User talk:Philosophy Junkie

Hello Philosophy Junkie! sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- --Nishkid64 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply ] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Thank you for your efforts to fight vandalism. Your attempts to restore the page to a good version have not been fully successful however. Please be sure to revert vandalism in future edits. Not reverting runs the risk of missing part of the vandalism, or not restoring text the vandal may have damaged or removed. This results in the vandal succeeding in damaging Wikipedia, which may encourage them to continue. Also, please be sure that you revert to a clean (vandal free) version. Looking at recent diffs in the page history is useful here. Thanks, and please continue helping to keep Wikipedia vandalism free! Richard001 03:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Joseph Raz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hubert Dreyfus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Richardson and Sean Kelly

Burton Dreben (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Friedman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Philosophical Gourmet Report, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Please do not revert changes without appropriate cause. Your indicated reasons were not that. Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People on the Talk page accuse you of retaliatory editing. In my field, the Philosophical Gourmet Report has been influential it deserves a more complete explanation.

I am sorry my HTML is not very good. I am interested in philosophy mainly.

• The accuser is not an editor of longstanding -- at least under that name. He created that account during Memorial Day weekend, edited however like an experienced editor, relative to subjects where there has been socking, and slavishly exhorting a person as a source who has been the subject of severe criticism ITRW for inappropriate behavior. But more to the point, his assertions were false. And your rationale for reverting appropriate edits was not satisfactory, under WP guidelines, as the edits were appropriate and the reversion was not. Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

1) Have ever edited under another username or IP address on Wikipedia?

2) Do you have a conflict of interest, as defined by Wikipedia, in that you have an interest vis-a-vis Brian Leiter publications, and/or vis-a-vis Brian Leiter?

Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you edit under other names? Do you know anything about philosophy? Thanks.--[{User:Philosophy_Junkie|Philosophy Junkie]].

That's interesting. The Memorial Day Weekend editor did exactly the same thing. Answering my questions with a question. How about this -- I went first. What are the answers? Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. What are your answers? What do you know about the subject? You are very defensive, suggesting COI.

Philosophy Junkie here: why haven't you answered the questions?

That's interesting. Given the other background, it looked as though you did have a COI with Leiter or his publications. Let's now look further, then. But your very first significant substantive edits were to Brian Leiter. And how about this. You got into an edit war, starting Feb 5, 2013, over a wp article. Here. Guess who subsequently saw fit to write a blog post devoted to what you saw as deficient in that article? You guessed it -- Brian Leiter![1] In Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog!! This is an amazing coincidence! It certainly does bolster the suspicion that you have a COI with Leiter and/or Leiter Reports.

And oh -- I'm not defensive. I don't have a COI here. I am editing only under this username. It is completely -- can I stress that enough? -- irrelevant how much I know about philosophy, for purposes of editing here. In the wp world, we don't edit on the basis of what we know, but rather on the basis of what RSs support. As far as I am concerned, you are just another editor, albeit one with a focus on Leiter and his field and his publications, who has 300-odd edits to his name, and is flouting the rules. I don't recall whether I ever edited the Leiter article in the past (prior to this month), but probably not (as he wasn't well known till his recent fall from grace, and you can check that for yourself in any case if you like. Same with the Leiter Report. This contrasts sharply, of course, with your editing of Leiter and related articles. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started editing in 2006, I first edited Leiter about eight months later when I noticed what a mess it was, unlike other philosopher entries. The Leiter entry was subjected to unusual amounts of vandalism and non-NPOV editing, probably because of his blog. That is why I suspect it eventually got locked. I was one of several people who e-mailed Leiter about the Critchley entry apparently, though he waited a couple of years before writing anything about it. The Critchley entry is well-known among philosophers. Also, blogs are not RSs. --Philosophy_Junkie (talk)

Leiter has been a primary focus of your editing -- compared to other articles. The edits to his article were your first substantive ones. You are in email correspondence with him. You claim knowledge that he received emails from others. He didn't write about Critchley on his blog until you first edit-warred about Critchley (and you were the one who did that; it's not as though others did so). It seems that you have a COI vis-a-vis Leiter. Epeefleche (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I last edited Leiter in 2012, I have edited hundreds of entries about philosophers! Everyone is in e-mail correspondence with him, he has the most widely read blog in academic philosophy. You cited an article in which he said several readers had e-mailed him about Critchley, that's where I got that information!!! What is your agenda? -- Philosophy_Junkie

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Philosophical Gourmet Report. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. As you have now been informed more than once, you cannot add an opinion piece as RS support for a statement. Please either do not add such a statement, or find RS support for it and add that RS support. Your continued adding of non-RS-supported text is problematic. Epeefleche (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who should lose editing privileges, since you have been repeatedly accused or retaliation, your edits reflect ignorance of the subject, and when confronted, you immediately question the motives of those who challenge you. I have been editing philosopy entries for almost ten years. Your edits are ignorant and prejudicial.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Philosophical Gourmet Report. As here. You continue to blank RS-sourced appropriate material. That is not appropriate. Your rationale is baseless. I have no COI. Your further rationale is also baseless -- this is proper editing to fix an article, properly sourced to RSs. And there have been no reality-based accusations -- just an SPA's non-reality-based accusations, which curiously match yours. And I note that the SPA who first appeared this weekend has now disappeared. As you have appeared. Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Please stop threatening me, you are the one acting improperly. I have edited philosophy pages for almost ten years. You have a clear COI which would explain your strange editing of philosophy entries. Please stop.

I simply am warning you, as it is appropriate at wp to warn editors before they are blocked, so they have an opportunity to understand their mis-steps, correct their ways, and avoid being blocked. You've chosen to ignore that. At wp -- we don't care if you have been editing philosophy pages for almost ten years. We care about you following wp guidelines. And not inappropriate blanking RS-supported text. And not adding non-RS-text, such as opinion pieces, to support "facts" in text, which you have done yet again here. Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted material at Brian Leiter. From the lede. On the rationale that it is "repetitive." The goal of the lede is repetitive in nature. I've reverted your deletion. Also, IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. Please do not re-delete it. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you like it is also not a reason. I strongly disagree that half the introduction should be taken up with the "controversy" issue (which also involves recentism--see the TALK page), and concur with Sneekypat about the need for pruning. I have also noticed that you removed other material from earlier versions about the subject's academic work. Why? I know you think not knowing anything about academic philosophy is not an obstacle to editing this article, but it runs the risk of giving a distorted picture. "Controversy" about a subject gets its own section, it is never part of an introduction. --Philosophy_JunkiePhilosophy Junkie (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example from another philosopher, embroiled in a far worse controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_McGinn. His resignation from his position after sexual harassment allegations appears in the article (not even in a controversy section), but not in the introduction. Your editing lacks NPOV in this case, and your comments on some of the other TALK pages do suggest you want to discredit the subject. Please consider. Thank you.--[[User:Philosophy_Junkie|Philosophy_Junkie]Philosophy Junkie (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to weigh in that "pruning" does not mean "no mention at all in the lede." Leiter appears to have been a pretty controversial figure for a long time in the philosophy community because of his alleged personal behavior. To move toward consensus, I suggest either (a) restoring a trimmed version of the controversy part, or (b) trimming the entire lede down to something minimal (e.g., "Brian Leiter (born 1963) is an American philosopher and legal scholar.") and leaving the rest for the body. The entry is not all that long, so more than a minimal lede doesn't strike me as necessary anyway. Sneekypat (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rankings have been controversial, the evidence that he himself has been exists only on some blogs I've seen (until last fall that is). The entry already includes a section on his polemical blog postings. I did try to revise the introduction to include reference to the controversy but from a NPOV. But your alternative is probably fine too, though the "controversy" section should be pruned and probably merged with the section on the Gourmet Report.--.--Philosophy_JunkiePhilosophy Junkie (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only talking about the lede at this point. I agree that the controversy section also needs to get trimmed, but lets try to get consensus for one thing at a time. I'm going to make the trim the lede section over on the entry's talk page. Sneekypat (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds like a good plan. By the way, I tried to restore something from an earlier version that Epefleeche removed without explanation, but it included a reference, which I did not format properly it appears. If you can fix that, thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Brian Leiter page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Friedman (philosopher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen's College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification about your edits. Why do you not think information posted on the UCSD page counts as an appropriate third-party source for some of the information on Brink?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Davies (philosopher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gareth Evans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philosophy Junkie. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Hello. Please make sure that your edits [2] are in accordance with MOS:CAPS. Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philosophy Junkie. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

A tag has been placed on Richard Moran (philosopher) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CheeseCrisps (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Candace Vogler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Action theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philosophy Junkie. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Guyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ted Cohen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philosophy Junkie,

I understand that you have a personal reverence for the subject of this wikipedia page: Brian Leiter, but that does not forgive your violation of the Assumption of Good Faith, nor your incorrect attribution of a "malicious edit" to me, as you so boldly stated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Leiter#Criticism,_etc. In fact, if you'll be so kind to "notice" again, it does not even match my IP address: 2a01:e35:2fe9:4310:bdd7:8b6f:9bf1:5eb9 vs. 24.217.247.41 [3]. I suggest you apologize to me and triple-check before you make such maligning statements against myself and others. Thank you. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed these issues at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JaventheAlderick. I have a reverence for good sources, facts, fairness, and adherence to the BLP policies. I supplied many of the sources for the criticisms of the subject.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jennifer Hornsby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donald Davidson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at

You have performed 4 Reversions within a 24 hour period.

The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All editors can see that I have made two reverts, not four, in both case with respect to an editor, you, who has repeatedly disregarded the consensus on the TALK page and other Wikipedia rules. I left one of your edits intact as well, even though I thought it did not make much sense.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I count 3 "undid revisions" and 1 "restoring version". It would be 3 reverts if you counted the two you made at 23:46 and 23:50 as one, but it's definitely not 2 reverts.

• 00:05, 7 October 2019‎ Philosophy Junkie talk contribs‎ 26,671 bytes +39‎ Undid revision 919973615 by 24.217.247.41 (talk) Same as before, the issue has been discussed on talk page for subject, and user has been contacted via the talk page. undo Tag: Undo [automatically accepted]
• 00:01, 7 October 2019‎ Philosophy Junkie talk contribs‎ 26,671 bytes -140‎ Undid revision 919973145 by 24.217.247.41 (talk) undo Tag: Undo [automatically accepted]
• 23:50, 6 October 2019‎ Philosophy Junkie talk contribs‎ 26,671 bytes -140‎ restoring version from a couple of days ago; some edits not supported by sources; refs to deleted blog posts are not acceptable undo [automatically accepted]
• 23:46, 6 October 2019‎ Philosophy Junkie talk contribs‎ 26,811 bytes +39‎ Undid revision 919971022 by 24.217.247.41 (talk) No consensus undo Tag: Undo [automatically accepted]

24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Higginbotham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Parsons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello can you please help create a page for Philosopher Robert Eli Sanchez at Occidental? 2603:8000:E43F:7800:BCB0:FE3E:BAE3:49B3 (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|FatCat96}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)