User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Minor suggestion[edit]

Might I suggest that you disengage from the discussion at ANI? I'm going to do the same unless something new actually needs to be said. TL;DR is a serious problem, and continuing the back-and-forth is just making the discussion harder for new people to read and comment on it. The only effect of continuing to argue will be to make a longer conversation, which will burn out and get archived without resolution. Something my father always said when I was growing up: Trying to reason with an unreasonable person is by definition futile. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I have been, in some ways, more restrained than you Mendaliv, since despite being tempted I have not called for the user the ANI thread is about to be indefinitely blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Seriously now, give ANI a rest? We realise you don't see eye to eye with Jesse and want him thrown out the door, but I am cautiously optimistic that he understands the problem and hopefully things have cooled down a bit. He makes a perfectly valid point that leaving an article on the wrong version is annoying (and which has recently caused a long standing and well respected editor to retire). Let it go and write an article on some other topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you take a look at my recent edit history? That's exactly what I did. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual Desire (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek Homosexuality (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) 09:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

nietzsche conjecture[edit]

I see you did a simple undo of my edit down of some controversial views, not commonly held my most Nietzsche scholars about his sexuality. I am doubtful you read my reason for the edit, as a consensus is not required to remove large chunks of unsubstantiated conjecture about a historical figure. I did not remove the spirit of the comments, but when speculation overshadows fact, it must be put in context. Random comments about him seeing male prostitutes from which he got syphilis are conjecture and have no basis in history. There is no basis for such claims and no Nietzsche scholar holds this as anything but gossip; save the one author. I don't feel like getting into an edit controversy over this, but unless YOU can find some basis for these claims, it is YOU that must find a consensus. Discussions of the author of the conjecture belong on a wikipage about that author, however he is not considered notable enough to have one. That alone speaks volumes about the quality of that content.

Can you explain your interest in keeping an inordinate amount of this sort of conjecture about a Nietzsche's life which has no factual basis for being made? Cinebuns5000 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. I did indeed read your reason for the edit. I simply was not convinced by it. You are mistaken to claim that consensus is not needed to remove such material. Consensus would be required to remove almost any material that is not a violation of either WP:BLP or copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I have read them and suggest that you please re-read WP:BLP, because that is EXACTLY the point I was making. There no way to VERIFY that Nietzsche contracted syphilis from male hookers. That author was not there, there are no documents pertaining to it. It pure conjecture. Conjecture and NOT acceptable per WP:BLP. Thus, it should be removed. So again, I must ask: "Can you explain your interest in keeping an inordinate amount of this sort of conjecture about a Nietzsche's life which has no factual basis for being made?" I will drop this issue, but I don't believe that unsubstantiated claims by questionable sources have a place on wikipedia. Do you?Cinebuns5000 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
BLP is biographies of living people and it applies only to the living. Nietzsche has been dead for more than a century. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I know what BLP is.
YOU are the one who quoted it above first, not me. see your comment before mine.
Are you saying pure conjecture is allowed on Wikipedia just because someone is dead?
I guess I could say anything about anyone then as long as they are dead.
I am trying to believe you are acting in good faith, but you are not addressing the issue here or answering my question.Cinebuns5000 (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
If you know what BLP is, then you should also know that you cannot remove material about Nietzsche because of the policy. Beyond that, Wikipedia bases content on reliable sources; see for example, WP:VERIFY. If a reliable sources makes claims about Nietzsche, then there's no reason the article cannot mention or discuss them. By the way, discussion about this material properly belongs on the Nietzsche talk page, not my personal talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I already moved our discussion there in hopes another editor will take note of it. TALK pages are there to discuss edits. Since you reverted my good faith edit, it is common practice to discuss it on the person's TALK page before taking it elsewhere. I had hoped we could work this out between us in good faith, but I guess you have some reason for wanting an imagined theory, by an obscure source, that postulates Nietzsche got syphilis from male hookers in a brothel, with no evidence, to dominate his personal life section. You would not explain your reasoning for wanting that or address my legitimate concerns. Cinebuns5000 (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Discussion of the article belongs on its talk page. I have nothing further to say here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Kant and Gita[edit]

I was reading that Journal and got a very detailed comparison of his philosophy with that of Gita. Was my placement inappropriate or the content irrelevant? I am sure the reference is good and detailed enough to be used to add to Kant's article. Could you suggest in what form and where it might be better placed? --AmritasyaPutraT 07:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is simply not possible for the Kant article to include every scholar's opinion of or interpretation of Kant, nor every comparison of Kant's philosophy to other philosophies or systems of belief. However interesting the comparison to the Bhagavad Gita might be, it is not particularly important to understanding Kant, and I see no reason it should be in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I got two peer-reviewed journal and one university publication. All three scholarly sources themed on Kant's philosophy compared to Gita. I definitely do not buy the argument of 'undue' without protest. Do you instead mean there is another more appropriate page for this? Definitely not a new article, or is it? --AmritasyaPutraT 07:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but the information you want to add is an esoteric detail that just doesn't belong in the article, in my view. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure I completely agree with you. Three research papers on the very specific topic of Kant's philosophy and Gita is ample reliable source. Since I haven't edited this article before perhaps there is a better avenue but it is not esoteric detail by any means. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

LTA of HarveyCarter[edit]

What was inflammatory about that word 'nuked'[1] that you changed to 'blocked'? If everything has been removed, it is called nuked. That is how Youtube had handled his multiple accounts over there. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you feel I made a mistake, then revert me. I don't care. This is a very minor matter, and it hardly belongs on my talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Dreamcatcher_(novel)#Infobox. When starting conversations with other users about their edits: throwing insults like "reason for this is self-evident", "no one is going to think that it is the side of the book," and "the issue you raise seems incredibly pedantic and trivial" hurt the opportunity for collaboration, creating a hostile environment discouraging others to edit. Please be more careful in the future about how you approach conversation with other users and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, especially if they are relatively new to the community. Sadads (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that given the way the other person was behaving, I'm not really able to take the above seriously. You call the comment, "no one is going to think that it is the side of the book" an insult. No, it is not. It is a statement of the obvious, and I stand by it. It refers to a picture in an infobox, not another user. That you would call it an insult suggests that you are not approaching this issue neutrally. I cannot guess why, but maybe I'm not the only person who needs to read WP:AGF. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
In fact, those are insults: you are calling the other opinions about a topic worthless and foolish, and that their actions reflect some kind of idiocy inapprorpriate for Wikipedia; in short, you are indirectly calling that editor an "idiot' or "fool" by ridiculing their ideas. Assume good faith, on the other hand, requires us to approach someone with the assumption that their values or ideas may be of value because their intentions were good. Its better to create constructive framing through language that focuses on your subjectivity in these experiences; for example, instead of saying "self-evident", you could say "When I read the page, I find the language describing the cover redundant"; such rhetorical moves makes it less about the other editor and more about the disagreement of opinions. I hope that you take a chance to try to do more constructive feedback that is less insulting. Sadads (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No. You were wrong before and you are wrong now, Sadads. I did not use the words "worthless and foolish" - you did. That's an interpretation you are placing on what I wrote, not a "fact." I did not accuse anyone of "idiocy" - again you are attributing to me a view I never expressed. The words "idiot" and "fool" are insults, but "no one is going to think that it is the side of the book" is not, not even indirectly. It is a simple truth that needed stating. By stating it, I told someone that he was wrong, and that is all. Honest discussion often requires doing this. If I wanted to, I could complain that the other person adopted an insulting tone toward me. You will note that I do not bother wasting my time that way. I think, though, that to a reasonable third party it would be pretty clear that you have adopted a double standard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Stay off of my talk page[edit]

That includes responding to this message. If you consider posting another message read WP:HUSH. This is the only time I will make this request. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Now that you've made your feelings clear, I am perfectly happy to oblige. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)