Kierkegaard was an influence anywhere, why are you making this so difficult? Are really here in this encyclopedia to help? It is a fact that Freud had Kierkegaard as one of his influences. Even this popular youtuber who speaks about existentialist philosophy confirms it. See 17:54 User:WhiteKnight138

If there isn't a statement anywhere in a reliable source that Kierkegaard influenced Freud, then the Freud article is not going to state that Kierkegaard influenced Freud. That's because Wikipedia aims to be a reliable encyclopedia, and not a place where editors just make things up. YouTube does not qualify as a reliable source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Then why are there no references for the other influences of Freud? There are simply none. == Freud == Hi, I don't understand how you can't accept that as a reliable reference. Of course, it doesn't directly say "Freud had influence on kierkegaard". Read these statements "in which he brought Kierkegaard and other philosophers together with psychoanalysis" "People in the psychiatric community began associating Kierkegaard and Freud in the late nineteen-forties".

If you want Kierkegaard to be listed as an influence on Freud, then of course you need a reliable source that actually states that Kierkegaard influenced Freud. Neither of the two passages you quote from that article shows that Kierkegaard had any influence on Freud whatever. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Kierkegaard is the father of existentialism, he created a branch that is fundamental for both philosophy and psychology, also he explored a lot the concept of anxiety that is of extreme importance for psychiatry. And remember, I am not here to debate, this is the truth. Why are there no references for the other influences of Freud? It makes no sense that Wikipedia demands a very explicit declaration as a source. User:WhiteKnight138

I am not here to debate either, and I don't care what you think the truth is. In general, the reason why influences in an infobox are not supported by citations is that the article itself supports them. That is, there is some information in the article stating that the person it is about was influenced by someone, and that's why an added citation is not needed in the infobox. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

it doesn't support many of the Influences mentioned from what I can tell. User:WhiteKnight138 —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

I'm not very introduced in the topic, but AFAIK they are not the same, even ethical egoism states that at the beginning. In addition, if they really are the same, why change it? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 08:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Terms generally shouldn't be changed from one thing to another just because an editor comes across an article and decides that one word is better than another. The question is what the cited source states. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conf) Or even, why link one and show another? Which source? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 08:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You might want to user RL0919 that question rather than me. He has a specialized interest in Objectivism and more knowledge of the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at The Uses of Enchantment

Hi, I've made some significant changes to The Uses of Enchantment and would like to have your input. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FriendlyRiverOtter. Thank you for drawing your edits at that article to my attention. They look like a textbook case of biased editing, and I have removed them. You do not appear to understand that the article The Uses of Enchantment is about a book. It is not about its author, Bruno Bettelheim, or the whole history of his fucking life or every fucking thing he ever did wrong. Some information about the book's author is appropriate, but only to the extent that it reflects on the actual book itself. Material that does not do that - such as the material you added, which included things like "Bettelheim was also widely exposed as a hypocrite in that he preached against spanking but then reports surfaced after his death that he often harshly beat the residential students at the Orthogenic School" - is completely inapprorpiate and must be removed. I have suggested before that you stop editing Bruno Bettelheim-related topics if you cannot control your urge to make biased edits, and your latest edits just go to reinforce my view of this subject. Sorry for the bad language, but they're very irritating. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Atilla (miniseries)

Hey, I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job, but when a user persistently adds back content that you revert and breaks the 3rr many times over, consider warning them. That way they will either a) stop; or b) it will allow for a short term ban to get the point through. Thanks! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I do, quite often, warn users in situations such as this, and perhaps I should have done so in this case as well. However, the user is so persistent that I doubt they would pay any attention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rousas Rushdoony into The Institutes of Biblical Law. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. Thank you for reminding me of one of Wikipedia's more arcane policies. It might interest you to note that the author of the article has removed all of the content I added to the article, for reasons I frankly find preposterous, as I have noted here. A third opinion about the issue would be most welcome. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to have notified via template rather than personal note. Copyvio is a very busy field. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Template me if you wish, I have a thick skin. A third opinion on the article's talk page, about the merits of the content itself, would help. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Covers

Hi FKC, I hope you have been well! If you have the time and inclination, I have a few newer articles that could use covers: A Hero's Tale, Naval Battle Rules: The Seas of Cerilia, Volo's Guide to All Things Magical, A Guide to Transylvania, Sages & Specialists, Eye of Doom. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I'll look and see what I can do. If I find appropriate images they may come over the next few days rather than immediately. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! BOZ (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And let me know if the talk page vandalism persists. BOZ (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't. User talk page semi-protection would be a last resort. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

12.61.x.x vandal

Let me know if you have further trouble with IP vandals on your talk page. KrakatoaKatie did a range block, which should clear up the problem for a few days. I can semi-protect your talk page or do a range block if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's an /18 range, which is pretty big, so I only did it for 60 hours. If the nonsense resumes, I'd block longer, as there's not a whole heck of a lot useful from there for the last couple of weeks. Katie^talk 16:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate and KrakatoaKatie. I will make a further request for talk page semi-protection should the vandalism resume, but hopefully it won't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Nietzsche

Nietzsche's thought definitely influenced Lane Craig, but Lane Craig's philosophy has nothing to do with Nietzsche's. User:WhiteKnight138 —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Evermeet, Island of Elves.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Evermeet, Island of Elves.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism. Thank you. --Lord Mondegreen (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah saw it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Now with third opinion request: Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Lord Mondegreen (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Stalking

Hi, I would appreciate it if you would stop stalking my edits. I don't need someone to watch every edit I make and approve or revert it. If you continue to stalk my edits, I will escalate this request. Thank you very much for your cooperation. — goethean 15:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Goethean, you have no evidence that I have stalked you, and your comment above is ludicrous. Continue to make hostile comments here and I may have to take some kind of action against you. NB, nobody is going to take you seriously if you complain that I have thanked you for some of your edits. As the saying goes, that's chickenshit stuff. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Nearly every edit I have made in the past year is immediately followed by some response from you. It is obvious that you are following my edits. Please leave me alone. Thanks. — goethean 23:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll be quite delighted to stop thanking you for any of your edits if you don't like it, Goethean. It's still a chickenshit complaint, though. Rather than whining about me thanking you, perhaps you could comment on the substantive issues involved at Modernism? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hitler article

I took my edit which was reverted to the talk page and the persons who disagreed with my edit didn't bother to respond any further. I have provided in the talk page several sources that use the term "German Austrians" as opposed to "Austrian Germans". What is the problem exactly?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone not bothering to respond to you does not mean that they agree with you, Sein and Zeit. It may - in any given case - mean only that someone really does not regard your comments as meriting a response and considers further discussion fruitless. This may be such a case. If no one is supporting your change I suggest you drop the issue and find something better to do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps people don't think of it as important or anything but it's sourced material and you haven't actually given any reason why you reverted the edit. That's the whole point in a talk page which is why I've discussed it there and have put forward my points towards making the change.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Sein und Zeit, I reverted your edit because your change had already been reverted and apparently no one agreed with it. That's a good reason for not repeating it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Free Knowledge and 2030 Trustworthy Knowledge Goal

Hello. I found you with a lot of hard work I won't get into at the moment, it was technical beyond my ability to explain and I had some outstanding assistance with it.

I like your user name and your boxes are helpful. I like your edit history as far as the Hitler article.

Please bear with me. I am navigating through toolbar, rootkit, hook and particle man land at times because of my day job. I haven't used Wikipedia in the way I might benefit most from until I noticed the Wikipedia 2030 Trustworthy Knowledge campaign and since then I have tried to be as participatory as possible. Are you feeling optimistic about this goal? I am optimistic if people can get past the quirks that sometimes happen with webpages, including here on Wikipedia. As I write this talk I have had to try and prevent the auto scroll as I get to the bottom of the screen from shutting off as I type. Fortunately it worked after three attempts to force it to stay on. Recently, I have had to keep resetting my account to load articles with the sections open. It's very important for me to keep from needing to click open lengthy articles in case I can't see well enough to read and require to use Siri Speak. I have dry eye and sometimes I just can't track as I read.

I'm initiating a talk with you because ten days ago you edited something on Godwin article. The article came up high in my link suggestion as I was typing in an unrelated query. I'm glad it did because as a 44 year old Reagan era kid, I have not had access to some of the information within that article. Maybe your recent edit gave it some priority in my graph search. I hope so.

I'm not sure where I am going from here but at least I'm not bored. I hope that if you find you have more articles to write that you do, but maybe your edits are working to help reach a good goal. Lately, my home page has been hitting the mark for me with Featured Articles. It's been consistently keen and I have no idea if the people working on those articles know how much they are helping me get started each day before my coffee cup is empty, but it's been good, even when I am not sure of the value of the topic to my daily focus. Oh, that reminds me. I wanted to find out which year the Slinky was patented after reading the featured article from a couple of days ago among some other interesting points that I noticed.

I'm looking over the edge of a housing development that may not have had a fully fledged plan before it began. It has very wishful starting points, some small lengths of well laid sidewalks with the grade of cement that doesn't hurt little knees too badly if they stumble while playing. But the sidewalks end abruptly and the very last corner lot never got a pad to build on. I'm near that spot as I take this walk. Past the other side of the street that borders the edge of the development is a large and flat area that stays desolate and empty all summer but as soon as it is Labor Day it will become a city of fantastic recreational vehicles and other off-roading home base equipment overnight. Some friendly soccer mom type might knock to see if the old tenants are here to let a few kids use the shower or bath tub in exchange for her house cleaning and a nice cooked meal. I know the old tenants and I'll probably say yes and make a new acquaintance. I hope that the agricultural experiments in this area will complete soon. It seems that extentions on this zoning might go on indefinitely and that's a shame. I see so much potential here.

I'm glad to have seen you here. It's hard to find trustworthy knowledge but for right now, free knowledge seems like something I don't want to pass by. Cheers. Kethertomalkuth (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kethertomalkuth. I'm glad you liked my user page. Not many people have commented on it in any way, which is a pity. Just as a friendly suggestion, it would be a good idea to make fewer edits on user talk pages and at least some edits at articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Virtually Normal.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Virtually Normal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Victor Davis Hanson: unreadably long paragraphs

Wow, thanks for taking a stab at making the Victor Davis Hanson article more readable; I couldn't get past figuring out what to do about the unreadably long sentences (most of which seemed to be paragraphs of sentences just waiting to bust free). --Jhfrontz (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jhfrontz. I've had another look at the article and made some more changes. The article arguably suffers from excessive quotation from both Hanson and his critics, but I am not going to try to do anything about that, because my priorities are elsewhere. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DKampfult.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DKampfult.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Age of Mortals, Dragonlance Campaign Setting Companion.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Age of Mortals, Dragonlance Campaign Setting Companion.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Antifa

The wording is better, but still--the critique itself may be valid but you should know better than to cite information to a book review and opinion piece. I'm not going to revert you since I'm not in the mood, but you should really ask yourself if that, with that lousy sourcing, is leadworthy (it is not). Drmies (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

My talk page is not the place for a discussion about this. Please use Talk:Antifa (United States). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Schopenhauer and GB Shaw

Hi there!

You have deleted the little bit on George Bernard Shaw which I had added to the article on Schopenhauer. I have restored it, and explained why on the Talk-page. If you still object to it, please discuss on the Talk-page, and seek consensus, before deleting it again, as Wikipedia protocol requires. Thanks!

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Cover at The Gender Fairy

Thanks for your edits at The Gender Fairy, especially adding a picture of the cover. The cover which you have added does not appear to be displaying correctly. Is this just for me? AusLondonder (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The cover is displaying correctly for me, so it may possibly be a problem with your browser or computer set-up - I wouldn't know. If you restart your computer, or purge cached images, that sometimes solves problems like this. What exactly is the nature of the problem, incidentally? How is the cover not displaying correctly for you? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what was happening but the cover is now appearing. Previously it just said "File:The Gender Fairy, children's book.jpg" where the image should have shown. AusLondonder (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

D&D covers

Hi there, I have added several new articles this week: Havens of the Great Bay, Doors to the Unknown, World Builder's Guidebook, How the Mighty Are Fallen, Children of the Night: Vampires, Player's Secrets of Tuarhievel, Netheril: Empire of Magic, Player's Secrets of Stjordvik, and Heroes of Steel. If you have the time would you mind adding cover images? BOZ (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ, I'll see what I can do. Cover images should be coming soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:A Theory of Everything.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A Theory of Everything.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please be clearer in your edits

Hi. Your edit to Tagalog grammar is much too complex for the average reader. I'd suggest something like the following:

Tagalog grammar is the grammar of Tagalog, that is, there's a language called Tagalog, and it has a grammar, that is, the grammar of Tagalog, which is called the grammar of Tagalog, or Tagalog grammar -- thus the title of this article.

While you're at it, you might want to add a lead to Saturday night explaining that it's the night of Saturday, which is a day, but despite being a day has a night, which is called "Saturday night".

Please read WP:DICT. We don't define the titles of our articles in the lead, and we don't need to explain that the title "A B" is composed of the words "A" and "B". Readers really are intelligent enough to figure that out. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I respond poorly to sarcasm, and I do not consider the material you removed a violation of WP:DICT. It is appropriate to have a simply worded lead that contributes useful information to people who do not know anything about linguistics, and your comments do not persuade me otherwise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Novel covers

Thanks for getting the ones I finished last week, but if you have the time I have a handful more that need covers: Abyssal Warriors, King of the Dead, War, and Cormyr: A Novel. These are the last D&D articles I am expecting to add for the foreseeable future (although there will undoubtedly be more eventually!) BOZ (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ. Cover images should be coming soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you! If you are ever looking for something to do, over the last few months I have added dozens of new articles about old games and gaming books. Feel free to peruse my history and add covers or anything else you think they might need. :) BOZ (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm likely to do just as you suggest, but not necessarily immediately. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No rush whatsoever! Some of them have been waiting a long time, and can easily wait for however long. :) BOZ (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion

Hello, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman (3rd nomination). NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, however, I've barely heard of James Heilman and I'm not sure why I should care about his article being nominated for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DOliphant.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DOliphant.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

EBSCO not providing author names

I'm confused — when does EBSCO not provide the author name for an item, aside from items whose print originals don't have the author name? I don't work a lot with their journals or their ebooks, but this just strikes me as an odd situation; if you could give me the permalink for one such item, I'd appreciate it. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There are in fact numerous cases in which EBSCO unfortunately fails to list the name of an author. I would not have any idea why. I am not responsible for running EBSCO, I simply use it to improve Wikipedia. As for providing links to EBSCO content, I don't believe I am permitted to do so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Uh, why aren't you permitted? Did your WP:WTL participation agreement impose some weird clause whereby you must make everyone look up the citation instead of giving them a permalink? If that's really the case, please give me the full citation instead (or if that's not possible, article title and journal name, or journal name/volume/pages; or the book title and year, if it's an ebook) so I can check the item. If they indeed omit a name that's given in the original, I can report it to our EBSCO representative; we're a major customer, subscribing to many journals and 73 electronic databases, and owning or subscribing to 73,000+ ebooks, so I expect that an error report (if it indeed is an error) will get attention. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EBSCO: "Editors should not provide bare links to restricted EBSCO pages". Please correct me if I have misunderstood this point. If you want an example of an EBSCO source that fails to provide an author name, then I will provide one, however. I am currently working in my sandbox on an improved version of the article on Sexual Preference. In this recent edit, I added content cited to an EBSCO source that fails to provide the author's name, meaning that the citation had to be to "The Chronicle of Higher Education" rather than a specific author (I didn't even know how to do this properly until recently). The original source on EBSCO is listed as "Source: Chronicle of Higher Education. 9/16/1981, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p21-21. 1p". The author name is nowhere mentioned. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm going to check this article to see whether it's anonymous or whether they omitted the name. Do you often cite things from the Chronicle and other news reports? If so, I can understand them being anonymous; I figured that you were talking about journals or books, not something that you're using under WP:ABOUTSELF. As far as the "bare links", I'm pretty sure this means that you cite the items properly, i.e. don't write so that your article deserves to be tagged with {{bare links}}, since it's in the "Citation" section, not the "Approved editors will not" section. Since the average reader doesn't have access to EBSCO, if you provided bare links in articles, not citations, it would be hard for others to clean them up. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not often cite things specifically from The Chronicle of Higher Education. The example I gave above is the only occasion I can recall having done so. In general, I've used a wide range of sources when editing an article, including news reports among other things. For another instance in which I had to add a citation that did not provide the name of an author because it wasn't available, see here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Source...

...About Voegelin/Schelling[8] 2804:14D:78D3:4AD8:1CAA:7BA6:9C4D:EE8D (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You could simply have provided a citation when first requested. The right way to handle this is to add something to the article about Schelling being an influence on Voegelin. Then you can add a mention of Schelling to the infobox (it doesn't need an additional citation there). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

3RR

You have now reverted on the Quinto article three times, and I remind you that 3RR is a bright line rule. I have pointed out several times that posting that a view is expressed by multiple people shows that it is not isolated. You are removing references that support Quinto having made the statement, all of which include mention of others expressing similar views, showing that reliable sources are of the view that the breadth of people holding the view is relevant. You are disputing the inclusion of eight words in the Quinto article, and making nearly identical reversions across multiple articles. You are clearly following every edit I make, which is not only uncivil but also potentially edit warring. You have not responded to the substantive points which I have made beyond describing my comments as "mumbo jumbo" at the Rapp talk page. You do not own any article on WP, nor do you have the right to revert everything you don't like without even retaining the content that is unambiguous improvement (adding archiving of refs, wikilinks, minor corrections). What consensus-based process would you respect? EdChem (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You added material that diverted several articles from their actual topics to other subjects that you happen to find interesting, EdChem. That was not helpful. The fact that someone says X is not an excuse for you to add material to an article about them explaining how a whole lot of other people also say X. It is not necessary to do this to show readers that someone's view is "not isolated"; that amounts to forcing irrelevant content down readers' throats simply because you worry that they might otherwise think the wrong thing. I pointed out to you clearly that that was inappropriate, and it is you who failed to address the point. You are displaying very poor judgment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, in the interests of strict accuracy: No, I am not "following every edit" you make. I could not care less about most of your edits. Finally, regarding "What consensus-based process would you respect?", my reply is that normal discussion on the talk page is fine. Why is it even necessary for me to say that? Are you assuming that because I don't agree with you that I would therefore ignore a consensus in your favor, in the hypothetical event that one were to develop at the articles concerned? That's a totally misplaced assumption. I will certainly respect a consensus in your favor, if one develops, which I doubt. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Primal therapy, psychoanalysis, psychotherapy

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: You just reverted the last edits to Psychoanalysis § Criticism and Primal therapy § Criticism, both with the edit summary "Section has no relevance specifically to [article]". These are both widely considered to be particular forms of psychotherapy, so general critiques of psychotherapy are relevant to the criticism sections in these articles. The first few words of Primal therapy say: "Primal therapy is a trauma-based psychotherapy"; the first few words of Psychoanalysis do not explicitly call it a theory and practice of psychotherapy, but notice that psychoanalysis is listed in List of psychotherapies and Template:Psychotherapy, and see also, e.g., Wolitzky, David L. (2011). "Psychoanalytic theories of psychotherapy". In Norcross, John C.; VandenBos, Gary R.; Freedheim, Donald K. (eds.). History of psychotherapy: continuity and change (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. pp. 65–100. doi:10.1037/12353-003. ISBN 9781433807626. OCLC 467711206. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well your rationale for adding the links. I simply disagree with it. The article Primal therapy is specifically about primal therapy, not about psychotherapy in general, so no, I do not consider a link to a section of an article discussing criticism of psychtherapy in general appropriate. Same remarks apply to Psychoanalysis. It is reasonable to assume that people go to these articles looking for information about their specific topics, and not about psychotherapy in general. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You wrote: "It is reasonable to assume that people go to these articles looking for information about their specific topics, and not about psychotherapy in general." I don't think we can make such an assumption about how people arrive at a particular article; they may have arrived from a general search engine looking for a definition of the article's topic (in which case the lead and first section may satisfy them), or they may have arrived by browsing topics in a navigation template. For example, Primal therapy is listed in Template:Pseudoscience, so someone who is interested in "pseudoscience" in general and who doesn't know anything about primal therapy (and who is not especially interested specifically in primal therapy) may click on the link to the article; likewise, Psychoanalysis is listed in Template:Philosophy of mind, so someone who is interested in "philosophy of mind" in general and who doesn't know anything about psychoanalysis (and who is not especially interested specifically in psychoanalysis) may click on the link to the article. Since primal therapy and psychoanalysis are both forms of psychotherapy, anyone who scrolls down to the criticism sections of either of these forms of psychotherapy would be better informed if they were aware that there are also general critiques of psychotherapy that can be read on Wikipedia. That is the function of a Template:See also in this case: to inform the uninformed general reader of a criticism section in an article on a superordinate topic that is relevant to the criticism section of these articles. Biogeographist (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, one can make an assumption. Writing an encyclopedia is only possible because editors make reasonable assumptions, and I have made mine. Not interested in a long debate. If anyone reading Primal therapy cares about psychotherapy in general, or criticism thereof, they can click on the link to psychotherapy there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No further debate is necessary if you are not interested, but I want to point out that I didn't say (and I wouldn't say) that we "can't make assumptions" in general; I just showed one way in which the assumption that you presented as justification for your decision to revert this edit is not valid. Being reasonable means recognizing when a defeasible assumption has been defeated. Biogeographist (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chas. Caltrop

You are being notified because you participated in a previous AN/I report about this editor. Another report has been filed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis

Is there a reason you've templated your own work [9] with the full rewrite tag? The page looks ok to me now. Did you just forget to remove the tag, or do you think there are (still) major problems with it? 86.121.186.189 (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not so vain that I cannot criticize my own work. The article The Foundations of Psychoanalysis, which I am almost entirely responsible for, is in poor condition, which is regrettable, as it is concerns an important book. Were I to make any sustained effort to improve it, I would certainly rewrite most, if not absolutely all of it. The "summary" section is particularly bad; it fails to properly summarize the main themes of the book, and as currently written it is based on a patchwork of secondary sources that comment on the book, rather than on the book itself. At some stage in the future, I will have to re-read the book, and use it to entirely rewrite the "summary" section. So the rewrite tag was not there for no reason. Nevertheless, as it isn't crucial, I won't restore the tag, if you wish to remove it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Message from 108.181.210.62

Thanks. I appreciate your comment on my changes to the article on Friedrich Hayek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.210.62 (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)