User talk:Freeknowledgecreator

I need this page deleted: [1]. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Danger! ^{High voltage!} 03:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Kuhn Black-Body Theory.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kuhn Black-Body Theory.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Bloom

Hi,

I'm not sure what you're referring to here in the summary blurb: Only reverting because of BLP-dubious content - including the (unsourced) names of his children and (unsourced) claims about his celebrity. You're reverting back to a revision that has dubious content?

174.49.172.92 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who reverted back to a version with BLP-dubious content. For example, you restored the alleged names of Bloom's children, with no source, and the claim that one of Bloom's books was "notorious" and made him a celebrity, which also had no source. Please look more carefully at your edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've only edited up to "Religious Criticism." I agree that that phrase on notoriety should come out. You've been reverting to an unorganized and fragmented copy with extraneous and out of place material in each paragraph. If you'd like to keep that material, move it to its appropriate section or make a "trivia" section. I'll remove the children names and the notoriety remark in the next revision. Thanks. 174.49.172.92 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view that the version I have reverted to is poor, but it is the only version that is supported on the talk page. Please stop edit warring - I have had to request that the article be protected, because of your disruptive behavior. Try making changes slowly, and getting agreement for them on the talk page first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The material in the first section should introduce the person concisely, stating who he/she is and why he/she is notable. How many classes he teaches, if it is to be in the text at all, should be in the career section. That is typical of what has come out of the introduction and the other sections. Nearly all of what I've removed is trivial. All that is clear in my explanation on the talk page. If someone wishes to re-add something or edit my edits, it should be done (in the same way that I've made edits) with an explanation on the talk page. There's a lot more to be done on that page. Even after those initial edits, it reads like hagiography.174.49.172.92 (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please make any proposals to improve the article on its talk page. You would have a better chance of making changes if you would stop edit warring. Your behavior probably already merits a block. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is already on the talk page.174.49.172.92 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you haven't convinced any other editors that you are right. Under such circumstances, you shouldn't be trying to change the article. It will simply lead to your edits being reverted. As I said, you may well be blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey -- in the meantime IP editor managed to remove over 7k characters that haven't been restored. I'm weary of the edit wars, but I wish they'd be more or less returned. Nightspore (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page. There are BLP concerns over that material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

New Comment on Bloom. Could you look at the altered Lead section for Harold Bloom? 76.193.171.245 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Update from yesterday and your good edit on Lead section in Bloom. The other editor has apparently moved the same POV issue to the Criticism section (as if you obviate your edit). Could you glance at the Criticism section for Harold Bloom regarding the NPOV? 76.237.180.64 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the edits that have been made there recently are necessarily harmful. I will be having a close look at them, though. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

New Comment: Don't know what to think of this new edit on Bloom page which appeared in the religion subsection. It mentions his book Agon as making a passing reference but gives only an inadequate two word quote to make its case. It seems to have more to do with the other authors it mentions rather than Bloom. When I looked up the contrib name, this came up: Aaronheller (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (38,824 bytes) (+637)‎ . . (→‎Religious criticism: some major ideas about Gnosicism and gnosis in Agon) (undo)

Its a new account, with one single contrib, this one, on Bloom. Anecdotal, or subject for full delete? 209.3.238.61 (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been some time since I last looked at Agon, so I'm not sure I can be much help here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been posted on this Talk page that you may be interested in given your recent contributions on Talk:Quantifier variance. Brews ohare (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Entry on Aesthetic Realism

Dear FreeKnowledgeCreator,

I am writing to tell you some background on the Aesthetic Realism entry and why I just reverted your recent changes.

This article has a long history of edit wars lasting for months, even years. It was not until high level Wikipedia editors got involved to oversee every sentence of the rewrite that began in the summer of 2009 that the article became stable. Please do not make any changes to the article without first discussing them on the Talk Page.

As an editor myself who went through the laborious process of reviewing and gaining consensus on every sentence in the current article, I am glad to discuss any suggested changes on the Talk Page. LoreMariano (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. I am quite aware of the past history of that article. You have not given a single valid reason for reverting a single one of my changes to it, most of which are quite minor and uncontroversial, dealing (for example) with basic matters of grammar and punctuation. Your behavior is obstructionist and foolish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you know I posted this on the Talk Page:

FreeKnowledge, what might seem a minor change to you might not seem minor to other editors in this very sensitive section. For example, the parenthetical passage you have removed("he was no longer impelled towards men") might seem redundant, but emphasizes the fact that the change being described was not simply a change in behavior but a change in physical response. This is the most contentious aspect of the article, and it concerns living persons. I'm not going to revert but will wait for other editors to weigh in, and unlike my change regarding eugenics above (which nobody seems to care about), I think there will be comments on this change. For myself, although I am not one of those personally involved, I think the deleted parenthetical passage clarifies the nature of the change and therefore should be reverted. Trouver (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Aesthetic Realism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just to let you know your work is appreciated. Trouver (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual Personae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Erich Neumann and Jane Harrison (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) 11:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Erich Neumann (psychologist) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ''[[[Sexual Personae]]''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Freeknowledgecreator. You have new messages at Srich32977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Finnis' views on homosexuality

I'm not sure what your problem is with the entry indicating that Finnis holds View X when the quotation provided is from Finnis himself indicating that he indeed does hold View X. It is not controversial to state that Finnis holds this view given that he is reporting it himself in the quotation provided. This settles the neutral point of view issue. It is clearly verifiable because it is a quotation from the man himself. And third, it is not original research in the sense relevant here, e.g. someone doing research on Finnis' views and reporting it here. I suspect that your reason has more to do with covering up Finnis' views about homosexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadhamite55 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look at the article's talk page, then you would know perfectly well what my objections were to that material. Or do you not even know what a talk page is? You need to familiarize yourself with policies such as due weight: see WP:DUE. We don't quote every single thing that someone says in an article about him - it's utterly inappropriate. There already is a discussion of Finnis's views of homosexuality in the section on his career; the additional section you keep adding is completely unnecessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

With great respect, if you had bothered to read the citation, the quotation is not from someone reporting on Finnis' view, but rather Finnis describing his view, in a nutshell, himself. -Wadhamite55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadhamite55 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it's Finnis himself saying it, not someone else reporting on his views, is exactly what makes it inappropriate to include that quotation. As I said, we don't quote every single thing someone says. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of this entry, again, is to indicate a view Finnis holds which is front and centre and very prominent indeed in his perceived public persona. That is important. The page is not strictly about his legal philosophy. It is about his person, including his public persona. Best wishes, Wadhamite55. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadhamite55 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No. That's just not acceptable. There already is a brief mention of Finnis's view of homosexuality in the section on his career, and that's quite sufficient. There is no need for an additional section on his view of homosexuality, least of all one consisting of a single, long quotation. If you think that by saying "best wishes" to me you can end this discussion, or make further discussion unnecessary, you're quite mistaken. The position you've taken is outrageous, and of course I'll do what I can to reverse your edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

categorizing...

Consider adding some of these new articles to the relevant categories on attempts to alter sexual orientation, rather than the more-general sexual orientation and psychology, etc.? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll consider it, but I'm not sure which categories you have in mind, exactly. In the mean time, if you wish to re-categorize the articles, I have no objection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's Category:Sexual orientation change efforts and its subcats, if you do end up doing that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy don (Anscombe article)

I do not know about the university usage of "don", but I do know that it comes from Spanish and in Spanish "don" is masculine. Do they really call women "dons" in British universities? 216.8.169.45 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm not sure why it would matter either, since the term refers to Anscombe's position, not her gender. You may be right that "Don" is not correct, but replacing "philosophy don" with "philosopher" doesn't seem to be the correct way to remedy that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you call her a chairman? It's a position, but it implies a gender. I would have assumed "don" ws the same. In any case, she was definitely a philosopher. 216.8.169.45 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she was a philosopher, but "philosopher" is the wrong term to use in this context - it's not a position. If I were you, I'd raise this issue on the article's talk page, or maybe ask Tom Morris. He would probably be more use than me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Scruton

The material that you are reinserting into the Scruton article is excessivly detailed and grossly smacking of POV (in particualr the wording 'during a period when he had written about tobacco issues without declaring an interest'). The section needs to be trimmed down to be more appropriate in tone. My revert was an attempt to do this; I suggest working from this revert to improve the wording further. Jprw (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be best to discuss this on the article's talk page rather than here on my talk page. If you have serious concerns about the article, however, it would help to consult more widely and see what other editors have to say. Take it to the BLP noticeboard if necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dialectic of Sex

I have included a synopsis of dialectic of sex that includes several DIRECT quotes from the book. The reason I did this is because first paragraph of a wikipedia page should not consist of a quoted criticism by some obscure, non-notable researcher somewhere in this world, when you have not yet summarized the thrust of the book. This is what you have done.

Summarizing the book of a great sociologist also requires one to use her unique language, to define terms the way she defined them, etc. Hers is the language of revolution and any synopsis of the book should refer to this language. Thus I am not sure what "language in the POV of the book" could mean, other than a synopsis of a terrific book that does not fit with your particular agenda.

In addition, I was not able to find your "quoted" reference - your adjectives appeared spurious and there is no evidence that that author stated them. Please provide the page number in your citation if she did. In general, your grammar was incorrect as well - one line contained 6 quotation marks inappropriately placed thus it was hard to reconcile what came from your head and what came from the author. In general, I suggest not posting anything about authors you have not read.

It is an exhaustingly common technique for vandals to attention to criticism rather than summarize the entry at hand. Wikipedia is not your blog. Your anti woman agenda is clear and I have seen it on your other pages as well. But you are not allowed to rewrite history. I have summarized the book in an unbiased manner so do not continue to vandalize this page that is finally shaping up. I will report vandalism immediately if I see any changes to the unbiased content that I have posted with 5 references. I can cite pages from the book if needed. Beauvy (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Your comments above are juvenile and offensive. I am not guilty of vandalism. If you diaagree, then simply try reporting me for vandalism and see what happens. The content that you added to that article was poorly sourced and biased, written to promote Firestone's book (incidentally, I have read The Dialectic of Sex, and I have absolutely no interest in debating its merits with you). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Beauvy, stop the personal attacks or, per WP:Civil and WP:No personal attacks, there will be consequences for that behavior. You need to familiarize yourself with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, starting by reading the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines listed in the Welcome tag on your talk page. It is also best that you restrict your complaints about the The Dialectic of Sex article to that article's talk page, especially considering that it is clear that FreeKnowledgeCreator currently does not welcome you at this one. Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above (though of course you added material after that time stamp, including as an IP). Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Beauvy is free to comment here if he or she will stop making lurid accusations and be prepared to be civil. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator I provided a synopsis of a book that you reverted into a criticism 5 times. I have even changed the synopsis 3 times after reverting, to be as readable and unbiased as I am capable of, and the entire community should work from there. All of my reverts included edits. I am completely uncertain why anyone would revert a book's synopsis that includes quotes from the book and citations. I have reported you for edit warring since you will not adjust the synopsis based on your reading of the text, but will only remove it in favor of a single criticism you found from a rather obscure text. It is inappropriate to launch into a criticism of a book, when you have not yet written a single idea behind the book. The criticism can carry no weight unless you have mentioned Firestone;s views on Freud. You also do not have to agree with her views on Freud to mention her views! Read the article that has been in construction for years on "Being and Nothingness," which talks about each chapter of the book, in the occasional terminology of the author, using quotations and references. This is the spirit of most books on Wikipedia, and what you have written is not at all in this spirit. You have done this to other articles on Wikipedia pertaining to homosexuality, feminism, gender identity, etc. Thus this appears to be associated with vandalism rather than a true objective spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauvy (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As was already pointed out to you, the appropriate place to discuss The Dialectic of Sex is that article's talk page, not my personal talk page. In response to your comments, however, I can only say that while you may be making an effort to edit the article in an unbiased way, you aren't succeeding. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve the synopsis of Firestone's arguments, but there is something seriously wrong with insisting on filling the article with praise of Firestone and irrelevant commentary on contemporary sexual politics. If you would stop doing that, then maybe the synopsis could be improved. If you have reported me for edit warring, as you claim, then that is hypocritical behavior, and will be viewed as such. Finally, I'm not interested in vague, unsubstantiated complaints about my editing at unrelated articles, and see no need to respond to them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If something is "biased" you can change that something. But you cannot delete an entire synopsis. I have written no "praise of Firestone." You are imagining that a well-quoted summary is "praise" because indeed, you are biased. Anyone who posts a criticism as the primary entry of an Encyclopedia, is biased toward criticism versus discussing the entry at hand. Criticisms on Wikipedia, and all venues, almost always appear summarized after a synopsis of the book. Otherwise, nobody can understand the criticism. You launch into why Firestone was wrong about Freud with no mention of Firestone's own views on Freud. This is simply an absurdity, and cannot be argued. If you can improve the synopsis you should do so. You are not allowed to delete unbiased contents bc it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding

unsigned comment added by Beauvy (talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You claim to have written no praise of Firestone. Perhaps you don't remember writing this, then: "The fiercest opponents of women's rights have attempted to quell her exceptional aptitude for psychological analysis, assimilation of historical information, and plain foresight at the age of 26." That looks like praise of Firestone to me. It's because you have insisted on filling the article up with that kind of material that your edits have been reverted. Stop doing it, and then maybe progress can be made. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

you claim to be unbiased but your only entry is a non-notably sourced criticism of the book, not even properly quoted!! Interestingly, rather than find the vast number of notables who have commended reception of this book, you mange to find a single grammatically incorrect critique from a one hit wonder at University College London? And then you revert 5 paragraphs of synopsis that I wrote while flipping through the book over the course of 3 hours, because of one sentence you find biased, which you could have removed and I would not have even noticed.. That would have been within the realm of appropriate behavior, but your reversal indicates that you actually have a problem with people understanding the thrust of this book. Even your commentary after removal is disturbing and aggressive.

Additionall,y throughout this discussion you have stated no substance and oyu have not made a single conceptual point or referenced anything from Firestone herself. Tell me what this book is actually about? You cannot even summarize her views on Freud, which are the thrust of the entire book. What about the actual title of the book and its relationship to dialectic materialism and Marx and Engeles? Not a peep from you. What about sexual oppression as the source of racial oppression? What is the title of chapter 7 and can you reflect on it? You prefer to delete rather than to learn. I have no problem with you including the critique of the one hit wonder if it was not a clear bias by exclusion/deletion of all other critiques/praises/opinions.

The context of my "biased sentence" has been upheld by many references that were praises of the book: "A sharp and often brilliant mind is at work here" NY times. From NAomi Wolf, famous and best selling author, "No one can understand how feminism has evolved without reading this landmark", I believe Germaine Greer called it "prescient" and the New Yorker recently had a 5 page article with tons of praises and citations, using this language, way too much to enumerate here. It is also REGULARLY remarked that this book was written when Firestone was only 26, which is extremely out of the ordinary in terms of landmarks and bestsellers. Do a statistical analsis of bestsellers under age 26 and youll find almost that this is quite notable and is thus a notable point for this entry. the reason her age is often referenced in regard to the prescience of the book, because it is so unusual, and that is why I stated this. The notability of her age is not a subjective acknowledgement from me, but stems directly from a 2013 NYer article. You may edit, but you cannot argue that her age at the time of this publication is not notable when countless critically acclaimed authors have argued that it is notable. You will instead delete every word I suggest in some cyber battle that is a euphemism for your self-loathing. It would have been completely appropriate for you to move those statements to "Critiques of the book" or "Praise of the book" and/or ask me for additional sources. Or do some work and find some yourself.

Also if you look at my history, i have exactly 0 problems with anyone remarking on subjectivity, no history of reverting other people's edits, and no disturbing threats on my page like the one from you. Rather, your history is full of reversions of comments and subjectivity with regard to homosexuality (just a coincidence that firestone was a LESBIAN??), sexuality, AIDS, etc. Remember your talks are entirely public so in scroling through Iwas astounded at the level of agendiz-ing.

In summary, if a person includes a sentence you perceive to be biased resultsing from a total of 3 REFERENCES, out of a 5 paragraph synopsis, you should not revert the entire thing.

I see no reason to reply to your nonsense here. Discuss on the article's talk page, if you have anything civilized or coherent to say. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... apology

Greetings FreeKnowledgeCreator. Sorry for that x2! Not really sure what happened there, 'cos you are quite right, but it probably means that two other editors have got off scot-free elsewhere. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Remember, wp:3RR is a bright line. Discuss it on talk, take it to arbitration, but stop on the reverts. The state of the article can wait until it is resolved. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the rules regarding 3RR. I'm aware that I can be blocked even if I don't violate 3RR. No need to remind me of that. I would love to discuss things with the other editor on the talk pages of the relevant articles. She is either unable or unwilling to engage in any discussion on talk - perhaps you've noticed? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Please use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how mediation is going to help when dealing with an editor who is so unfamiliar with Wiki-procedure that she can't/won't discuss on the talk page. (BTW, did you note that she accused you of being my sock-puppet?) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Szasz

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Szasz#Please_do_not_undo_factual_statements

Surely you cannot allow what is happening here. An article that previously was fair, balanced and accurate, has been totally ruined by an individual, who has little knowledge and obviously bears some kind of grudge, yet has been allowed to decimate an article. I do understand how difficult it is to keep an eye on such things and I appreciate the issues that you face. But honestly, AnotherPseudonym, (just look at his name to get a picture of who he is!), has vandalised this piece. If you allow this then the following pages will also have to be changed (amongst many many others.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry

For example, Szasz was one of the first psychiatrists to challenge the idea of homosexuality being a mental illness (1970 - The Manufacture of Madness) and this article used to have a section on this which I contributed to. It has now disappeared. How has this happened?

24.253.64.178 (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is nothing I can do at this time to improve the Szasz article in any major way. I've confined myself to removing a small amount of what seemed obviously inappropriate material. The article undoubtedly needs more work, but I would have to think carefully first about the right way to go about things. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding Anotherpseudo. Looking on his talk page he is friends with David Gerard. Please see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Xenu and http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard This why Anotherpseudo has been deliberately vandalising the Thomas Szasz page, because Szasz founded CCHR with Scientology. This is part of a concerted effort by rationalwiki and other Anonymous anti-scientologists to defame Thomas Szasz. Can you allow this? Who can I contact to take this matter further? Thanks 24.253.64.178 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

24.253.64.178, making accusations, true or false, against other users isn't helpful. AnotherPseudonym may have added rather more criticism to the Szasz article than is appropriate, but his edits aren't "vandalism." The neutral point of view notice board (WP:NPOVN) is one place where you could discuss the Szasz article, though frankly my own experiences with it in the past haven't been very positive. You will have to use your own judgment here. Please consider that I don't control Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why

The editor who was warring has been blocked for 31 hours [2]. If they return and continue disruption and I do not notice it, you can let admin Nikkimaria know of the issues and they will look into it. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Now...having said that. Perhaps you should also be warned not to edit war as well. Seriously. The other editor is correct that you also edit warred... but they went further than you. Please attempt to work with that editor as they are clearly showing that they have an interest in the subjects you are editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Beauvy has started using talk pages, and that at least is progress. Unfortunately, little about her comments suggests that reasonable discussion is going to be possible. Most of what she has to say is just false. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Either work together or see this escalate...and I don't think that would end well for either. Remember...you did indeed edit war.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've "worked together" with Beauvy in the sense that I have replied to her comments on the talk page of The Dialectic of Sex. It remains to be seen whether she will have anything meaningful to say to my response. I doubt it. It seems more likely, based on her past behavior, that she will go on complaining that everything she doesn't like is "POV", and refuse to modify her position. It's irritating, especially given that her complaints are often demonstrably wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

That isn't working together and I suspect you understand that. But as I have said before elsewhere...all those roads that lead to Rome are two ways streets. Try to assume good faith and understand that new editors need assistance not disapproval for their wrongful actions. Perhaps you are correct and they will simply use the "rope" given to be sanctioned and blocked...but you also must take responsibility for your own actions and right now a neutral editor would surely see that two wrongs don't make a right. Just have some patience and try to understand where they are coming from. It isn't always easy to remember when we were new. I see that you have been with Wikipedia since 2/12/2009 and have a clean block log. Perhaps you simply do not know where they are coming from and the frustration of a block that you do not feel is justified. In some ways that is a shame, but in the most important ways that is great and I applaud you for that. But try to see both sides and see if there is a way to rescue the editor that may be worth the attempt.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What specific form of "working together" with Beauvy would you recommend? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well...to start...don't revert a revert.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? And is this meant to be an absolute rule? Am I never to revert Beauvy's edits, no matter what edits she should happen to make? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey...you asked and I answered. And it is an important issue in the future once it is found that you have edit warred and another took the block over it, so...take it however you want it. But continue along these lines and you will probably not have such a clean block log. Just saying. You do realize more eyes (and ones with the block tool) are now upon the situation. I suggest following BRD, If there is no discussion and you revert a revert you may still be guilty of an edit war. One does not need to violate 3RR to edit war.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, in future I suppose I shall have to consider letting Beauvy add inappropriate material, lower the quality of articles, and in general wreck Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well now we seem to have common ground. LOL! As that is exactly what they say about your edits. :-) I don't think anyone has to allow such to happen, but perhaps there is that in between...we call it consensus. The other editor was new and given the chance to discuss now, they may feel more inclined. But my whole point here is that no one is in the clear right and for either editor to refuse to budge from their position is simply not helpful and I have to doubt that is what you want. I think you feel there may be underlying issues with the other editor, but we have to keep an open mind and not shut each other out. That's all.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Conversation on article talk pages is definitely more time-consuming. But that is often the place where new editors learn how to edit, Wikipedia-style. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fichte

The claim that Fichte was the originator of Nazism, or some key elements of it, has already been debunked in a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page of the article, if you'd care to scroll up a little bit. It's a fringe opinion from Nisbet and, it seems, nobody else of weight. So it's up to you to find something substantially better. I realize you probably think German nationalist ideas of any sort equal Nazism in some sense, sorry, they don't.83.254.151.33 (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD again, and please also refrain from making assumptions of any kind about what I do or don't think of German nationalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

While you're not the first originator of the insertion óf this claim, that Fichte was the Urvater of Nazism, you clearly want to keep it in. I repeat, you should take sme time to look at the discussion of it on the Fichte talk page two years ago.

As for the point that Fichte didn't think of nationhood as continuing primarily through common blood, that's well established in research on him, I'll look around for some cites on the matter. And it should be in the article precisely because his model of nationalist thinking has been quite influential, but many of those who copied his program (especially in eastern and southern Europe) chose to define the nation through common blood, common descent. Many people reading an article relating to a key figure in nationalistic thinking today will take it for granted that nationalist ideas always posit a blood bond, especially if there's a supposed link to Nazism83.254.151.33 (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I don't care one way or the other about the content of the text you removed: it's simply that properly sourced material shouldn't be removed without good reason and usually not without discussion and agreement on the talk page. A discussion that happened two years ago doesn't show that there is consensus for removing the material now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Okies, the outcome of the talk page discussion was fairly conclusive: Nisbet's claim is a fringe claim and doesn't belong. I would add that it's overstated and vague, particularly when it links the guy to an ultra-controversial topic like Nazism. You haven't offered any new cites or any new material that wasn't on the table when the discussion happened two years ago. So what has changed when it comes to that claim?

Now, if talk page discussions were essentially seen as having a sell-by date of let's say, one year after the discussion on a topic ended and then anyone can reinsert what was deemed unfit for the article again and there has to be a new full round of discussion...well, if that was it, WP would soon defeat itself, because there would be no way to keep up the quality of most entries of any importance. I think you're just writing your own interpretation of the rulebook here.83.254.151.33 (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be so difficult to accept that you have to discuss this issue on the talk page: that's how things are supposed to work here, after all. If you can create agreement there to remove that text, then by all means remove it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is already an established consensus on the talk page that the Fichte/Ñazis claim doesn't belong in the article - and since it ended there have been only a very few people bothering to post on that discussion page; like many WP talk pages it's slow and sometimes discussions drag on inconclusively. Who am I supposed to wait for if I'd post there - you, perhaps? ;) 83.254.151.33 (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly two posts on the Fichte talk page seem to have been added since summer 2011, while there have been a hundred edits to the main article in the same time. Conclusion?83.254.151.33 (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus" that was last discussed two years ago is meaningless. I am not moved by or interested in your insults. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Your edit comment violates WP:AGF by accusing the editor of vandalism when it's really just a content disagreement. Rand is an American novelist in that she wrote her novels in America while an American citizen. However, she's also a Russian novelist, in that she's a novelist who comes from Russia. The editor you reverted is not a vandal, they just have a different interpretation of which aspect of her nationality we should list. Even if they're wrong about this, you're wrong to call them a vandal and owe them an apology. MilesMoney (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I said the edit looks like vandalism to me. That clearly indicates that this is a matter of my subjective judgment (which could be wrong, just as anyone's judgment could be wrong). I have nothing to apologize for. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonable edit, even if it's wrong. It's not vandalism in any way. You are violating the rules with this false accusation. MilesMoney (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Rand identified very strongly as an American, and that's well-known. It should be easy to understand why identifying her as a Russian instead could be considered malicious. If you expect me to grovel to you or to the IP, the answer is no. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

FKC. You are quite right. – S. Rich (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Um no, Rich. Inserting debatable claims about a subject, or even (honestly) mistaken ones, into an article does s not constitute "vandalism", a term which has a very specific meaning on wikipedia. Steeletrap (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would rather my talk page not be used as a place to debate this. I have already made it clear I am not going to apologize. I'm happy to acknowledge that my judgment that the edit was vandalism could perhaps have been mistaken, but that isn't the same thing as an apology. Enough. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Trio

Greetings FreeKnowledgeCreator, I understand your contention that identifying the authors of a journal article on the HIV/AIDS denialism article as a trio may not be the best editorial form for an article that falls under WP Medical Articles policies however, the term and it's specific use are not without merit. Three people acting in concert can be described as a trio as can two be described as a duo. Two people who sing together is the most common example. I think three members of a group acting together for a common purpose constitutes a trio, as does three individuals who share common characteristics like a trio of jugglers. Descriptions of a trio of burglars or con men are not uncommon. This manner of description is often used for a group that organizes it's activities beyond a single event. Not a big thing just a note. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Trio" sounds like "duo", and if you say "duo", people think of Batman and Robin. It's language to avoid. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree particularly in the context of an encyclopedia, except where that is the terminology employed to a purpose by a reliable source which I concede is exceedingly rare. I now have the Batman theme running in my head ;). - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Beauvy's talk page

Hey FKC. I've been keeping an eye on Beauvy's talk page and saw that you dropped another comment there. I know you're not trying to intentionally inflame the situation, but others may think you are. Would you mind stepping back from there for the remainder of the block? I still really think that she can be a productive editor once she learns the rules and I don't want to have her become more embedded in a combative position. I promise that I'll let you know if there is any discussion that you should respond to. Ishdarian 03:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Beauvy has made a series of bizarre accusations against me, and I have felt obliged to respond to them. But if you think that my comments at her talk page aren't helping matters, I'll try to avoid it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan

Thank you! Looks like we have a little bit of an edit war, alas. Advice welcome.MarkBernstein (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources and gay politicians

(Polite cough.) Regarding this, this, and this: while it's true that "[s]tatements about someone's sexual orientation aren't acceptable without a source", it's not quite true that "there's no choice but to remove [them]"; the alternative is to identify sources and add citations. I'm ridiculously busy today (all week, in fact), but it took me less than 60 seconds to confirm that claims were verifiable and another five minutes to add the citations. Ideally, the editor who added the claims would have sourced them at the time, but we are talking about well-known facts about well-known people whose own articles do not lack for sources, so I don't think the situation was urgent enough to require reverting in the interim. I don't mean to be hypercritical, and if you disagree I have no problem with that. I just get a little concerned when I see . . . how shall I put this? . . . overenthusiastic enforcement of the letter, as opposed to the spirit, of a certain policy we all know and love. Rivertorch (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding sources for that material. I was perfectly within my rights to remove it, given that it was initially added without sources - your response is over the top. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course you were within your "rights"; your actions unquestionably were policy-compliant. My concern (which is a long-standing one) isn't that WP:BLP is enforced but with the way it's enforced. I do get worried when I see easily sourced, non-debatable content get removed per that policy, and I had hoped merely to suggest to you for future reference that there is another way to go about dealin with it. I'm truly sorry if my response came across as over the top. Coincidentally, that's pretty much the same way your three edits came across to me, so I guess we're even. Happy editing, anyway! Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Fichte reverts and such

Hello Creator, this is to let you know I made a post at the ANI (see here) resuming the issues about Fichte, proto-Nazi ideas and your apparent notion that anything established by past editors for an article has a brief sell-by date.

I saw your notice at the Admins board, but I don't intend to reply there unless there are fresh personal issues of some kind. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's asked for your advice on where to post and how, college boy. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just keep on insulting me. Go ahead. I would love to see you blocked. And if you don't understand where to post, or what ANI is for, then that's really your problem, not mine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources Noticeboard notification

A discussion you have participated in, (Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 13#That "trio" was the Perth Group) has been brought to the Reliable sources Noticeboard (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Perth Group website). - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'm going to avoid that discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

In this series of edits, you twice reverted against myself another editor to keep your version. This is edit-warring. Following WP:BRD, you should have accepted the first revert and entered into a discussion, leaving the article alone until you gained consensus. You did not do any such thing, and you are editing against consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and it's foolish of you to claim that there is. You've had nothing to say on the talk page except vague, windy, patronizing statements that don't deal with the specific issues facing the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Foucault

With regarding criticism of Foucault the main reason being that I have added the particular material is this (it was quite by accident that I found the material some months ago) it is quite evident that Hans-Ulrich Wehler hasn't read any of Foucault's lectures and if you wanted to be critical about Foucault you would take as your starting point language processing for example, and how is it constructed within the human brain?None of this appears to be considered within the remit of criticism of Foucault which is Foucault very same project albeit through the lense of history.I myself have issues with Foucault,but however,his critics take the historical narrative as their starting point.A big error of judgement because Norbert Elias himself acknowledges this himself.What I am trying to convey is this:If humans(the whole species) are the cultural animal that we have been told to believe in (you know the one for example that racism was an ornate feature of human nature for example) there simply would be no need to investigate any further human culture to any extent.One compelling example is the kings two bodies (Body politic).Why,then was legal legislation need to make happen a political theology(in the middle ages) for the hierarchical order?It obvious that none of us are fools,how can one man fool a whole group people is beyond me the material concerning Norbert Elias deserves some consideration(did you know that Foucault spoke and read German fluently?And was on friendly terms with Norbert Elias?).Please consider this in the future Richardlord50 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Elias issue is simply one of many controversies about, or disagreements over, Foucault's work. The article cannot possibly work every such issue into the criticism section: see WP:UNDUE. If you wish to discuss this matter any further, please take it to the Foucault article's talk page. My talk page is not really the right place for it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the welcome!

SarahTheEntwife (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alastair Hannay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hamilton (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) 09:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Margaret Hasse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2008), ''In a Sheep's Eye, Darling'' ([[Milkweed Editions]], 1988), and ''Stars Above, Stars Below]'' ([[New Rivers Press]], 1984.) Milk and Tides was a finalist for a 2009 [[Minnesota Book Award]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Dialectic of Sex may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• between the "Aesthetic Mode" (feminine, intuitive, and artistic) and the "Technological Mode" (masculine, empirical, and aimed at the control of nature through the comprehension of its

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Harold Bloom

Hi, You undid an edit to Harold Bloom's External Links that I did : * Basbanes, Nicholas A. Every Book Its Reader: The Power of the Printed Word to Stir the World, HarperCollins, New York, 2005, pp. 224--238.

You took it out asking, "What does this book have to do with Bloom?"

The answer is the better part of the chapter in the book called "Born to Grapple" (pages 223 to 238 specifically, 15 dedicated pages), deal entirely with Bloom's life as a literary critic, and his role as a champion of the Western canon of literature. Is that not sufficient?

Dnikkir (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to restrict external links to resources whose relevance to Bloom is obvious. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whyever so? I would think that Wikipedia would find any quality information that increases knowledge of the subject desirable, and at 15 pages, it's longer the some of the other citations. I think you might have researched the book and author before you took it out and I really do believe that it should go back in.

Dnikkir (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Then put it back in if you insist. My preference would be to keep it out, but I'm tired of this discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I will put it back. Thanks for discussing it with me.

Dnikkir (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, amounting to long-term feud with Beauvy, and edit warring on various articles over a long period, including recent reverts at The Dialectic of Sex. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A word of advice in case you choose to request an unblock. If, like many editors, you think that edit warring doesn't count as edit warring unless you break the "3 revert rule", then I suggest you read the edit warring policy, where you will see that that is not the case. Editors have been blocked for very slow long-term edit wars over a period of years, where they have never made more than one edit in a month. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to request an unblock, but I do have some comments. I can't help but notice that you have blocked me for a much shorter period of time than you blocked Beauvy. Although you are apparently trying to make out that we are equally guilty (correct me if I'm wrong about that), I think that's a good indication of where matters really stand. I think a fair-minded person who reviewed the revision history of The Dialectic of Sex since October 2013 would notice A) That Beauvy is more guilty of edit warring than I am, especially since multiple editors - not only me - have reverted her and B) that she is the one who has picked a fight with me, not vice versa. Stating that I am guilty of engaging in a "feud" with her doesn't seem fair when other editors (Ishdarian and Jim1138) have reverted her and virtually every other editor who has commented on the The Dialectic of Sex article finds her edits flawed for one reason or another (see Flyer22's comments, for instance). A "feud" is, by definition, something that takes place between two parties.

I invite Ishdarian, Jim1138, and Flyer22 to comment on the situation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(Furthermore, I don't believe I am guilty of "edit warring on various articles over a long period". Perhaps that is simply a default part of the template you placed on my talk page? If there are other articles at which I'm guilty of "edit warring...over a long period, would you like to say what they are? It might help me take a different approach if that's true.) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

An article discussion that might be of interest to you...

Hey FreeKnowledgeCreator, In case you might be interested in a conversation going on about Paul vs: Jesus re Homosexuality, please check out: Jesus' silence on homosexuality. Any insights or comments you might have in such a discussion would be most welcome. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please check refernec number 13 and 14 on the James Martineau page Thanks from Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.168.82 (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I added duplicate material

In [3]: "Reverted good faith edits by 135.0.167.2 (talk): Duplicates material already in the history section - Hooker and Bieber are discussed below."

Oh, come on, all the info in the section's lede are also found in it's subsections, but that's what the lede is for. Currently the lede only focuses on psychoanalysis as if it was the only player. If a lede should only mention non-duplicate information, rather than show a proportionate summary and impression, then what is a lede for? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's only the lead of the article as a whole that is supposed to summarize the article. The history section is already confused and cluttered, and I'm afraid your edit made it worse - which is why it was reverted. Feel free to open a thread about the history section on the article's talk page; it would be a more appropriate place to discuss matters than my talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved. (Continue reading) 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Camille Paglia

In response to your revert on Camille Paglia I would like to ask you to respect WP:BLP in demanding high quality sources - most of the references are from online news articles, some have broken links.

' All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source

The particular material that I removed:

Paglia has celebrated Madonna and taken radical libertarian positions on controversial social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and drug use. She is a critic of American feminism and of post-structuralist theory.

Much of this is trivial(WP:MISCELLANY) information that does not use the correct tone. Words like 'radical' and 'controversial' should be removed from the whole article. KingHiggins (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason you gave for removing that material from the lead was that it wasn't sourced. It's a common error for new editors to think that material isn't properly referenced simply because no citation is given immediately following the statements in question - the citations, as I said, are elsewhere in the article. As to your other points, I wasn't aware that there is some ban on using online news articles as sources, and there definitely isn't a ban on using words such as "radical" and "controversial" - which would be ridiculous. Do by all means fix broken links if you can. I'll say more on the article's talk page, which is where this discussion should really be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Trying to condescend me instead of looking at the actual article seems like the wrong approach to take.

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.

Statements akin to 'she celebrated Madonna' are trivial and if you really are going to include them just reference at the very least. KingHiggins (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

By all means remove the Madonna reference if you like. It's a bit dated - celebrating Madonna was something Paglia did at the start of her career as a public figure in the 1990s, but she has taken a rather more critical view of Madonna recently. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposal on the talk page? I don't want to do all the work to reshuffle everything only to have it reverted. KingHiggins (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Immanuel Kant

Actually, Immanuel Kant is known as German philosopher and not as Prussian. So either should be written in the lead that he was a German philosopher, or a German-language philosopher, or a Prussian German-language philosopher. There is no reason not to mention in the lead that he was a German-language philosopher.AstroMichael (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There's an excellent reason not to describe Kant as a "German-language" philosopher, which, put bluntly, is that it sounds stupid. That's simply not how philosophers are or should be described. Try looking at other articles about philosophers, and you'll see what I mean. Kant needs to be identified, as I said, by nationality. If you wish to discuss this subject any further, please do so on the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Giles (philosopher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disequilibrium (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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''''Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning)''''' ({{lang-de|Beitrage Zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis}}) is a work by German philosopher [[Martin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Marx after Sraffa.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Marx after Sraffa.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Edmund Husserl

As Prostějov was only briefly part of Germany (thanks to that Hitler chap) how can Husserl be fairly described as German? He obviously lived in German most of his life, and studied and wrote in German. But was he a German citizen? The article doesn't really tell us. Certainly, after leaving Prostějov, he lived the early part of his life in Vienna and Olomouc. Later of course, he resigned from the Deutsche Academie in protest against the racial laws. What do you think? I've started a thread on the Talk Page. Thanks for your time. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you look at standard works of reference on philosophy, they call Husserl German. We could do worse than follow their example. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are certainly reliable sources for this article. But then I see the Bibliography has such works as Robin Rollinger's, 2008 Austrian Phenomenology: Brentano, Husserl, Meinong, and Others on Mind and Language. The article categories used seem to be equally split! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's better to follow what basic works of reference say, instead of trying to follow implications that could be found in more specialized sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But I notice the de-wiki article gives him categories of German, Austrian and Prussian! The ru-wiki page calls him German and gives him a Category of "German philosopher". While the fr-wiki says he was "of Austrian and Prussian birth" but also categorises him as "German philosopher". Make of that what you will! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phenomenology of Perception, 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) 08:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Förster-Nietzsche and Nietzsches late works

As you have reverted the two changes I made without responsing on the discussion page, I have to ask you, is this:

"Förster-Nietzsche was married to a prominent German nationalist and antisemite, Bernhard Förster, and reworked Nietzsche's unpublished writings to fit her own ideology "

proven somewhere or just speculation? --88.78.55.215 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You made major changes, in my view clearly unconstructive, to the article without discussion. It was perfectly reasonable to revert you. You should have waited before anyone commented on talk before making such major changes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

David Horowitz

Please resist the urge to "take it personal" prior to reading the encyclopedia's guidelines on article-writing. (I have reverted your edit to the lead, and explained why on the Talk page.)--Froglich (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Signature in the Cell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Signature in the Cell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature in the Cell until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating, but why are you telling me about this? I didn't create the article, and I made only a handful of edits to it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The harm of articles

According to my logic, every article has cost, and what we're buying with that cost is maintaining or increasing article quality. The set of books that meet our notability guidelines is huge, but still small enough that the community is willing to tolerate low-quality articles in hopes that they will be improved sooner rather than later. If you expand the pool of potential articles to any published book, we're going to be inundated with low-quality articles, most of which won't ever be improved (not the least because, in the absence of reliable sources, we have nothing to say about them other than the fact that they exist).

If you want to take responsibility for all aspects of an article, from polishing the prose to making sure every WP:MOS-mandated em-dash is in the right place, and you do this before you put the article in to mainspace, then in my experience you'll be given quite a bit more leeway (especially in non-controversial areas).

There's one more reason the "does no harm" argument is annoying. In the time it's taken for us to have this colloquy, you could have gone out and found a few of the reviews that I found. "Does no harm" absolves you from having to improve the article. If you want to !vote to keep an article, you'll be much better served by improving the article to the point where it's obvious that the article should be kept.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Signature in the Cell

I noticed your contributions to SitC and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature in the Cell page. Could you by chance look at the bottom issue at Talk:Signature in the Cell and input your reason there? I would love to see logic and reason triumph here, even if it is not my own. Best, Purefury182 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, Purefury182. I'm not going to do anything about article content right now, but I will take a look and see what I can do if the article is kept. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion decline

I have removed your submission at WP:3O. After reviewing the linked Talk page, I note that there has not been a thorough discussion there. Please be aware that there must be significant discussion at the Talk page as a prerequisite for requesting a third opinion. If you feel that further discussion at the Talk page currently will not be productive, I would invite you to consider other forms of dispute resolution. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Frederick Crews

I see that you are doing a lot of edits to this article. Would you care to explain on the talk page the thrust of your changes? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

I believe that the edit summaries I have given provide a sufficient explanation of the changes made. I'm not sure what the point would be of explaining myself on the article's talk page every time I make a minor copy-editing change. Were there any specific edits that you see as needing discussion? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are imposing an undue POV in relation to Freud. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

I do not believe that my edits to the Crews article are anything other than neutral. They certainly are not intended to reflect either positively or negatively on Freud; I've no interest in engaging in such controversies. There is no further point to discussion on my talk page, as I cannot respond to such vague, unspecific complaints (I have no idea what "POV" I'm being accused of promoting). If you still disagree with my edits at the Crews article, I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page, giving a detailed explanation of what if anything in my edits you disagree with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Meister Eckhart/Derrida

See: Meister_Eckart#Modern_philosophy. That's where the reference is from. --94.220.213.27 (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud

My guess is that an editor of your experience is aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, in which case you will realise that your editing at Sigmund Freud, which is in danger of becoming an edit war, could lead to being blocked. This is not a criticism of your editing: my impression, as I have explained at Talk:Sigmund Freud, is that your edits are justified, but being "right" does not make edit warring acceptable. (If you are not clear about the edit warring policy, then I suggest you may like to have a look at it.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, JamesBWatson, I am aware of the policy on edit warring. I do remember that you blocked me. Your warning is noted. Unfortunately, the user I was having a dispute with, "Dr Lindsay B Yeates", is the sort who thinks that any edit they disagree with is automatically "vandalism", which tends to make discussion pointless. Judging from the editor's comments on the Freud talk page, it seems that they have now given up. Incidentally, if you are concerned about edit warring, you might just want to take a look at Richardlord50's behavior. See his comments below and the revision history of the Biopower article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(Actually, now that I look, I see you blocked him. Thanks). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Biopower

Can you please tell me who do I go to see to get consensus from?Seeing as I am the one who wrote the who ARTICLE I have put a lot of hard work in and the article is written in good faith I am asking you to get off my backRichardlord50 (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What a juvenile and foolish comment. You don't "get" consensus from any individual editor, as anyone familiar with Wikipedia should know. Consensus emerges from discussion among multiple editors. That you wrote much of the article does not mean that you get to insert whatever material you like and no one else can touch or remove it. See WP:OWN. It's simply too bad if you don't like the policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:EL

Hi,

Instead of deleting external links, as here[4], could you convert them to proper refs?

Thanks — kwami (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You are perfectly right, and I will do that in future where appropriate (actually, it is my usual practice). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Heidegger

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator,

What's the ISBN of your copy of Intro to Metaphysics? — goethean 20:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

0-300-01740-5. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(I ask because I can't find any non-rare editions of the title on WorldCat.) — goethean 20:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now you know. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. — goethean 20:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Discovery of the Unconscious, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cre (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) 08:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Freeknowledgecreator. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet tattoo.
Message added 05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Timothy Leary change reverted

Hello, It seems that you reverted a sentence I wrote in the popular culture section of the Timothy Leary article with the reason "uncited". I wonder what citation do I need to add. After all I linked the album article and the song Timothy Leary is clearly in the track list and the article has all the expected references. Isn't that enough?