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..."

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.38.241 (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:EL. I linked to it in my edit summary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Look, I don't really care but it did seem to say in the section on "Official Links" in WP:EL that we should link to the official sites. Seems like the Henry George School is kind of his official site, he having died before he could have bought HenryGeorge.com. I'm really asking so I learn about Wikipedia, I won't keep peppering you with questions on the internet. (Though I've heard about celebrities sending Twitter messages back and forth and this could be a funny take on that between two nerds at 1am on a Saturday :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.38.241 (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, external links belong in the external links section - and usually nowhere else. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Counterrevolution and Revolt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfred Schmidt (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) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oversight requested

I have requested some assistance from the Philosophy Portal concerning your edits to topics concerning Philosophy. Nothing personal intended, I just think that we need specialized help and attention to your edits and assertations in this category.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Help_please.2C_Rogue_Philosophy_Editor TeeVeeed (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You left a post vaguely complaining about me. It was offensive and, as far as I can see, pointless. Instead of leaving a post aimed at me specifically, you might instead have left a neutral note pointing out that there was a disagreement at Timothy Leary, and asking editors to express their views, whatever they might be. Why couldn't you do that, TeeVeeed? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if you are offended, but I thought that I did mention the Leary article? Oh well, just trying to bring the problem into faces who have expressed an interest in Philosophy. Also, I was trying to find justification for your edits, and thought it would be a good place to look. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You could have left a neutral note about the Leary article, pointing out that there was a dispute, and asking other editors to comment, whatever their views. Instead you left some kind of vague complaint about me, singling me out for criticism, even though multiple users have behaved in a questionable fashion. That was what was objectionable and unwelcome. Why wouldn't you expect me to be offended? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Purple Barnstar
		The Purple Barnstar is awarded to you, FreeKnowledgeCreator, for being resolute in your commitment to raising Wikipedia standards to its hoped-for ideals while enduring undue hardship and harassment. BlueMist (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:An Essay on Liberation.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:An Essay on Liberation.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Bon Scott Not Vandalism

You reverted my edit on the page Bon Scott labeling it Vandalism, however you will see that the content removed was in fact a link to a facebook page, an inappropriate link to be included in the external links section. Interrexconsul (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

After closer analysis. I have realized that a chrome extension I just installed was messing up all my edits. I had intended to remove vandalism yet the extension disrupted the rest of my editing. Interrexconsul (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Following a thorough review, I have ensured that all disruption caused by said extension is removed. Luckily you seem to have caught most of it. Thanks. Interrexconsul (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I remain baffled how a chrome extension could cause you to make edits such as this, Interrexconsul. In fact, I'm sure I'm not the only user who is baffled by your edits. Would you mind providing more of an explanation for them? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I was goofing around with one of those text replacement chrome extensions a friend of mine made to test it out for her. I didn't realize until it was too late that it also replaces text within an edit box and not just web content that I read. (An example of such an extension is the 'Millenials to snake people' extension which replaces all instances of the word millenials with 'snake people') I really am truly sorry and this is honestly quite embarrassing. Interrexconsul (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary you used was "Chrome extension messing up my edits". If you knew that the chrome extension was messing up your edits, why make the edit anyway? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that particular edit was an error on my part to select which previous version to revert to. I mistakenly believed that version was prior to the one where my extension messed things up. It took me a few minutes to realize why my edits were being reverted on the basis on vandalism so there were several layers of edits and reverts to sort through. You can rest assured that I have uninstalled the extension and ensured that any page I edited while it was active is free of the disruptions it caused. Interrexconsul (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of dispute resolution ticket

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template:Anarchism_sidebar 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)