User talk:Freeknowledgecreator

A Theory of Justice

Hello FreeKnowledgeCreator. I noticed that you recently changed "inequalities can actually be just in Rawls' view" to "inequalities can actually be just on Rawls' view" in the A Theory of Justice article. The phrase "on Rawls' view" doesn't make sense. Is your concern with "just in Rawls' view" that the word "just" could be misinterpreted to mean "only" or "simply" when in this context it's supposed to refer to the adjective form of justice? Here's a possible edit that addresses that problem: "An important consequence here, however, is that inequalities, according to Rawls, can actually be just, as long as they are to the benefit..."

In general the article needs some editing by a knowledgable person. I see that there have been attempts to fix it which have been messed up and then fixed again. I would especially like to fix this early sentence in the Objective section: "In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality, it is meant to apply to the basic structure of a well-ordered society." Is this a good fix: "In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality that is meant to apply to the basic structure of a well-ordered society."

Thank you. poppenhe (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You changed "on" to "in" without realizing that it changes the meaning of the sentence concerned. "On Rawls's view" means that a position can be justified using Rawls's work and ideas. "In Rawls's view" means that the position is considered justified by Rawls himself. It's a perfectly simple distinction, which your edit confused. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The sentence should probably be rewritten if that's the meaning. Currently it just seems like a syntax error, at least to those of us who speak North American English. Thanks for the explanation. poppenhe (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
the history page shows you've deleted the wikitext displaying left|frame|Professor Raul Hilberg three times in under a week. The B in BRD was your deletion. The R was my revert, which restored. The D is what's happening, which should happen while the restore stays in place. Your edit warring is contrary to that. You've opened the FFD, now let it run its course. In the mean time, the restore should stay in place. I urge you to undo your last revert. Elvey^(t•c) 07:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep restoring an obvious copyright violation and you will find yourself the one in hot water. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#EX5. Urgently.--Elvey^(t•c) 08:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first." In my judgment the content you are restoring does "unquestionably violate the non-free content policy." I think the case is crystal clear. I have indicated as much at Files for discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply filed at the FFD.--Elvey^(t•c) 08:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that an administrator with (c) expertise has supported my position that "[[Image:Hilberg2.jpg|left|frame|Professor Raul Hilberg]]" should stay in the article during the FFD, writing, "Image is currently at FFD. Removing it while the discussion is ongoing prevents other users from being able to see it and opine. Adding link to discussion.)". I hope that's enough to get you to stop edit warring and avoid acting like that in future. WRT the FFD, he agrees with you. --Elvey^(t•c) 11:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mmaofine (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Homosexualities..." book

Hi, I hope you'll have no problem with my inclusion of GSS material on the "Obsolescence" subsection, since it is directly relevant to the findings discussed. 2804:7F7:D180:395E:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but unless the source specifically mentions the book by Bell and Weinberg, I do not consider the addition relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Reading the Original Research guideline, I'm not sure my edits fit the description. Are you OK with asking more people for their input?2804:7F7:D180:395E:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's clearly original research to take a source that does not mention a particular book and try to use it to argue against that book or show that it's authors findings are outdated. Please don't do that kind of thing. I don't see any need to ask other editors for their views; you of course are free to ask anyone you like. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sexual Personae 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'' is "a powerful account of gender as depicted in Western art and literature."<ref>{{cite book |author=Konner, Melvin |title=The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

InterVarsity Press

See my discussion on Talk:Conversion therapy.

I'm not going to edit war again (I follow the three-revert rule) but I'd appreciate it if you'd quit censoring perfectly reliable scholarship just because you don't agree with it. 164.58.98.2 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Key of Stars

Hey there,

Hope things are going well with you! Would you be able to find a cover for new article Key of Stars? BOZ (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 March

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 Philosophy page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

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

The Assault on Truth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Kerr

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Kerr

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Manning

I don't know you, but I see you've been editing the Peyton Manning article in the past couple hours. Therefore, I wanted to make you aware of this talk page thread. Please feel free to give your input, whether it aligns with my opinion or not. I'll defer to your judgement on that matter. Thanks. Tracescoops (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning proposal and straw poll

This is to make you aware of this discussion regarding the "royal family" content dispute at Peyton Manning, where you recently edited or commented on the talk page. Your participation to resolve the matter would be welcome. Tracescoops (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

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.

Critique of Pure Reason (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to A priori and Christian Wolff

Sexual Preference (book) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Post hoc

The Homosexual Matrix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Post hoc

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Taking Out Link to Henry George School of Social Science

In the article on Henry George I linked the mention of the Henry George School Social Science to that schools website (http://www.hgsss.org/). You took out the link. I'm curious why. -- Matt