User talk:Freeknowledgecreator/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
'opposed' vs. 'rejected' on Ayn Rand
Please finish the conversation on Ayn Rand's talk page on rejected vs. opposed, or I will assume you no longer care about the issue and change one of the instances of 'rejected' to 'opposed'. Michipedian (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message, Michipedian. Is there any other trivia you want to argue about with me? talk) 20:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Only a polite reminder of WP:OWN. Michipedian (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Only a polite reminder of
- Your proposed changes to the wording of the article did not get agreement on the talk page, Michipedian. I still do not agree with them, and there is no reason I would not revert them if you were to make them. I do not have to argue the issue with you endlessly. talk) 22:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your proposed changes to the wording of the article did not get agreement on the talk page, Michipedian. I still do not agree with them, and there is no reason I would not revert them if you were to make them. I do not have to argue the issue with you endlessly.
- Two people of the three in the discussion supported some kind of change to the wording. Michipedian (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Michipedian, the problem with your proposed change is that "rejected" and "opposed" do not necessarily mean the same thing. So your change amounts to an unexplained and unjustified change of meaning. "Opposed" suggests a much stronger anti-religious position than "rejected", and I do not believe that it is accurate. talk) 22:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- How is that not accurate, and how is it accurate for collectivism and statism, as the current lead suggests? I'm not trying to argue trivia with you, I'm serious about your argument not making sense, to me at least. Michipedian (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Collectivism and statism are not the same things as faith and religion. There is no reason at all why "opposed" could not be accurate to describe Rand's position toward collectivism and statism but inaccurate to describe her position on faith and religion. It is your arguments that do not make sense. talk) 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously that situation is conceivable, but in the case of Ayn Rand specifically, if you're saying that opposed is stronger than rejected, then the most accurate use of the term opposed would describe her stance on altruism, even more so than socialism and collectivism. I would be happy with changing rejected altruism to opposed altruism, which seems consistent with your logic. Michipedian (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. I think you are simply wrong about this. I've already explained my reasons for not supporting "opposed" as a description of Rand's position toward altruism on the article's talk page, and it is not clear to me why you expect me to go over the issue again. Maybe you should find something else to do? talk) 23:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yet you have not explained why the term is appropriate for collectivism and statism, which the current lead suggests. Please respond to that point. Why is it OK to use the term opposed for Rand's stance on collectivism and statism (not conceivably acceptable, but in fact acceptable)? Michipedian (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wouldn't you rather argue with me about the contents of my user page? It's really much more interesting than this tedious discussion. talk) 23:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- You evade that point because you know that's where your argument breaks down. Please respond to the question. Why is it OK to use the term opposed for Rand's stance on collectivism and statism (not conceivably acceptable, but in fact acceptable)? Michipedian (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm declining to respond to you because this discussion is fucking boring and you are being obnoxious by trying to endlessly prolong it in the hopes of getting your way. Hence, my suggested change in the subject of discussion. talk) 23:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't consider it obnoxious to want to bring a logical conclusion to a discussion. I apologize for coming across that way, I will try to be more civil in my manner. Why is it OK to use the term opposed for Rand's stance on collectivism and statism (not conceivably acceptable, but in fact acceptable)? Michipedian (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could take the issue to talk) 23:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your language seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia discussion, FreeKnowledgeCreator. I will return to the talk page with it, but if you do not engage with my questions, I will assume you no longer care about the issue, and I will go ahead and change rejected altruism to opposed altruism. Michipedian (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, your assumption is wrong. I reserve the right to revert unproductive changes made without agreement. talk) 23:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have made quite clear in my comment on the talk page that the change is not unproductive. If you disagree, I look forward to your correspondence on the talk page. Michipedian (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, your assumption is wrong. I reserve the right to revert unproductive changes made without agreement.
- Your language seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia discussion, FreeKnowledgeCreator. I will return to the talk page with it, but if you do not engage with my questions, I will assume you no longer care about the issue, and I will go ahead and change rejected altruism to opposed altruism. Michipedian (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could take the issue to
- I don't consider it obnoxious to want to bring a logical conclusion to a discussion. I apologize for coming across that way, I will try to be more civil in my manner. Why is it OK to use the term opposed for Rand's stance on collectivism and statism (not conceivably acceptable, but in fact acceptable)? Michipedian (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm declining to respond to you because this discussion is fucking boring and you are being obnoxious by trying to endlessly prolong it in the hopes of getting your way. Hence, my suggested change in the subject of discussion.
- You evade that point because you know that's where your argument breaks down. Please respond to the question. Why is it OK to use the term opposed for Rand's stance on collectivism and statism (not conceivably acceptable, but in fact acceptable)? Michipedian (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wouldn't you rather argue with me about the contents of my user page? It's really much more interesting than this tedious discussion.
- Yet you have not explained why the term is appropriate for collectivism and statism, which the current lead suggests. Please respond to that point. Why is it OK to use the term opposed for Rand's stance on collectivism and statism (not conceivably acceptable, but in fact acceptable)? Michipedian (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. I think you are simply wrong about this. I've already explained my reasons for not supporting "opposed" as a description of Rand's position toward altruism on the article's talk page, and it is not clear to me why you expect me to go over the issue again. Maybe you should find something else to do?
- Obviously that situation is conceivable, but in the case of Ayn Rand specifically, if you're saying that opposed is stronger than rejected, then the most accurate use of the term opposed would describe her stance on altruism, even more so than socialism and collectivism. I would be happy with changing rejected altruism to opposed altruism, which seems consistent with your logic. Michipedian (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Collectivism and statism are not the same things as faith and religion. There is no reason at all why "opposed" could not be accurate to describe Rand's position toward collectivism and statism but inaccurate to describe her position on faith and religion. It is your arguments that do not make sense.
- How is that not accurate, and how is it accurate for collectivism and statism, as the current lead suggests? I'm not trying to argue trivia with you, I'm serious about your argument not making sense, to me at least. Michipedian (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Michipedian, the problem with your proposed change is that "rejected" and "opposed" do not necessarily mean the same thing. So your change amounts to an unexplained and unjustified change of meaning. "Opposed" suggests a much stronger anti-religious position than "rejected", and I do not believe that it is accurate.
Your revert
[1] undoing edit with edit summary containing
- BLP applies to article context. Elsewhere I can express whatever opinion I have. Although I do agree that my remark was rather useless for the purposes of Wikipedia. talk) 17:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- talk) 21:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I stay corrected. I was not aware of this relatively new (2013) extension. Still, I have already agreed that my comment was out of line, i.e., as the policy says now, "not related to making content choices". talk) 21:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I stay corrected. I was not aware of this relatively new (2013) extension. Still, I have already agreed that my comment was out of line, i.e., as the policy says now, "not related to making content choices".
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 {{
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) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Season's greetings
Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, wishing you all the best for Christmas and New Year, and thank you for everything you've done this year making articles better. SarahSV (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Greer
I think you might be right here; I can't verify, initially at least, what exactly she meant by this term. -Darouet (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Car Schmitt
Hi,
Sorry for not having given explanations to the edit, I've done it now: basically, these sources are valid, but none of them speaks of an "influence". I keep the most valid, which speaks firstly of the relations between Schmitt, Jünger and Eliade. Guénon is mentionned, but not as an "influence". Anupamakk (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I was about to nominate it myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble. I'll be posting at the AfD shortly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Julie Bindel. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep restoring obvious BLP violations - restoring BLP-violating categories that are only going to be deleted - and you will find yourself the one in hot water, talk) 00:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone reviewing this discussion should also see talk) 00:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Alert
Please carefully read this information:
The
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John C. Loehlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Murray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Classical music
Please have some respect and discuss on my talk page instead of simply reverting an edit you disagree with. 70.114.211.80 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- You should have respected other editors by taking the issue to the talk page immediately after you were reverted. You will not get your way by edit warring. Telling others to "respect" you while behaving toward others with a lack of respect is futile at best. Incidentally, you have now violated talk) 01:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't need to "get my way". I am simply trying, as my previous edits (additions and removals) show, simply trying to make Wikipedia better. The person who wanted to revert my change should have taken the issue to the talk page. 70.114.211.80 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Your edits at talk) 01:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Your edits at
- I don't need to "get my way". I am simply trying, as my previous edits (additions and removals) show, simply trying to make Wikipedia better. The person who wanted to revert my change should have taken the issue to the talk page. 70.114.211.80 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Your edits at Classical music are not making Wikipedia better. That is why they were reverted." That is your opinion, not a fact. My edit to the "Classical music" page was definitely not vandalism. The page should really be called "Western classical music", and the "Classical music" page should be a disambiguation page, with a list of different kinds of classical music. I will request a page move. As you can see from all of my edits, I tend to be relatively unbiased and I am very much into all kinds of music, so I would never vandalize the WP page of an artist even if I didn't care for their music. I could be doing lots of other things, but I thought it was worth my time to edit WP so people can understand music better. I did not know about that WP policy wrt changing an article, so thanks for letting me know about it. 70.114.211.80 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Tagalog grammar
Sorry, but saying Tagalog grammar is the grammar of Tagalog, and the Tagalog language is the language spoken in Tagalog, is not useful for readers. Anyone literate enough to read the article knows what "grammar" is, and per the MOS the lead to an article is not the place to define the words in the title. And anyone who doesn't know what Tagalog is is not going to know what the Tagolog region is either. You might be able to reword the lead to make it a better intro to the topic, but tautological definitions are not the way to do it. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, you are mistaken. It is perfectly possible to have a very basic ability to read English, and still not actually know what grammar is. A child or an uneducated person might not know what grammar is, for example. A statement such as "Tagalog grammar is the body of rules that describe the structure of expressions in the Tagalog language" would by no means be self-evident to all readers and would be useful and informative for some of them. I also see no violation of talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- If someone doesn't know what 'grammar' is, they can look it up. That's how we normally handle such things, per DICT. And if they do need to look it up, they're going to need to look up half the words in the article anyway, so it's not making the article inaccessible. They're also most likely to be coming to this article from the main Tagalog article, so they won't need a definition of Tagalog either. And even if they did, saying it's the language of Tagalog is of absolutely no help. So the lead is just a paragraph of gobbledygook instead of a useful intro to the topic. It's not quite as bad as saying "X Y is the Y of X", but it's close. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- That is another disingenuous response. The lead of the article, in your preferred version, reads "In Tagalog, there are eight basic parts of speech: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions and particles. Tagalog is a slightly inflected language. Pronouns are inflected for number; and verbs, for focus, aspect and voice." There isn't even a direct mention of grammar, so someone who does not know what grammar is will not be encouraged to look it up or know how to do so, in the absence of a link to the talk) 23:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- That is another disingenuous response. The lead of the article, in your preferred version, reads "In Tagalog, there are eight basic parts of speech: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions and particles. Tagalog is a slightly inflected language. Pronouns are inflected for number; and verbs, for focus, aspect and voice." There isn't even a direct mention of grammar, so someone who does not know what grammar is will not be encouraged to look it up or know how to do so, in the absence of a link to the
Edit
Not sure if I am doing this right, but I want to contact you about an edit re Jonathan Dollimore - am I in the right place? And is this a private or a public communication. Apologies but I'm newish to this. Skodajag (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Skodajag. This is my talk page, so yes, you can contact me here. The communication is public inasmuch as anyone with an internet connection can potentially see it. talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. I am Jonathan Dollimore. Years ago now someone wrongly described me as a sociologist somewhere on the internet, and it's got duplicated all over the place. I'm definitely not a sociologist! But I do have a first class honours degree in philosophy, (Keele, 1984) and all of the half dozen or so books I've published are philosophical, among other things. That's why I was trying to correct the Wiki entry, but it was reverted. Advice on how I might correct the entry would be gratefully received. Skodajag (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, Skodajag, and for explaining who you are. I see no reason not to accept your claim that you are not a sociologist. I am not going to argue with you about whether you are a philosopher or not, as that would be presumptuous and pointless. However, I feel I should remind you that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and the principle of verifiability. See talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/academics-tell-all-tale-omits-day-job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skodajag (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of that article. It describes you as a "social theorist and philosopher", but presumably it simply copied that description from past versions of your Wikipedia article. See talk) 20:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I give up. It's hardly important in the scheme of things Skodajag (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Skodajag (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
pffice?
'ts why I always check my edits. And go slower thereby. Shenme (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed the error. You could have done so yourself. talk) 01:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Good Article reassessment for Dirty Dancing
I have nominated
Orphaned non-free image File:D&DClubnek.png
Thanks for uploading
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) 18:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
revert war
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.
- Although you didn't bother to sign your post, talk) 21:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK we both were a bit edgy, sorry. talk) 21:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- If you were really "sorry", you could revert yourself, which would show that you don't want to force your edits through despite disagreement from other editors, which is exactly the kind of behavior that talk) 21:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK next time I will be "really sorry". talk) 21:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK next time I will be "really sorry".
- If you were really "sorry", you could revert yourself, which would show that you don't want to force your edits through despite disagreement from other editors, which is exactly the kind of behavior that
- OK we both were a bit edgy, sorry.
ESEAP Conference 2018
Hello FreeKnowledgeCreator,
I’m Irvin from PhilWiki Community, a member of the Communication Committee of the ESEAP Conference. ESEAP Conference 2018 is a regional conference for Wikimedia communities throughout the ESEAP region: ESEAP stands for East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific. Taking place in Bali, Indonesia on 5–6 May 2018, this is the first regional conference for these Wikimedia communities.
East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific are the most under-represented regions within the Wikimedia community. There is a significant number of Wikimedia contributors in our regions, yet we continue to struggle in establishing a well-managed community. This conference will bring participants from various ESEAP communities together in order to better understand the issues and to look for solutions. It also aims to connect people of the Wikimedia movement within ESEAP regions, to share ideas, and to build regional collaborations that are impossible to achieve through online communication.
We’ve got a lot of participation from several countries, but we’re lacking from your country. As we need more participants from your country, we believe that your contribution and participation would be a valuable asset to the success of this event. If you would like to participate in the conference, please do fill the form as soon as possible (by April 5, 2018) and we’ll inform you if you get selected for the conference.
Thank you and we hope to see you soon. --Filipinayzd 01:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Please don;t do this. You know full well that when material is disputed, you need a consensus to restore it, and that you do not have a consensus to do so. The 3O opinion went against you. So, please, don't stir up trouble unnecessarily. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you would say the third opinion went against me. It explicitly noted that the "and implement" wording was uncited. Please explain yourself on the talk page. It is useless to try to have a discussion here, as this is not the right place for it. I will note, though, that your comment "when material is disputed, you need a consensus to restore it" is strange, as I did not restore anything; I removed something. You were the one who restored something - without consensus and in violation of talk) 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just stop, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Stop what, talk) 04:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Stop what,
- Just stop, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Camille Paglia's transgenderism
I've restored a modified version of the statement about Camille Paglia claiming to be transgender, and added an additional source. Since I'm not sure if you're still following this article, but you did participate in the discussion, I thought I'd let you know in case you want to make your case against it, or if you wanted to add to it with sources that disagree or are critical of her claim. —Memotype::T 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
HIV denialism
Why? Why did you remove the entry I made? In the paragraph immediatly preceding it, there is someone who says "being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory. Publishing dissenting theories is important when they are backed by plausible evidence". That is precisely what I published: a study that backs up a dissident claim. I just don't understand why there is people who don't want to see it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.173.247.237 (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Edit to Catharine MacKinnon page
Hello, this is in regards to the reverted edit on the page about
Lonehexagon (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, talk) 06:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:D&DEye killer.png
Thanks for uploading
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) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:D&DSolifugid.png
Thanks for uploading
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) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Edits to Ayn Rand
I made a few edits to Ayn Rand’s page which you seem to have reverted. While I can understand the reversion of my edits stating that Rand was an atheist, I do not see why it is necessary to revert that she was known for her political and philosophical views. --Векочел (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Векочел. I think in Rand's case it should be clear that her political views are part of her philosophical views. Saying that she was known for "her political and philosophical views" implies a false separation between the two. talk) 20:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sexual Desire (book)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Question
Who are some people you would list among the greatest geniuses in human history? AndrewOne (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, talk) 22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sexual Desire (book)
The article
Hello. Help add image the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.116.102.56.175 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I really have no idea how to find an appropriate image for that article. talk) 08:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- You access [8].116.102.56.175 (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I said an appropriate image. I have no idea of the copyright status of that image, so I can't add it. talk) 08:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC).
- I said an appropriate image. I have no idea of the copyright status of that image, so I can't add it.
- You specify an author name.116.102.56.175 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're wasting your time here. I can't add that image. talk) 08:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're wasting your time here. I can't add that image.
Category:Views on homosexuality has been nominated for discussion
Category:Views on homosexuality, 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. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The article mentions the opinion of one member of the British Board of Deputies. That is not what the Lead you keep restoring states. Fullstop or no. --
- Please discuss the article talk) 09:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Happy to if there's a general editing issue, but this is an issue with your interpretation. Nevertheless, I'll do it there. --old fashioned!10:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Happy to if there's a general editing issue, but this is an issue with your interpretation. Nevertheless, I'll do it there. --
Please justify the statement that he advocated ghosts and telepathy on the talk page for the article if you want to include it.73.202.195.146 (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge regime
Hi,
the source that I've added clearly states what I've written. Moreover, there is a paragraph in Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman (not written by me) discussing this. I think my edit is politically neutral and not potentially libellous.--Fabrizioberloco (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Fabrizioberloco. Please discuss the article talk) 09:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi there FKC. I wonder could you take a look at this new editor's User page and Talk page? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- I just saw you note there about possible sockpuppet activity. What's the background exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Martinevans123. The background is that for some time now, I have been engaged in a dispute at the article talk) 23:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Many thanks for explaining. I'll keep an eye out. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Martinevans123. The background is that for some time now, I have been engaged in a dispute at the article
Orphaned non-free image File:Academic Hinduphobia.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 17:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
David Irving
I did explain my edit in the summary, and you didn't counter what I said in any substantive way. I see no problem with using the rather loaded term "holocaust denier" somewhere, but it strikes me as rather frenzied to want to call Irving a "holocaust denier" in the first sentence, as if it was an occupation, which it isn't, when the term is used three more times in the lead! I can't see anything on the Talk page about this, so will start a thread there. Moonraker (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Moonraker. Yes, you explained your edit in your edit summary. However, I still disagreed with you, and I reverted your edit. The issue is controversial and needs to be discussed on the talk page. There would have been no point in my trying to respond to your reasoning in an edit summary. talk) 02:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Just in recognition of your long term and continuous efforts to improve Wikipedia. Greyjoy talk 09:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
- Thanks. talk) 09:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Frankenstein Authorship Question
Wickedjacob (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Absolute at Large.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 17:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do not edit against consensus
The RfC at
- Replied on the article's talk page. talk) 06:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bill Paxton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018
Your recent editing history at The Golden Bough 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
- You've been here long enough to understand BRD... Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I have. You were bold in removing the material, you were reverted, and now you should be discussing. talk) 09:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I have. You were bold in removing the material, you were reverted, and now you should be discussing.
- Hm, perhaps you should re-read WP:BRD, it doesn't say what you think it does:
Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. When in doubt, edit!... Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.
A bold addition was made. It was reverted. The editor reinserted it without change or discussion. A second editor agreed that it was not an improvement and reverted it. You then reinserted it without change or discussion. It has been reverted and a discussion initiated. You have reinserted it...Neil S. Walker (talk)- No, it does say what I think it does, and you are the editor who now needs to go to the article's talk page and start discussing things. I see two editors in favor of the addition (me, and the editor who originally made it) and two opposed. You do not have numbers on your side. talk) 10:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, it does say what I think it does, and you are the editor who now needs to go to the article's talk page and start discussing things. I see two editors in favor of the addition (me, and the editor who originally made it) and two opposed. You do not have numbers on your side.
- Hm, perhaps you should re-read WP:BRD, it doesn't say what you think it does:
Thanks
And sorry for my clumsiness. Just came across that and it bugged me interminably (I have a lot of friends who are sex workers, and people like MacKinnon are influencers that result in them out on the street, in dangerous domestic situations, or, ironically, in brothels.)
And dodgy references in general, including published academic papers is becoming another bugbear of mine. I don't normally even try and make edits. Blaedd (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Good faith edit?
Hi,
What's wrong with my edit? You say it's not relevant. Why? Martin Ravallion in quite famous and his opinions deserve a paragraph, I think...more than Noam Chomsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrizioberloco (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Fabrizioberloco. Simply put, your edit restored content that was not about The Black Book of Communism, but rather was about a different book entirely. That being the case, the content in question is hardly appropriate to the article. You might argue that it is indirectly relevant, but even in that sense it has only the most marginal bearing on the article. talk) 06:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Barlowe's Guide to Fantasy.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 17:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The First Three Minutes
Hi, I have edited the page The First Three Minutes where you seem to be the main contributor. If there is something you don't like or want to change, please leave me a message. Thanks. Herbmuell (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Primary vs Secondary sources
I noticed you added cleanup tags saying some articles about books should be based on primary rather than secondary sources. I'm not sure I agree with your argument. It is limited what we can extract from a primary source. O ask as support for this position
) 14:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)- Hello, RJFJR. I am an experienced editor with nearly a decade's worth of edits, and I have succeeded in getting three articles good article status. Based on that experience, I can tell you that basing a description of a book primarily on secondary sources discussing that book is not the way to write a good article. In general, so long as one has a sufficient grasp of what one reads, there is no difficulty at all in basing a description of a book on the book itself. Basing it on secondary sources involves the problem that the sources concerned may have their own bias on or perspective about the book that a neutral article should do everything possible to avoid, and it involves other potential problems as well - for example, what the secondary source says about the book may not even be accurate in some cases, and even if it is accurate as far as it goes, it may be incomplete or give a partial or perhaps inadvertently misleading perspective on the book. You need to keep carefully in mind what those templates are actually addressing. If you look carefully at them, you will see that they concern only the summary sections of articles, discussing the book's actual contents, and do not apply to the article as a whole; your comment that the tags say that "some articles about books should be based on primary rather than secondary sources" is incorrect, because it is only sections of articles that are involved. Obviously it is appropriate to use secondary sources to describe the reception of a book, but it is wrong to base the description of the book's actual contents on such sources. talk) 00:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:D&DMantrap.png
Thanks for uploading
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) 17:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Virtually Normal
Greetings, are you still working on Virtually Normal? I left some comments on the Talk page. Let's try to get this upgraded from Stub to Start class. Thanks for your work.AnaSoc (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, AnaSoc. Thanks for your comments. For the time being, I am more interested in working on other articles than on that particular article, but I hope to do more work on it in future. NB, you left two identical comments, I presume by mistake. I've removed the duplicate. talk) 04:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Reverts
Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator,
Regarding your reverts of the edits to the sexual orientation articles: could you please say which parts of the edits were confusing or unnecessary? The edits were factual, well-sourced, and fairly self-explanatory. How can these changes be implemented in a manner that is agreeable to you?
Hope you are having a nice day. Looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, --
- Hello, Justthefacts9. The first problem with your edits at those articles was that they were unexplained. Although articles can always be improved and it is a good idea to try, if you make changes without explanation to articles that have used a particular wording for a long time, those changes are quite likely to be undone for that reason alone. That's just a fact of life about Wikipedia that it pays to be aware of. In the case of your edit at talk) 22:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator. What parts of the edits should preferably be explained? Which of the changes are you agreeable to and which of the changes could be refined? Hope you have a nice day! Looking forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, --talk) 10:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hello. You should explain all of your changes at the relevant articles, but ideally not on my talk page, thanks. talk) 22:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hello. You should explain all of your changes at the relevant articles, but ideally not on my talk page, thanks.
- Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator. What parts of the edits should preferably be explained? Which of the changes are you agreeable to and which of the changes could be refined? Hope you have a nice day! Looking forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, --
WP:INFOBOXCITE
There is nothing wrong with citations for info that only appears in the infobox. Toddst1 (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- It shouldn't only appear in the infobox. Stop making destructive and incompetent edits to the article talk) 05:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, I don't. Your edits are crap, lower the quality of the article, and I will revert them when I can per this website's rules. talk) 05:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- You don't get to own the article and you don't get to run me off. Toddst1 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reverting incompetent and destructive edits is not article ownership. I don't have to refrain from reverting your crappy edits just to prove that I am not trying to own the article. Why am I not surprised that you didn't even address the point that the article is not actually written like an advertisement? Can't you admit it when you get something wrong? talk) 05:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reverting incompetent and destructive edits is not article ownership. I don't have to refrain from reverting your crappy edits just to prove that I am not trying to own the article. Why am I not surprised that you didn't even address the point that the article is not actually written like an advertisement? Can't you admit it when you get something wrong?
- You don't get to own the article and you don't get to run me off. Toddst1 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, waiting to "I will revert them when I can per this website's rules" is pure ) 05:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should discuss issues related to the article on its talk page like a nice editor? If you want to make the case that your edits are actually good, please do feel free. I'll be completely happy to accept your edits the moment you make a single edit that is any good. talk) 05:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Incidentally, just why do I have to stop reverting your edits? If you're advising me not to violate the three revert rule, then I assure you I'm well aware of it. If you are suggesting that I cannot ever revert any edit you make at talk) 06:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should discuss issues related to the article on its talk page like a nice editor? If you want to make the case that your edits are actually good, please do feel free. I'll be completely happy to accept your edits the moment you make a single edit that is any good.
- No, I don't. Your edits are crap, lower the quality of the article, and I will revert them when I can per this website's rules.
July 2018
) 05:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- The "problem" was bullshit invented by you. There is no actual problem. You accused me of writing the article like an advertisement. No, I did not. I don't write articles that way. The lead of the article clearly mentions criticism of and negative reactions to the book ("However, some reviewers pointed out factual errors, and noted that LeVay failed to prove that homosexuality has a biological basis"). If the article were really written like an advertisement, it wouldn't do that. Don't waste my time with your crap. talk) 05:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- For the benefit of anyone reading this exchange: I emphatically did give "a valid reason" for removing the template. The reason stated in the edit summary was simple: "The article is not written like an advertisement." talk) 08:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at The Sexual Brain 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. Toddst1 (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong again Toddst1. An "edit war" does not consist of reverting multiple separate changes to an article. It consists of multiple reverts of the same change. talk) 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Sexual Brain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018
Hello, I'm Lawrencekhoo. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Ayn Rand, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! LK (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ayn Rand is not a living person. For you to invoke talk) 07:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
About the policy WP:3RR
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.
Please note that you may not perform more than 3 reverts on a page within a 24 hour period. Especially at biographies such as at Ayn Rand.
Also, note that WP:BRD is an essay and is not policy. Policy states that controversial information in a BLP should be immediately removed.
Thank you, LK (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- You should have taken the issue to the talk page after you were reverted. Instead you initiated an edit war against me. Your template above is hypocritical. The article talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Albert Cashier
You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{) 15:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Revert at Shi'ar
Wow, I'm not sure what that was. My apologies. Editor2020 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, FKC! I know I don't say it in words often enough, but thank you again for all the cover work you do in the RPG area. There has been a lot of deletion-related activity in that area lately, so I am likely to take a break from working on Space Gamer for a bit and focus on other things. BOZ (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, BOZ. You're welcome; I always enjoy working in this area. talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The AIDS War
I'd just like to mention that I understand how frustrating it can be to have one's work undone (and the related time lost), I wanted sympathize about that. It's also not about you or your other work, but about that particular article and the encyclopedia with its aims. —PaleoNeonate – 02:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever. talk) 02:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of The AIDS War for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The AIDS War until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The AIDS War.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Covers
While I am on hiatus from tabletop RPGs, if you still wanted to add covers to existing articles, I could go through the list and see what is still needed. For example, Hillfolk, Adventures in Middle-earth, and Capes, Cowls & Villains Foul recently survived AFD, while Cthulhu Britannica is going to be merged but could bring a cover image with it, and Cursed Empire and several others are still open. I don't know how many other articles out there still need cover images, but I would be happy to take a look if you are interesting in seeing what you can do. BOZ (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello BOZ. I'll look soon and see what I can do. talk) 22:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I started going through the list of RPG articles and picking out the games and supplements that still need covers. Not all of them may have appropriate images available, but do whatever you can. If at any time you want to stop permanently or temporarily, just say so! Starting with 9th Generation, 13th Age, 2300 AD, A Penny for My Thoughts, A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying, Abyss (Flying Buffalo), Advanced d20 Magic, Advanced Fighting Fantasy, Adventure Class Ships, Vol. I, Adventure Fold-Up Figures, Adventure! (role-playing game), Adventures in Fantasy. BOZ (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello BOZ. As usual I'll look and see what I can do. talk) 03:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Great work, thank you! I've given it some thought and I'm not trying to marathon through the whole alphabet, but I want to get through A at least for now and then come back later for B at some point. If you are up for more, you can take a look at
- Hello, BOZ. I'll see what I can do. As you noted above, there isn't always an appropriate image available, but likely I can find images for most of those articles. talk) 06:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks! :) OK, here is the last part of "A", whenever you can get a chance to take a look at them: Arena of Khazan, Armageddon: 2089, Armageddon: The End Times, Armored Trooper VOTOMS: The Roleplaying Game, Army of Darkness Roleplaying Game, Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, Ashen Stars, Attack of the Humans, Authentic Thaumaturgy, Avengers Assembled!, Avengers Coast-to-Coast. BOZ (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello BOZ. They're all done. I'd be happy to do more. talk) 10:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Copyright issues
Hello
Kant and christianity
Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator,
- Could you please review my new entry Talk:Immanuel_Kant#Did_Kant_maintain_christianity?
- Have a nice day
Dan Gluck (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Intention (book).jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 17:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Structure of Iki, Japanese edition.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 17:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Covers: B-D
Thanks for your help! We continue into the letter B: Babylon 5 Roleplaying Game, BASH! (role-playing game), Batman Role-Playing Game, BattleDragons, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Battlestar Galactica Role Playing Game, Beastmaker Mountain, Behind Enemy Lines (role-playing game), Beneath Two Suns, Bifrost (role-playing game) BOZ (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Done. talk) 07:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Great. :) If you're ready for more, first of all we have Erdor (Monastyr already has one) and The Pool (game), and then moving on to the rest of the B's there are: Black Crusade (role-playing game), Blackwatch, Blades in the Dark, Blasted Land, Blood Dawn, Break In At Three Kilometer Island, Bubblegum Crisis (role-playing game), Buccaneer (role-playing game), Buffalo Castle, Bullwinkle and Rocky Role-Playing Party Game, By the Gods. BOZ (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Done. talk) 09:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! :) I will probably be starting back up with more new RPG articles either later this week, or next week, but if you want to continue on with more C covers for now, here is the first half:
- Hey FKC, I see you are dealing with some issues right now, so no worries on this little project - get back to it later, if and whenever you are ready. In fact, conversely, if you need help with anything, just ask and I will see what I can do. BOZ (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello BOZ. You are correct that I am "dealing with some issues right now". That doesn't mean I am going to stop uploading images. It simply means that it will happen more slowly than it otherwise might. talk) 03:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, no worries then, whatever pace you are comfortable working at, as always. :) BOZ (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've now uploaded images for all of those articles, in the cases where I was able to find appropriate images. talk) 10:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Next up, a slight detour into a handful of recently created/updated articles: Companion Pieces: Fantasy Furnishing, Phase VII, Aslan Mercenary Ships, A Campaign and Adventure Guidebook for Middle-earth BOZ (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Added an image to all of those articles, in those cases in which I was able to find an appropriate image. talk) 03:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Added an image to all of those articles, in those cases in which I was able to find an appropriate image.
- Thanks! Next up, a slight detour into a handful of recently created/updated articles: Companion Pieces: Fantasy Furnishing, Phase VII, Aslan Mercenary Ships, A Campaign and Adventure Guidebook for Middle-earth BOZ (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello BOZ. You are correct that I am "dealing with some issues right now". That doesn't mean I am going to stop uploading images. It simply means that it will happen more slowly than it otherwise might.
Excellent, thank you. :) First, there and
Great work as always! The selection I have for D is the longest yet, so if you are up for it you can take your time. First there is
Whenever you are ready, the next batch of D articles is Deliria, Delta Force: America Strikes Back!, Deluxe City Campaign Set, Demon City Shinjuku Role-Playing Game, Demon Hunters Role Playing Game, Demon's Lair, Diaspora (role-playing game), Dimensions of Flight, Dinky Dungeons, Dinosaur Planet: Broncosaurus Rex, Diomin. BOZ (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Done. talk) 01:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Great! Here are more for D whenever you have time: Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple, Domination (role-playing game), Dominion Rules, Don't Look Back (role-playing game), Don't Rest Your Head, Donjon (role-playing game), Dračí doupě, Dragon Age (role-playing game), Dragon Ball Z: The Anime Adventure Game, Dragon Lords of Melniboné, Dragon Storm (game). Many start with "Dr"! :) BOZ (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The next portion of "D" whenever you want to pick up with them: Dragon's Hall, DragonMech, DragonRaid, Dragonroar, Dragons (Mayfair Games), Dragonstar, Dread (role-playing game), Dread: The First Book of Pandemonium, Dream Craft, Dream Park: The Roleplaying Game, The Dresden Files Roleplaying Game. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, BOZ. I've added images for all those articles, in those cases in which I was able to find appropriate images. talk) 00:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! To finish up with D whenever you are ready, there are
- Also, The Mountain Witch needs a cover, but Primetime Adventures already has one. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks! I will let this thread archive since it has gotten large, and start a new one for the letter E. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes.png
Thanks for uploading
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) 03:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
DS Alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called
For additional information, please see the
Since you haven't been notified and you're active at Ann Coulter. –dlthewave ☎ 11:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Covers: E - F
Time for a smaller letter! :) Whenever you are ready, we need covers for Echoes of War: Thrillin' Heroics, Eclipse Phase, Eden: the Deceit, El-Hazard Role-Playing Game, Eldritch Role-Playing System, Element Masters, Elfquest (role-playing game), Elfs (role-playing game), Elven Banner, Elves (Mayfair Games). BOZ (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Allright, great! Whenever you are ready for the rest of "E", there are Empire of the Petal Throne, Enforcers (role-playing game), Espionage!, Eternal Soldier, Etherscope, Everway, Evil Ruins, Exodus (role-playing game), Expendables (role-playing game). BOZ (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Whenever you are ready, here is the first half of "F": Fantasy Squares Grid Sheets and Mapers Aid Template, Fantasy Wargaming, Fear Itself (role-playing game), Fez I: Valley of Trees, Fez I: Wizard's Vale, Fez II: The Contract, Fez III: Angry Wizard, Fez IV: Wizard's Revenge, Fez V: Wizard's Betrayal, Fez VI: Wizard's Dilemma, Fifth Cycle. BOZ (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Mountain Witch.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 18:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
You would be doing a service
...to WP as an encyclopedia, if you would go to the Vulcan article, and reduce it to its sourced statements, leaving behind a tag indicating that even that material needs to be checked to source. This issue of near complete article WP:OR at that article has gone on for at least a half decade, and your attempt to keep new material out that is likewise WP:OR is a losing, rear-guard action, since >90% of the article is already WP:OR (or worse, plagiarism or fabrication). This trend at WP has to be checked, and it can only be addreseed by people with long histories of contribution here. 67.184.62.39 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, 67.184.62.39. I am flattered by your suggestion that I could solve the problems of the talk) 19:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Covers: F
Continuing on F: Fez IV: Wizard's Revenge, Fez V: Wizard's Betrayal, Fez VI: Wizard's Dilemma, Fifth Cycle. BOZ (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks! :) Whenever you are ready, the rest of F: Final Challenge, Firefly Role-Playing Game, Flash Gordon & the Warriors of Mongo, Flashing Blades, Foes (RuneQuest), Forgotten Futures, Freedom Fighters (role-playing game), Freeway Warrior, Fringeworthy, FTL:2448, Future Worlds. BOZ (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Also,
) 05:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)When you're ready for more, we can start at G: Gamer's Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Gangster!, Garden of the Plantmaster, Gatecrasher (role-playing game), Gear Krieg, Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (role-playing game), Ghosts In the Black, Ghoulash: The Last Game on Earth, Giants (Mayfair Games), Goblin Lake, Grimm (role-playing game). BOZ (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Dec. 2018, Sigmund Freud
I recently added Spinoza to Freud's influences, and you suggested citations before adding that influence. Freud has scarcely mentioned Spinoza throughout his writings, only writing about him in 2 works, but I was re-reading Spinoza's Ethics part 3 and 4, and I came across Spinoza's assertion that dreams are the place where we act out the desires we would not even dare think in conscious life. That to me showed the beginnings of psychoanalytic dream interpretation. Aside from that, Spinoza's idea that desire is what pushes us to do anything is a very Freudian concept. Various peer reviewed articles have discussed the similarities between Freud and Spinoza, especially given that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were influenced by Spinoza, and Freud also was influenced by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. What do you think would be required before adding Spinoza to the influences of Freud? Xemplar (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, looking through the Spinoza page showed Freud as an influence. Xemplar (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Xemplar. The relevant policy is talk) 08:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Freud and Philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
|
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019! |
| Hi. FreeKnowledgeCreator! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Writer's Barnstar |
| I have noticed the great work you are doing at Eros and Civilization. Thank you, and keep it up! Airplaneman ✈ 00:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Airplaneman. The talk) 21:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's a very difficult topic for sure. I recently read Eros and Civilization, but unless I give it another read and do some additional research, I don't think I would be ready to contribute substantially either. I'll have to take a look at Freud and Philosophy; I'm not familiar with the work. Take care, Airplaneman ✈ 22:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Jeremiah, The Roleplaying Game.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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. Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Personal & Vehicular Basic Loads.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 18:52, 20 December 2018 (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 {{
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) 15:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Assumption of the Virgin (Carracci)
Dear FreeKwnoledgeCreator, I would like to discuss your recent intervention at Assumption of the Virgin (Carracci) where you reverted my previous edit where I had removed the paragraphs about the Roman painting. I did this to separate the two paintings, and I also created a new article about the Assumption of the Virgin (Cerasi Chapel) with a lot of well-sourced information. This was part of my ongoing project to develop the articles concerning the Basilica of Santa Maria del Popolo. Generally I think it is better to have separate articles about important artworks than dumping them under a common title, and a Prado stub has the potential to grow into a fully-fledged article. If you take a look at the paintings of Carracci listed in the template, all of them have their own articles (except these two) so I think my edit was consistent with the general practice and policies. Due to these reasons I would like to ask you to restore the previous version of the article. As for my incorrect grammar, English is not my first language but I think English-speaking users could easily correct one or two mistakes. Zello (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Zello. Your edits at talk) 04:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator, this was a simple blunder by me. I meant "A painting showing the Assumption of the Virgin Mary by the Italian Baroque painter Annibale Carracci was completed in 1590 and is now the Museo del Prado in Madrid. The same subject was depicted by him on the altarpiece of the famous Cerasi Chapel in Rome." If you have no objection about the separation of the two paintings, and giving them their own articles, then I will change the text to this.Zello (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
HIV denialism
I saw that IP edit and thought of the drunken edits examples at
Disambiguation link notification for December 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Freud and Philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublimation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Rereading Ancient Philosophy
Your recent editing history at Rereading Ancient Philosophy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Don't insult or patronize me, talk) 16:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you haven't edited the article to add the information that its print version was printed on paper, that the paper is shaped into pages, and that the pages have ink on both sides. The content you insist on keeping in the article is just as trivial. You can see it immediately from the previous footnote. It does not warrant a whole section of the article. It is filler and Wikipuffery. It makes the article look less notable, not more, because if that's the only thing you can say about the book then it's clear that there is nothing of substance to say. The identity of the reviewer is certainly not evidence of notability. The existence of published reviews may be such evidence, but notability through GNG is given by references (already listed in the previous two footnotes), not by adding text to an article stating the existence of the references. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- It isn't trivial that a book received a review - it shows that the book received notice, that it received scholarly recognition, and so on. Maybe you don't give a crap about scholarship, but that isn't a justification for removing evidence that a book received scholarly attention. Your comment, "It makes the article look less notable, not more, because if that's the only thing you can say about the book then it's clear that there is nothing of substance to say" is nonsense. In terms of our policies, yes, of course the fact that a book receives a review helps to show it is notable. As for, "You can see it immediately from the previous footnote" - do you imagine that all readers of an article even look at footnotes? I'd hazard a guess that maybe 99% of them don't. Readers of an encyclopedia who happen to be interested in scholarly books can reasonably expect that articles about such books would present information about reviews they received clearly and in a dedicated section. Having a dedicated section about the reception of a book makes sense because it makes it possible to present information about the details of the reviews - obviously that cannot be done if reviews are acknowledged only in citations that probably most readers of the article will never bother to even look at. talk) 17:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- The evidence that the book received scholarly attention is provided by the footnote. Your section provides zero additional information beyond the footnote. It is filler. It doesn't even say anything about "the reception of the book" because it says nothing about what's in the review, only that it exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- The footnote did not belong where it was in the first place, and I've now removed it as duplicated material. Your comment is thus beside the point. talk) 17:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- The new section content, describing rather than merely stating the existence of the review content, is acceptable. Why didn't you do that in the first place instead of edit-warring to keep the article in a worse state? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- The footnote did not belong where it was in the first place, and I've now removed it as duplicated material. Your comment is thus beside the point.
- The evidence that the book received scholarly attention is provided by the footnote. Your section provides zero additional information beyond the footnote. It is filler. It doesn't even say anything about "the reception of the book" because it says nothing about what's in the review, only that it exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- It isn't trivial that a book received a review - it shows that the book received notice, that it received scholarly recognition, and so on. Maybe you don't give a crap about scholarship, but that isn't a justification for removing evidence that a book received scholarly attention. Your comment, "It makes the article look less notable, not more, because if that's the only thing you can say about the book then it's clear that there is nothing of substance to say" is nonsense. In terms of our policies, yes, of course the fact that a book receives a review helps to show it is notable. As for, "You can see it immediately from the previous footnote" - do you imagine that all readers of an article even look at footnotes? I'd hazard a guess that maybe 99% of them don't. Readers of an encyclopedia who happen to be interested in scholarly books can reasonably expect that articles about such books would present information about reviews they received clearly and in a dedicated section. Having a dedicated section about the reception of a book makes sense because it makes it possible to present information about the details of the reviews - obviously that cannot be done if reviews are acknowledged only in citations that probably most readers of the article will never bother to even look at.
- I'm surprised you haven't edited the article to add the information that its print version was printed on paper, that the paper is shaped into pages, and that the pages have ink on both sides. The content you insist on keeping in the article is just as trivial. You can see it immediately from the previous footnote. It does not warrant a whole section of the article. It is filler and Wikipuffery. It makes the article look less notable, not more, because if that's the only thing you can say about the book then it's clear that there is nothing of substance to say. The identity of the reviewer is certainly not evidence of notability. The existence of published reviews may be such evidence, but notability through GNG is given by references (already listed in the previous two footnotes), not by adding text to an article stating the existence of the references. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:A Nghu Night Falls.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 18:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Terminator 2 -- reverted edits
“Thank you, but that is unnecessary editorial commentary.” What is that supposed to mean ? Those are false informations which I tried to correct ! One of them is mentioned on the discussion page, dated 24 August 2018 : “"He and Hamilton reprised their respective roles from the first Terminator film". Wrong. Terminator in 1st film was 'bad'; in 2nd film was 'good'.” Arnold Schwarzenegger did not “reprise his role” from the first movie, but took on the role of a similar looking cyborg (which happens to have a very different hairdo... Skynet must have a fashion division in its assembly lines...), with a completely different role and purpose. (Besides, the Terminator from The Terminator has been completely destroyed at the end of the first installment.) How can you argue with that ? And as it is accurately depicted in the “Plot” section, Dyson did not develop the CPU for the T-800, it's the other way around, he created a general purpose CPU by reverse-engineering the CPU from the first T-800 Terminator which was destroyed at the end of the first movie. You could have improved over this edit, but why did you just delete as if it was some kind of pollution ?--Abolibibelot (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Abolibibelot. Your edit changed "He and Hamilton reprised their respective roles from the first Terminator film" to "He and Hamilton reprised their respective roles from the first Terminator film – although the Terminator T-800 turned out to be a different cyborg, with opposite intents." As I said when I removed it, that addition was editorial commentary. It represents your personal interpretation or understanding of the issue, and it does not belong in the article. If reliable sources consider Schwarzenegger's roles in the first and the second Terminator films to be the same role, then for Wikipedia's purposes they are. talk) 01:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Why didn't my edit not suggest a link between sexual abuse and the causes of homosexuality?
I can add more studies if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:CE4D:7800:540C:A49C:317F:5295 (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Your edit did not "suggest a link between sexual abuse and the causes of homosexuality" because there was nothing in it that either directly stated or implied that sexual abuse is a cause of homosexuality. It was an apparently unrelated article about lesbians recollecting sexual abuse, with no suggestion that the abuse was relevant to causing lesbianism. talk) 07:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Theory and Event
Sorry. XFD closer tends to mass delete the back links rather indiscriminately when deleting pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Covers: G - L
Continuing on with "G": Gunslingers and Gamblers, GURPS Aliens, GURPS Banestorm, GURPS Bili the Axe – Up Harzburk!, GURPS Blood Types, GURPS Cliffhangers, GURPS Conan, GURPS Espionage, GURPS Gulliver, GURPS High-Tech, GURPS Humanx. BOZ (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I also started some more articles today, including Caves and Caverns and Fate of the Sky Raiders. BOZ (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also, Angmar and Grimtooth's Traps Too. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also started Champions II, Damocles (The Morrow Project), and Gamesmen of Kasar today. BOZ (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The rest of "G" - all GURPS!: GURPS In Nomine, GURPS Lite, GURPS Rogues, GURPS Shapeshifters, GURPS Super Scum, GURPS Swashbucklers, GURPS Time Travel, GURPS Ultra-Tech, GURPS Vehicles, GURPS Wild Cards. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I also started some more articles today, including Cops, Crooks and Civilians, Crisis at Crusader Citadel and Darkling Ship. BOZ (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- And more today, including Adventure Class Ships, Vol. II (sequel to Vol I of course), and also FORCE. BOZ (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Excellent! Whenever you're ready, here is "H"!: Happy Birthday, Robot!, Haven: City of Violence, Hawkmoon (role-playing game), Heaven & Earth (role-playing game), Heavy Gear, Hercules & Xena Roleplaying Game, HeroQuest (role-playing game), Heroes (role-playing game), Heroes of Olympus (role-playing game), Hexagonal and Grid Mapping System, Hexpressions, Hidden Kingdom (role-playing game). BOZ (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello BOZ. I cannot add pictures for all of those articles. In some cases, I do not believe that I can justify it on copyright grounds (since the articles already have some kind of picture) and in some other cases, there is no available image, so far as I can determine. I have added pictures in many cases, however. talk) 22:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
If you are ready for the rest of H, here they are!:
) 00:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)- One more new one, just now: Autoduel Champions. BOZ (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, here is a smaller letter, "I", and these are all that need images:
) 23:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)- Done, in those cases where I was able to add a suitable image. talk) 03:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I've got a couple of much smaller letters, so I put them together:
L is a bigger letter than those, but still I think there were few enough that I could put them together in one batch: Lace & Steel, Land of the Rising Sun (role-playing game), Lands of Adventure, Lara's Tower, Legacy (role-playing game), Legend of the Five Rings Roleplaying Game, Legends of Anglerre, Legionnaire (role-playing game), Leverage: The Roleplaying Game, Living Steel, Lone Wolf Multiplayer Game Book, Lone Wolf: The Roleplaying Game, Lord of the Rings Adventure Game, Lost Conquistador Mine. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I also started Champions III. :) BOZ (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- And Daredevil Adventures Vol. 2 No. 2: The Menace Beneath the Sea today. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Several more today, including Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser Deck Plans and Death in Spades. BOZ (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- And just one more for now, BeltStrike: Riches and Danger in the Bowman Belt. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I also did ) 04:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Good to have you back at Bettelheim article
Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator,
You should know that I think I'm the one who came up with "freelance ideas on child psychology." That is, I really do try to go right down the middle. The problem is, the references themselves are overwhelming.
Anyway, you often help me bring forth my best work, even if we disagree as often as not. So, welcome back! :~) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Astrology
Thank you for your feedback on the edits to the astrology article! If you look at phrenology, Feng shui, homeopathy, and reiki, you will see that two of them start by saying the it is a pseudoscience, as I did with astrology. The others say it in the next sentence or very soon after. The suggests that the argument that "we need to start by explaining its specific features, not a feature it shares in common with many other things" doesn't pan out. Such a claim precludes introductions like "The Invisible Man is a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells", which are obviously ubiquitous. Moreover, your revision simply replaces "a pseudoscience" with "the study", which itself is a feature shared in common with many other things. You could argue that the study is then modified by the of prepositional phrase, but the same argument could be made about the phrase following pseudoscience. Please, reconsider your edit.--Brett (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Brett. talk) 20:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Would you wish to suggest improvements on Bettelheim article?
I think you generally see where I'm coming from regarding the Bruno Bettelheim page. Would you wish to suggest improvements that address both our concerns? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi!
Please review our NPOV policy. We should not say that the members of a particular religious group are healers. Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, ExperiencedArticleFixer. As someone active on Wikipedia for more than a decade, I am familiar with talk) 22:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
We're probably going to need a Request For Comment regarding Bettelheim article.
You and I are light years apart on the Bruno Bettelheim article, which is fine. RfC is a good way to involve the broader community. I think it's okay if either one of us initiates it, as long as we invite the other.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, FriendlyRiverOtter. You may well have done quite a lot of helpful work at the talk) 01:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Denies being
If I could discern your intent here, I'd fix it myself, but I can't parse that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do not see a need for clarification. A man wrote a manifesto in which he denies that he is a Nazi. The text I added explained that. Where is the problem? talk) 23:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Say/state
Re this, Merriam-Webster say, sense 1a, disagrees with you. Do you assert some higher authority on vocabulary, such as a more respected dictionary? If it's just that you "know" better than the dictionary, I'm likely to take exception. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Mandruss. Is there any particular reason you are coming here to my talk page to discuss this extremely minor issue? Generally, I prefer it if people discuss edits to a particular article on the talk page of the relevant article, not on my personal talk page. talk) 10:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
lead on Bruno Bettelheim
Thank you for your recent edits. Making a first pass, I think your edits definitely improved the article. It's always good to have a fresh pair of eyes.
Now, yes, I continue to be unhappy with our lead, for I think we can do better. And I'm hoping perhaps you are becoming open to that as well. For example, the psychologist you created a link to, Paul R. McHugh, he wrote, "Bettelheim had no qualifications as a child psychiatrist or psychologist, having been a businessman with an art history doctorate in 1930s Vienna."
Or, to add a little humor to this whole situation -- in our article on Baby Face Nelson, should the first sentence describe him as a banking employee, and then only three or four sentences in, do we finally tell our readers, well, actually, the real story is? No, we wouldn't do that. Nor should we. And neither should we do the same in the Bettelheim article.
I'm not going to move super quickly. But I am going to take yet another look at the lead. And I invite you to do the same. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
Your recent editing history at David Frawley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. ∯WBGconverse 05:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are edit warring to violate talk) 05:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FreeKnowledgeCreator reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: ). Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I looked. There was nothing there. talk) 07:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea why my report wasn't saved. I will most likely have to redo it tomorrow.
- No, that is patently false. "Ideologue" is an inherently negative, pejorative term. Go to an article about a living person and make the lead state as fact that they are an "ideologue", and that is biased editing. This version of the article, which you restored, states in the lead that Frawley is a "Hindutva ideologue", but while the main body of the article mentions various criticisms of Frawley, it nowhere describes him as a "Hindutva ideologue". So the statement that he is a "Hindutva ideologue" obviously was not properly cited, making it is unacceptable per talk) 07:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, that is patently false. "Ideologue" is an inherently negative, pejorative term. Go to an article about a living person and make the lead state as fact that they are an "ideologue", and that is biased editing. This version of the article, which you restored, states in the lead that Frawley is a "Hindutva ideologue", but while the main body of the article mentions various criticisms of Frawley, it nowhere describes him as a "Hindutva ideologue". So the statement that he is a "Hindutva ideologue" obviously was not properly cited, making it is unacceptable per
- As for admin opinions, it was talk) 07:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- As for admin opinions, it was
Michel Foucault
Thanks for your recheck But dou to its refrence, thats true. I didnt find anyone with more citation. But i respect to your experience مسعوداص (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I have removed the excessive images again. I've really no idea what important encyclopaedic information they are supposed to convey. The image in the infobox is sufficient. There's absolutely no point cluttering up the page with multiple images of the same subject at similar ages. Thanks. 192.41.125.253 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The article See Jack Run has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable stub; film doesn't appear to have had any impact. I couldn't find any reviews or mentions other than to support that it was made.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Schazjmd, but I do not understand why you have placed that message here. I did not start talk) 00:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Films featuring Howard the Duck has been nominated for discussion
Category:Films featuring Howard the Duck, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Interested in your views on Bettelheim article.
I'm kind of fascinating that you can, on the one hand, dive into the subject enough to do some quality editing on the specifics, and thank you for this. :-) And yet, you seem to think "child psychologist" is just fine for our lead sentence.
I mean, our lead probably wouldn't describe someone as a "doctor" if they had merely taken three undergrad classes in biology, right? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
invitation to Request for Comment on subject of Bruno Bettelheim
As a participant in a previous RfC on Bettelheim, you are invited to a new starting RfC. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
PS You are the first invite I've sent out because I do wish to have your participation.
Heidegger's Nazism
Please use the talk page when making controversial edits to the Heidegger article. Repeating an assertion that the text is badly written or rambling does not advance the discussion. Instead, please explain why you think that it is badly written or rambling.Sbelknap (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Please be aware that as the article lead explains; "An Experiment with Time is a book ... about his precognitive dreams and a theory of time which he later called "Serialism". The body of the article has two roughly equal-sized sections dealing with each of these aspects of the book. If you wish to continue challenging this approach in the infobox summary, it would help if you can first engage with Talk:An_Experiment_with_Time#Subject_of_the_book the discussion I have started on the talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Steelpillow. A) This isn't an issue of great importance, and I am not planning to make any more edits to
- I was just intending to be polite in coming here, as not everybody pays attention to the talk pages of the articles they edit. My apologies if it did not come across that way. I hope you enjoy the book. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Edit War
Regarding WLC, you are now edit warring. Two editors want to remove it, and two editors want to keep. Why don't we just discuss it? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Star Fleet Battles Expansion 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 02:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Covers: M - N
"M" is a bigger letter, so this list will come in four sections, and here is the first: M.I.S.S.I.O.N., Mach: The First Colony, Maelstrom (role-playing game), Mage (Archaeron), Maléfices, Manhunter (role-playing game), Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Marvel Super Heroes: The Heroic Role-Playing Game, Masterbook, Mechamorphosis. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Today I also created "Glozel est Authentique!" BOZ (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
More from the letter M:
- I also just started Cities of Hârn, Goldfinger (adventure), and Dr. No (adventure). BOZ (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- I also started Chill Master's Screen today. BOZ (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did a couple more today: A Jakállan Intrigue and Deeds of the Ever-Glorious. BOZ (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am also wondering if there are any suitable cover images to be used for Dungeon World? BOZ (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello BOZ. I've added pictures to most of those articles. Not sure I can justify one for talk) 06:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello BOZ. I've added pictures to most of those articles. Not sure I can justify one for
Gotcha! How about Millennium's End, Mistborn Adventure Game, Monsterhearts, Monsters and Other Childish Things, Monsters of Myth & Legend, Monsters of Myth and Legend II, Monsters! Monsters!, Morpheus (role-playing game), Morton's List, and Most Wanted, Volume 1? BOZ (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you see anything good that might be used for Heavy Gear? BOZ (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, moving on to finish up the letter "M", we have: Mouse Guard Roleplaying Game, MSPE Character Folder, Mummy: The Curse, Multiverser, Mutant City Blues, Mutant Future, Mutazoids, Mutiny on the Eleanor Moraes, Mythworld. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I also just started Ascent To Anekthor, Lee's Guide to Interstellar Adventure, A Pilot's Guide to the Drexilthar Subsector, and Duneraiders today. :) BOZ (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- And I started Beyond the Wall of Tears and From the Deeps of Space today. BOZ (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also ) 22:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I started ) 05:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- And three more for now: Isengard and Northern Gondor, Bree and the Barrow-Downs, Dagorlad and the Dead Marshes. BOZ (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was on a roll today, so I started a few more: ) 22:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- And, a few more again today: ) 22:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I also started Masks of Nyarlathotep. BOZ (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Today, I started ) 22:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- A few more today: Highland Terror, Clash of Kings (Timemaster), Goodbye, Kankee, and Moria: The Dwarven City. BOZ (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Two more today, that's it for now: Margin of Profit, Demand of Honor. BOZ (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Two more today: ) 22:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK! So today, I finished up the rest of the capsule reviews from the last issue of the ) 22:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was right - I did a whole issue of this different format of Space Gamer, and only one more to add here: Alone Against the Dark. BOZ (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Awesome work catching up on those! :) So when you are ready for the first half of "N", we have Nanorien Stones, Neighborhood (role-playing game), New York, New York (supplement), Nexus: The Infinite City, Night of the Ninja (role-playing game), Night's Black Agents (role-playing game), Ninja Hero. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, BOZ. Can't do it immediately. Soon though. talk) 08:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- No rush! I also started Legion of Super-Heroes Volume I today when you are ready for that. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Finished another issue today, started HIL Sector Blues yesterday, and today I did Cthulhu by Gaslight, Fragments of Fear: The Second Cthulhu Companion, H.P. Lovecraft's Dreamlands, Lords of Middle-earth, Volume I. :) BOZ (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- A few more from the issue I finished today: ) 00:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I started Black Sword earlier today. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- And three more from that same issue today: ) 00:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Back to finish up "N", we have Noble's Book, Northern Crown (roleplaying game), Northern Mirkwood: The Wood-Elves Realm, Novus (role-playing game), Numenera, Nystalux. BOZ (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- One new one from the issue I worked on today: A Naturalist's Guide to Talislanta. BOZ (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Several new ones today: ) 18:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- And as promised, I have now finished the entire run of Space Gamer, and started these from the final issue: ) 03:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Edit on Camille Paglia
I don't understand. That is the end of the sentence right? Shouldn't there be a period?Mcc1789 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mcc1789. You need to look carefully at the text. Prior to your edit, the relevant passage of the article read "Though Paglia admires Simone de Beauvoir and The Second Sex ("the supreme work of modern feminism ... its deep learning and massive argument are unsurpassed") as well as Germaine Greer, Time magazine critic Martha Duffy writes that Paglia "does not hesitate to hurl brazen insults" at several feminists." Your edit changed the comma following "Greer" to a full stop, splitting a single sentence into two, and resulting in an ungrammatical sentence stating, "Though Paglia admires Simone de Beauvoir and The Second Sex ("the supreme work of modern feminism ... its deep learning and massive argument are unsurpassed") as well as Germaine Greer."
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DoctorAldebaran and "Jewish POV-pushing" by the "Jewish ethnic lobby". Jayjg (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Novus Fantasy Roleplaying Game.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 03:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Reading Capital (French edition).jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 17:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Girallon.png
Thanks for uploading
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) 17:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Albedo, boxed set.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 17:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Garl Glittergold.png
Thanks for uploading
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) 03:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Demihuman Deities (D&D manual).jpg
Thanks for uploading
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) 18:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)