User talk:ImprovingWiki

Hello, Love dance of scorpions! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SpikeToronto 01:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

On Jan 25 I attempted to post content on Daina Gabldon's page that you disagree with. It was not vandalism. I am a huge fan of hers and would not vandalize her page. However, I nearly bought the entire Lord John Series when I found a deal on it. Fortunately I started with the first one. My observations about her departure from her previous content was both fair and objective. You may disagree but deleting my edit is not the appropriate way to handle it. A discussion on that page would have been more appropriate. That you had the nerve to post on my user page Thank You as though you were being polite is a laugh. I realize my opinions are not politically correct, but I was careful not to be either mean spirited, vulgar or offensive in any way. Unless my thoughts are offensive. If that is the case, free speech and tolerance are dead, and wikiapedia is the shovel being used to bury them. I do hope I am mistaken. 1qaz1qaz1qaz (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.

— SpikeToronto 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Linda Chavez: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. — SpikeToronto 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. Love dance of scorpions (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and I were patrolling the same beat Oliver Ellsworth, etc. and reverted some of the inappropriate work of a vandal. FWIW, I warned them, and also reported them to WP:AIV, as they were a "vandalism only account" that had been warned and was "hot". They were thereafter blocked, which at least for now puts an end to their bullshit. Keep up the good work. Happy editing If I can be of assistance, please let me know. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ImprovingWiki. I am just letting you know that I deleted Hyderabad ganesh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Oosh. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Sin City: A Dame to Kill For because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You should know better than to engage an IP editor troll in a war. Oosh (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oosh, if you want to leave a template on my talk page, try one that makes sense. I've looked at your edit history, and it seems that you haven't reverted even one of my edits. Care to explain yourself? ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slip of the finger in Twinkle, my apologies, here's what I meant to put:

Your recent editing history at Sin City: A Dame to Kill For shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.

Excuse me, but I have made no recent edits to that page. So please spare me the over-aggressive templating, Oosh, or whoever you are. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImprovingWiki. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [1] — goethean 14:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that you said I gave "no reason" for reverting his revert when you explicitly read my reply to Gothean explaining why his reason for reverting what I posted was factually incorrect and showed an ignorance of the historical method. Earlier accounts are always more reliable than later one's with reference to a particular person or event because they are less corrupted by later fabrications and additions. This is a very common fact, and I will happily further elaborate if you are still confused as to why I reverted his undue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You gave no reason in your edit summary. It's considered appropriate to do that, and failure to do it can be one reason for reverting an edit. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there was not enough room to explain why the User who reverted why I wrote was factually incorrect, but I did do so on his own TalkPage, which you clearly saw, so you were dishonest when you said that I did not do so. What I've added to Goethe's religious views is valuable information that, above all, contains truth and is well-documented unlike the New Atheist, propaganda driven historiography that largely permeates Wikipedia. You are only doing the website a disservice by hiding that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in arguing with people who spuriously accuse of me of dishonesty. When I said you gave no reason for your revert, I meant that you gave no reason in your edit summary, which indeed you did not. You would do better to take any further comments to the article's talk page. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am just frustrated by much of the New Atheist dishonesty and fabrication that so pervades our society, and especially Wikipedia, so I apologize for being unduly critical of your actions. I have given a reason now, so I hope that you will allow the valuable information from a famous scientific study conducted by one of the greatest psychometricians in the 20th Century to remain unedited. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to have an agreement about? You wanted a reason for the edit and I gave a logically coherent one. What else is bothering you with what I've written other than the fact that it doesn't portray Goethe as a vitriolic atheist opposed to the core tenets of Christianity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to post on the talk page without editing it. How am I going to have a conversation there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is clear to me that you have no interest in defending your actions, rather merely to silence me. In that case, please tell me who I can report your account to? I do not believe you should be in a position to edit other peoples contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot give a reason for why you disagree with me; only pretexts to hide the information that I posted, because you do not want anyone to think that Goethe was a Christian, even though such claims are corroborated by earlier and more reliable accounts. It is because of people like you that Wikipedia is regarded as a joke in the extant academy, and why teachers in universities and secondary schools alike refuse to accept it as a citation; you only have an interest in portraying your very distorted, infinitely biased, and atheistic view of history. Goethe would be appalled.

It is also out of your (or for that matter Gothean's) jurisdiction to edit or revert anyone's contribution because you "disagree" with it; you do not have any authority to remove information you don't want to be portrayed. If you invented Wikipedia and have listed it as a site promoting atheism (which it might as well do given you are generally the rule and not the exception), feel free to remove anything I post. But if the information I post is reliable, comes from a meritorious source, and is valuable for the purposes of who understanding who Goethe was and what he believed, than you have no business at all editing anything I post.

• • • • • • YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO UNDUE OTHER PEOPLES CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT A VALID REASON. YOU CANNOT ENFORCE YOUR OWN POLICY'S AND MANDATE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT AMONG EXTREMELY BIASED EDITORS. PLEASE STOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters? Really? In my experience, the only people who write messages in capital letters - which comes across as shouting - are those worried that their message can't genuinely be convincing. In any case, I do have a valid reason for reverting you, which is that your edits don't have consensus. If you had bothered to read Goethean's edit summaries, you would have noticed that his reasons for reverting you were valid, too. Your childish response will not help you. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the paragraphs of writing that you explicitly ignored before we arrived at the point that we are at now. You are as ignorant as Goethean as in on this matter and you should quit giving the pretense that you understand anything about Goethe or history, which is patently clear that you do not. Tell me what is more reliable, accounts of what Hitler said or did in 1948 or 1999? Obviously it doesn't take a genius to know that later accounts are embellishments and and its best to look at those in 1948. Goethean fail to undrestand that very simple principle of history, and so do you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there seems to have been a misunderstanding here. I'm not interested at all in arguing with you about historical method, or anything else, for that matter. You have failed to make a convincing case for your edits at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and as such I disagree with them. Since you don't have support for your edits there, they will be reverted. That's how it works at Wikipedia. Too bad if you don't like it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what you want to do, because if you're going to revert someones contribution than you'd better be ready to defend that view. The reason given for editing my contribution was explicitly about the historical method, so if you're going to use that pretext (it is clear that the actual reason you're removing it is because you're a Christopher Hitchens-worshipping, Richard Dawkins-idoling new atheist fanatic) than you'd better be ready to defend that view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What have we here? More pompous drivel, with a personal attack, too. You could be blocked just for that, even without your edit warring. Have you no outlet for your time and energy other than Wikipedia? ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to defend your views is drivel? That is expressly mandated by Wikipedia's editing policy. Do not worry about what I do with my free-time; if you do not want to put in the time and energy to propagate your new atheist agenda to the world than do not attempt to edit or expunge other peoples contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you cared in the slightest about Wikipedia's editing policy, you would have taken note of WP:EDITWAR, which you obviously have not. I'll be taking this to WP:ANI, where I shall suggest that you be blocked, in accord with WP:NPA, among other policies. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critique of the basis of psychiatry hasn't listed at cfd for some reason (TW should do it automatically). Oculi (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your rationale for deleting in: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_25#Category:Critique_of_the_basis_of_psychiatry. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Christina Hoff Sommers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.

You made an edit; I reverted it; grow up and deal with it. I'm prepared to discuss things on the talk page. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, feel free to comment on the talk page at your leisure. aprock (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do it yourself. Was the edit warring template placed on my talk page just because I reverted you, or was there some other, perhaps better reason for it? Do explain. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to respond to my comments on the talk page any time you like. aprock (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think you're wrong about Freud and Reich. Of course they were atheists. The category of Jewish Atheist is well-established - W. even has a Userbox for it (it's on my page). Unique among Western religions, you are a Jew no matter what you believe or practice. You can become a Muslim, but you're still a Jew. It's by birth (or conversion, which Jews don't make easy). See Judaism#Who_is_a_Jew.3F. Spinoza was definitely an atheist (he was thrown out of the Jewish community by the Jews of Amsterdam), but he remains a Jew, which the Amsterdam people would have said too. See the Jewish categories he's in.

Freud and Reich may have been Jews in an ethnic or cultural sense, but that obviously does not make "Judaism" categories applicable to them. Your comments only muddy the issue. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you and I think many other Jews would as well. deisenbe (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ImprovingWiki,

That's an inspiring user name you have there. Let's discuss at the talk page for A Troublesome Inheritance how to structure the article. I think your bright-line rule, of no reference to criticism in the summary section, is much too broad. In my editorial judgment, that depends on the book, and on what reliable sources say about the book. But I will be glad to hear your point of view and that of other editors laid out in more detail than an edit summary permits on the article talk page. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the talk page. You could also try encouraging the IP that was editing the article to discuss matters on the talk page. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImprovisingWiki,

(please excuse my little pun, I couldn't stop myself) You undid one of my edits that was made in the spirit of removing bias in religious articles. Now, at the risk of sounding like I'm trying to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs, perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of (taken directly from WP:NPOV) this:

' Words to watch

See also: Wikipedia:Words to watch

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word "claim" is an expression of doubt; when used as in "John claimed he had not eaten the pie", it can imply he had in fact eaten the pie. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using loaded words; for example, "John said he did not eat the pie." Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source).'

I perceived that the use of the quoted "claims" illustrated bias (insinuating that the 'claim' is false) in respect of the Wikipedia article about ISKCON in reference to the Sampradaya that it descends from. Surely this is a matter for ISKCON to decide - who else is a better authority on this subject? The chain of disciplic succession cannot be proved nor disproved neither historically nor scientifically. Religious articles in Wikipedia are intended to present the beliefs of the adherents (regardless of ridicule by others). Therefore different guidelines apply compared to articles on verifiable mundane topics.

I am happy with the current "says" that another editor (unknown to me) inserted and feel this better reflects the meaning without distortion. I admit my choice of the word 'is' was a clumsy replacement. I am relatively new to WP editing and am on a step learning curve.

In my opinion incidences like this are an example of the lack of objectivity that pervades edit warring on spiritual and religious articles and highlight the improbability that Wikipedia will ever achieve credibility on noumenal topics that are beyond the realm of scientific provability. WP's flip-flopping guidelines completely fall apart to the point of being ridiculous when it comes to esoteric "facts".

In fact, I've given up attempting to correct the many discrepancies in ISKCON related articles because it seems a pointless endeavour - folk outside of ISKCON persist in promoting their biased POV and win out in the end. It makes Wikipedia a joke. I believe it will never be taken seriously as a reliable source. Samsbanned (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the images on Rules Compendium and Arcane Power! If you were interested and willing to do some more, I could compile a list of needed images? BOZ (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ImprovingWiki, please let me know if you are interested in helping out with that, thank you. BOZ (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ, I have no special skill in finding images. The two book covers that I uploaded were found through Google Images, and believe me, it takes no unusual abilities to do that. I sincerely doubt that I would be able to find images that you would be unable to find, for example. Respectfully, I am not sure why you are asking for my help. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ImprovingWiki, I just wanted to say thank you for all the work you did on D&D images this week - I never expected you would do so many, so your efforts are greatly appreciated! In my opinion, you definitely live up to your username. :) BOZ (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I should note, though, that I do not think I will be uploading more Dungeons and Dragons images any time soon. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I figured you were done, so that's why I was thanking you now. I truly do appreciate it! BOZ (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no arguments to remove something, then don't revert. Saying that there's "not enough consensus" for something and demanding widespread agreement in talk page for every change is disruptive behaviour. If you're not willing to argue this out, then simply don't revert it. WP:BRD is no justification. The fact is that Wikipedia is written based on sources, which can only be removed when there is something wrong with the sources or another source contradicts it. Zozs (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do have arguments. I stated them on the article's talk page. You, by trying to restore contested material after another editor removed, are the one who is behaving disruptively. Your edits at Karl Marx are not in accord with WP:NPOV. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested? It's sourced, you're the one that edit wars to avoid something which presumably does not agree with your opinion being in teh article. Information is not subject to editors' vetoes, when the talk page is used to exclude certain information it is because the quality of such sources is regarded as low. Zozs (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's never enough for material simply to be sourced. It has to be used in a way that is in accord with WP:NPOV, as you should know perfectly well. You are as or more guilty of edit warring as I am and are in no position to lecture me. You should be discussing at the Karl Marx talk page, not here. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ImprovingWiki: There is currently a section open concerning the "crazed editor" phenomenon on the User:Bishonen Talk page titled "Third time around at Freud". User:Bishonen is presently taking reports concerning one editor in particular who has been needlessly taking up an excessive amount of time from other editors on the Freud page. If you have a chance to visit the Bishonen Talk page, any short drop-in comment you might make on your experience with that other editor might help future long-term issues. FelixRosch (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. However, I am not sure that there is anything I can usefully say there. I might reconsider later and comment, but at the moment I'm not sure I want to do that. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I just uploaded a file with a misspelling in the file name (the file is File:Oragentalism.jpg, but it should be called File:Oragenitalism.jpg). I cannot change the file name to the correct spelling myself, and need admin help for this. Will be more careful in future; thanks in advance. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where is this place Jardin du Palais Royal where Qeelin was founded? Is it the name of a city? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no idea. Sorry. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was looking at your user page and found the "Banned users" section amusing. In the same paragraph you bemoan the fact that only administrators have access to "that valuable information", yet you (as acting administrator of the saved copy) will only condider access "on a case-by-case basis". Funny stuff. – JBarta (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImprovingWiki. I just wanted to follow up on some comments you made over in this discussion. I would reply there but the conversation seems to have moved on a bit and I didn't want to interrupt the flow.

The comments i am thinking of are your ones you made around the double standard you perceived Maunus (hi Maunus) to be applying. I just wanted to invite you to explain this a bit more as at this stage I am not on board. You seem to suggest that in order for an editor to suggest that particular material should be removed, that editor must first test the appropriateness of all other material in the article. Or at least all other comparable material in the article. To me this seems to be both an impractical burden to place on editors (that is a lot of work for an editor to do every time he or she spots something suspect), and an unnecessary burden (almost always it the merit of content can be discussed on a case by case basis).

As an example, if the principal you suggest were in place it would have made this conversation a particularly onerous one for me. I would have had to investigate the appropriateness of all other 'further reading' items before removing the obviously inappropriate ones. Instead, I think it is important that I was able to say "I haven't assessed the other content, but that does not change the fact that this particular content should be removed" (paraphrased, of course). Does that make sense? Anyway, I will be interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two note on your reverting my Kant's edition:

1. Kant's aim isn't to explain the "relationship between reason [alone] and human experience" but his aim is to explain the relationship between mind in general (including the reason, the understanding, and the sensibility) and human experience.
2. We are using the understanding [and the imagination] to decide what is beautiful and the reason [and the imagination] to decide what is sublime.--Jordaq (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert me if you wish. I only reverted you because you used no edit summary. Giving an edit summary in future would be helpful. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your corrections or reversions of my attempt to edit the page on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It is not that I mind you reverting my additions, but I am keen to point out that I do not understand what happens if I am not totally happy with them. Some of my edits I did not explain properly in the Edit Summary - does this mean I should redo them and add an explanation? Or should I rest happy with your verdict on my corrections? I ask politely, since I am new to wikipedia editing, and I am confused how it all works. If you could let me know what you think, as well as how I go about editing this page from now on, I would be very grateful. Thank you, froggie213 (Froggie213 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Froggie213, if there are disagreements over the content of an article, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss them on the article's talk page. Some of your changes to the article on the Critique of Pure Reason might have been improvements, and if so, I apologize for reverting them. I have not yet had time to review all your edits at that article carefully, but I do note, looking at your recent edits there, that some of your changes, including formatting, are incorrect. I have corrected the formatting. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you have taken out everything which I wrote yesterday and find this hard to understand. This article needs drastic improvement, and the first section is confused since it implies that before Kant the term "analytic" was in currency; since it gives an example of an "analytic" sentence which is not from Kant but from 20th century philosophy ("An intelligent man..."); and since the reference given for the paragraph is Russell, who is not an authority on what was thought before Kant's time. What you need is an historical introduction - like the one I tried to provide - and then a gentle introduction of the topic, which I also tried. I would prefer it if you would discuss your changes with me before deleting them, since in that way we might reach some consensus. I am perplexed how I am to go about editing this article from now on, and would like your feedback. Please excuse formatting errors, since I am new to this, but you did not merely correct these. (Froggie213 (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The article may well need drastic improvement, but making the lead much longer is not the right way to go about it. I'm afraid the likely consequence of making the lead as long as you want it to be is that no one will bother to read it. Thank you for explaining what you see the problems with the lead as being. You may be perfectly right that the use of the term "analytic" is misleading. Problems like that could and should be fixed without making the article's lead unreasonably long. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I set down what I thought was a rough description of the premises of Kant's position, but realised that it needed to be broken up into sections, and expanded upon, which I intended to do at a later date. I guess this is what the sandbox is for - drawing up a text which you post when you're satisfied with it - except that then no one else gets to comment on it whilst you are producing it. Maybe I should try this method?

By the way, I have discovered a reference for the statement that Kant spent four to five months writing the Critique (see footnotes 5 & 6 of the article) - it is Norman Kemp Smith's Commentary to Kant's CPR, where he cites a letter Kant sent to Moses Mendelssohn in 1783, and another one to Christian Garve in the same year. We could therefore either refer the reader to Kemp Smith, or to the letters themselves. Which do you think is better? (Froggie213 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Magic Item Compendium.jpg. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an SPI case that concerns you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeKnowledgeCreator. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

it's under "Wikihounding" and you were mentioned. --DHeyward (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Philosophy in a New Key.jpg. 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 (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Marxism, a critical analysis.jpg. 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 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:A Very British Coup.png. 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) 02:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Emperor's New Mind.jpg. 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) 17:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nietzsche and Philosophy (French edition).jpg. 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) 02:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World.jpg. 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) 02:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Accursed Share (French edition).jpg. 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) 18:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Great Mother (German edition).jpg. 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) 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Whole Lesbian Sex Book.jpg. 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) 03:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Irrational Man.jpg. 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) 18:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dungeon Master's Kit.jpg. 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) 03:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marx's Revenge.jpg. 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) 02:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Social Construction of Reality.jpg. 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) 03:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Strong Horse.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:The Question of Lay Analysis, German edition.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Equivalent file media at Commons, this is simple text. Not an F8 as the Commons file and this one have different licenses.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, German edition.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Monstrous Manual.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Difference and Repetition (French edition).gif. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Discourse, Figure (French edition).png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Blue of Noon (French edition).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Paedophilia, The Radical Case.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Confusions of Young Törless, German edition.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:From Hegel to Nietzsche (German edition).jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Studies on Marx and Hegel (French edition).jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]