User talk:Freeknowledgecreator/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Freeknowledgecreator. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for uploading File:Brightly Burning.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) 00:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Exile's Honor.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) 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Exile's Valor.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) 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Magic's Promise.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) 01:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, FKC. I happened across the edits in the Red Sonja article today (I saw the film long ago) and out of curiosity followed the statement in the lede about portraying homosexuality as evil, leading me to discover that the source citation has been stretched and distorted into obvious NPOV problems. While I found the edit summary of this reverted edit disgusting and objectionable, I concluded that the statement in the lede is not supported by the source and might mislead readers into thinking the movie was controversial or had attacked homosexuality. Just wanted to drop you a note so that you'd understand my rationale; while I strongly disagree with the IP's sentiments, I found the deletion appropriate and re-instated it accordingly. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Why exactly, in your opinion, does the source used not support the statement that appeared in the lead, AzureCitizen? Though I don't really think there is any point in debating this, I am quite familiar with the film, and I find it stretches credulity to claim that it does not portray homosexuality as evil. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the SFE author's assessment that it is morally dubious to depict an antagonist's sexual orientation as being one of her "evil" attributes, and I think his comment definitely belongs in the reception section, but per WP:LEAD, the summary of an article should be concerned with the topics most important aspects. I'm sure you know from the second paragraph of the guideline it says that in addition to explaining why the topic is notable and summarizing the main paints, it should include any prominent controversies. The way the SFE information was set up and overemphasized in the reception section previously (and I have no idea who put that in there without crawling through the article history), it seems obvious to me that this is not a prominent controversy, nor am I seeing anything to to indicate it was a prominent complaint from critics. Thus, using such an interpretation from the SFE to keep the sentence at issue in the lede is most likely undue weight. If you disagree, we could always seek opinions from other editors on whether or not the SFE entry qualifies as a prominent controversy. Overall, and speaking purely from my own opinion, I think Red Sonja was a silly 1980's B-rate flick and the lesbian angle was probably just a gimmicky aspect to draw viewers; I doubt the director was intentionally portraying homosexuality as evil to send a social message in that respect. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Madness and Civilization (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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for backing me up on the Jung paragraph. That had been hanging around for a while and I was not sure how to handle it. HullIntegrity\ talk / 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx.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) 23:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Legitimation Crisis.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) 21:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Structure of Science.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) 23:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how what I have written is a 'textbook example of original research'. Thank you. Vidur10 (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I did, on the article's talk page. Discussion should proceed there, not on my talk page, please. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed your request for a third opinion for Talk:Sheila Jeffreys#Views on transsexuality. There appear to be at least 3 editors involved in this dispute.Mark Marathon (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What?!?! That's simply wrong. Look again, Mark Marathon: two editors!Someone is using multiple IP addresses. Shouldn't that be perfectly obvious, based on behavior? What's galling about this is that we already went through this at Ravi Zacharias, and it was exactly the same story - apparently one person using multiple IP addresses in a way that made him or her look like several people. The dispute was relisted after that was realized. Ask Erpert, or just look at the Zacharias article talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've taken another look, and I see why you probably got confused - the argument between the IP and me followed on from an earlier talk page post that was made in 2012, and was actually part of a separate discussion. Couldn't you have guessed that the 2012 comment, made years ago, was part of a totally separate discussion? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The main problem with the refs in the lead here is that they aren't used consistently at all. For eg, notice how there's a ref for "metaphor" but nothing else in that sentence. Or how there's one for Emerson in the infobox but nobody else. Further there's really nothing that those refs are citing that's remotely controversial or contested.

Are you opposed to my simplification to the lead sentence as well (trimming his professions down to the notable ones and cutting the excessive overlinking)?—indopug (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest taking this to the talk page and discussing it patiently. One change at a time please. They each need to be assessed individually. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hagarism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Cook. 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) 09:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual Desire (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek Homosexuality. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you disengage from the discussion at ANI? I'm going to do the same unless something new actually needs to be said. TL;DR is a serious problem, and continuing the back-and-forth is just making the discussion harder for new people to read and comment on it. The only effect of continuing to argue will be to make a longer conversation, which will burn out and get archived without resolution. Something my father always said when I was growing up: Trying to reason with an unreasonable person is by definition futile. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I have been, in some ways, more restrained than you Mendaliv, since despite being tempted I have not called for the user the ANI thread is about to be indefinitely blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously now, give ANI a rest? We realise you don't see eye to eye with Jesse and want him thrown out the door, but I am cautiously optimistic that he understands the problem and hopefully things have cooled down a bit. He makes a perfectly valid point that leaving an article on the wrong version is annoying (and which has recently caused a long standing and well respected editor to retire). Let it go and write an article on some other topic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you take a look at my recent edit history? That's exactly what I did. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Please read WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. I did indeed read your reason for the edit. I simply was not convinced by it. You are mistaken to claim that consensus is not needed to remove such material. Consensus would be required to remove almost any material that is not a violation of either WP:BLP or copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read them and suggest that you please re-read WP:BLP, because that is EXACTLY the point I was making. There no way to VERIFY that Nietzsche contracted syphilis from male hookers. That author was not there, there are no documents pertaining to it. It pure conjecture. Conjecture and NOT acceptable per WP:BLP. Thus, it should be removed. So again, I must ask: "Can you explain your interest in keeping an inordinate amount of this sort of conjecture about a Nietzsche's life which has no factual basis for being made?" I will drop this issue, but I don't believe that unsubstantiated claims by questionable sources have a place on wikipedia. Do you?Cinebuns5000 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP is biographies of living people and it applies only to the living. Nietzsche has been dead for more than a century. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I know what BLP is.

YOU are the one who quoted it above first, not me. see your comment before mine.

Are you saying pure conjecture is allowed on Wikipedia just because someone is dead?

I guess I could say anything about anyone then as long as they are dead.

I am trying to believe you are acting in good faith, but you are not addressing the issue here or answering my question.Cinebuns5000 (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If you know what BLP is, then you should also know that you cannot remove material about Nietzsche because of the policy. Beyond that, Wikipedia bases content on reliable sources; see for example, WP:VERIFY. If a reliable sources makes claims about Nietzsche, then there's no reason the article cannot mention or discuss them. By the way, discussion about this material properly belongs on the Nietzsche talk page, not my personal talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I already moved our discussion there in hopes another editor will take note of it. TALK pages are there to discuss edits. Since you reverted my good faith edit, it is common practice to discuss it on the person's TALK page before taking it elsewhere. I had hoped we could work this out between us in good faith, but I guess you have some reason for wanting an imagined theory, by an obscure source, that postulates Nietzsche got syphilis from male hookers in a brothel, with no evidence, to dominate his personal life section. You would not explain your reasoning for wanting that or address my legitimate concerns. Cinebuns5000 (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Discussion of the article belongs on its talk page. I have nothing further to say here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I was reading that Journal and got a very detailed comparison of his philosophy with that of Gita. Was my placement inappropriate or the content irrelevant? I am sure the reference is good and detailed enough to be used to add to Kant's article. Could you suggest in what form and where it might be better placed? --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is simply not possible for the Kant article to include every scholar's opinion of or interpretation of Kant, nor every comparison of Kant's philosophy to other philosophies or systems of belief. However interesting the comparison to the Bhagavad Gita might be, it is not particularly important to understanding Kant, and I see no reason it should be in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I got two peer-reviewed journal and one university publication. All three scholarly sources themed on Kant's philosophy compared to Gita. I definitely do not buy the argument of 'undue' without protest. Do you instead mean there is another more appropriate page for this? Definitely not a new article, or is it? --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the information you want to add is an esoteric detail that just doesn't belong in the article, in my view. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure I completely agree with you. Three research papers on the very specific topic of Kant's philosophy and Gita is ample reliable source. Since I haven't edited this article before perhaps there is a better avenue but it is not esoteric detail by any means. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

I beg your pardon? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that given the way the other person was behaving, I'm not really able to take the above seriously. You call the comment, "no one is going to think that it is the side of the book" an insult. No, it is not. It is a statement of the obvious, and I stand by it. It refers to a picture in an infobox, not another user. That you would call it an insult suggests that you are not approaching this issue neutrally. I cannot guess why, but maybe I'm not the only person who needs to read WP:AGF. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, those are insults: you are calling the other opinions about a topic worthless and foolish, and that their actions reflect some kind of idiocy inapprorpriate for Wikipedia; in short, you are indirectly calling that editor an "idiot' or "fool" by ridiculing their ideas. Assume good faith, on the other hand, requires us to approach someone with the assumption that their values or ideas may be of value because their intentions were good. Its better to create constructive framing through language that focuses on your subjectivity in these experiences; for example, instead of saying "self-evident", you could say "When I read the page, I find the language describing the cover redundant"; such rhetorical moves makes it less about the other editor and more about the disagreement of opinions. I hope that you take a chance to try to do more constructive feedback that is less insulting. Sadads (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No. You were wrong before and you are wrong now, Sadads. I did not use the words "worthless and foolish" - you did. That's an interpretation you are placing on what I wrote, not a "fact." I did not accuse anyone of "idiocy" - again you are attributing to me a view I never expressed. The words "idiot" and "fool" are insults, but "no one is going to think that it is the side of the book" is not, not even indirectly. It is a simple truth that needed stating. By stating it, I told someone that he was wrong, and that is all. Honest discussion often requires doing this. If I wanted to, I could complain that the other person adopted an insulting tone toward me. You will note that I do not bother wasting my time that way. I think, though, that to a reasonable third party it would be pretty clear that you have adopted a double standard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator! I know that you said previously that you were not interested in doing any more images for D&D articles, but hopefully I can get you to reconsider.

I tracked down all the images you did for D&D monster articles previously, and I made a list of all the ones that had images in one of the three original AD&D monster books, but did not yet have images on Wikipedia. I know that monster articles became troublesome with certain users previously, so I will try to steer you towards the ones which are hopefully less controversial. You put a whole lot of work into this previously and probably did well over 100 images, but if you are interested in helping with the rest, these are the ones that remain:

Monster Manual (1977): Gnoll, Lycanthropes (Werebear, Wereboar, Wererat, Weretiger)

Fiend Folio (1981): Babbler, Carbuncle, Clubnek, Dire corby, Doombat, Eye killer, Gorilla bear, Gryph, Hoar fox, Lava children, Screaming devilkin, Svirfneblin, Witherstench

Monster Manual II (1983): Afanc, Boggart, Dragon horse, Drelb, Dustdigger, Executioner's hood, Haunt, Hordling, Jann, Kampfult, Kech, Land lamprey, Lycanthropes (Foxwoman, Seawolf, Wereshark), Marid, Mihstu, Miner, Minimal, Mantrap, Margoyle, Muckdweller, Mud-man, Oliphant, Ophidian, Opinicus, Para-elemental, Pedipalp, Phoenix, Phycomid, Planetar, Quasi-elemental, Rock reptile, Slime creature/Olive slime, Solar, Solifugid, Spectator, Squealer, Stegocentipede, Stench kow, Stone guardian, Storoper, Thunder beast, Thunderherder, Tri-flower frond, Troll (scrag), Urchin (land), Ustilagor, Verme, Vilstrak, Vulchling, Webbird, Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, Worm (tenebrous), Worm (tunnel), Xaren, Zombie (juju), Zorbo, Zygom

If you have any concern that the images might get deleted (and your work thus wasted), as an admin I can always restore any deleted image. Having checked, I can assure you that the significant majority of monster images you previously uploaded are still around!

If you are interested in picking back up where you left off, then that is great, and if not then there is no deadline to reconsider. Either way, thanks for what you have already done.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I am a little distracted at present, but I will consider this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No worried - take your time, and thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've done the ones from the original Monster Manual and Fiend Folio. The Monster Manual II ones will be coming soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool! Well done.  :) BOZ (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've done all the ones you requested; for what it's worth, I may as well note that I also could provide images from editions of Dungeons & Dragons subsequent to first edition AD&D (although not fifth edition, as I have no access to the material). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am very impressed at your marathon work in adding these images, and very grateful as well! I had a few more monsters on my list (less than 10) that still needed images, but those can wait until another time (I need a break). You can add any other images to any other monster articles as you wish, but I am quite satisfied with what you have accomplished. If you really want to help out, we do need some more book cover images. :) BOZ (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can provide a list of needed book cover images, I will see what I can do. I'd be grateful too if you could look at the recent edits by TheRedPenOfDoom at D&D articles and tell me what you think of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Tantrums like that are the exact sort of thing I was hoping to avoid. I tried to pick monster articles that he had not edited before, but it looks like he must have been watching at least one of them. Unfortunately, based on past experience, there is not much anyone can do about it unless you want to edit war with him, which he will happily do, and doesn't really help anything. BOZ (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I rather thought as much. Maybe, though, someone could ask D&D WikiProject members to look at the issue? There might be independent coverage of at least some of the monsters, and a search could be made. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you that finding reliable independent sources for D&D fictional elements - and fictional elements from most media and franchises - is extremely difficult as such sources are very rare. For example, among the D&D articles that are Good or Featured, we only have Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance as examples of that type of article up to that level. The rest of the 20-or-so GA's and FA's the D&D project has are on people, books, video games, and other more tangible elements. My personal philosophy (which matches many other people, but which is at odds with many others) is to let articles on fictional elements stand in case I or someone else can ever find sources to add to them - let's face it, most people are not going to restore articles from redirects to add sources, although I have seen it happen. So, although I immediately add any reliable independent sources I can find to articles on fictional elements, I have preferred to spend more focus on items like people, books, and games, as it is much more likely that I can make something good out of those. BOZ (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DMud-man.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) 18:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DOliphant.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) 18:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DOphidian.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) 18:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DOpinicus.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) 18:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DPedipalp.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) 18:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DPhycomid.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) 18:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DPlanetar.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) 18:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DRock reptile.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) 18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DSlime creature.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) 18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DSmoke para-elemental.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) 18:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DSolar.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) 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DSolifugid.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) 18:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DSpectator.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) 18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DSquealer.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) 18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DStegocentipede.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) 18:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DStench kow.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) 18:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DStone guardian.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) 18:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DStoroper.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) 18:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DThunderherder.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) 18:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DTri-flower frond.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) 18:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hormones and Brain Differentiation 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/Hormones and Brain Differentiation 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.AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You really seem to want to keep all WP:FRINGE books about 'curing' and 'preventing' homosexuality, even very poor and non-notable books. Any particular reason?

Excuse me, but whether one thinks a book is "poor" or not has nothing to do with anything. Personally, I have never created articles about books simply because I agree with the books concerned; rather, I do it because I think the articles are useful resources. Deleting articles about books because one disagrees with the books the articles are about is misguided. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The notability or not of the books remains to be seen. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is poor because it was written by a non-notable individual and seems to fail WP:NBOOK, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:GNG.AusLondonder (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

With all respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. Dorner is a notorious figure; you're just wrong in calling him non-notable. WP:FRINGE is your opinion, and that's all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AusLondonder's battleground conduct. Thank you. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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 Hormones and Brain Differentiation page, your edit caused an ISBN 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) 00:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we've got an edit-war over pasting garbage on WP. Could you take care of it this time? I don't know if it's a school project, or if someone is evading a block. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so if you want to spend some time helping out with D&D book covers, I will tell you that first edition AD&D (1E) is just about complete. 2E, 3E, and 4E are spotty at best. The only one I have a full list of is 3E, broken down into the initial 3.0 release, and the 3.5 revision. There are only a few left from 3.0 that need covers, so if you have the time to knock these out quickly, here they are:

• Into the Dragon's Lair
• Pool of Radiance: Attack on Myth Drannor
• The Speaker in Dreams
• Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn
• The Standing Stone
• Heart of Nightfang Spire
• Magic of Faerûn
• Deep Horizon
• Bastion of Broken Souls
• Silver Marches
• Races of Faerûn

The 3.5 list is longer, so I will save that one for later. If you want to keep going after that, I will have to spend some time looking to see what we need. Thanks again! BOZ (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll definitely take a look at this and see what I can do. (I should note that sometimes I have to choose between multiple possibilities when uploading a picture, since modules are sometimes published with different covers - if you think I've made a mistake in any case, I will happily upload a different image). I'd also be grateful if you could change the name of one of the files I just uploaded - Races of Faerûn (D&D module).jpg is meant to be Races of Faerûn (D&D manual).jpg. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I have moved it. The ones you uploaded so far look good to me! BOZ (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, if you want to move on to the 3.5 book covers, here what is left:

• Player's Guide to Faerûn
• Serpent Kingdoms
• Shadows of the Last War
• Monster Manual III
• Whispers of the Vampire's Blade
• Shining South
• Sharn: City of Towers
• Grasp of the Emerald Claw
• Lost Empires of Faerûn
• Races of Eberron
• City of Splendors: Waterdeep
• Five Nations
• Fantastic Locations: Fane of the Drow
• Sons of Gruumsh
• Magic of Eberron
• Fantastic Locations: Hellspike Prison
• Player's Guide to Eberron
• Power of Faerûn
• Fantastic Locations: Fields of Ruin
• Voyage of the Golden Dragon
• Mysteries of the Moonsea
• Fantastic Locations: Dragondown Grotto
• Secrets of Xen'drik
• Dragons of Faerûn
• Faiths of Eberron
• The Twilight Tomb
• Dragonmarked
• Scourge of the Howling Horde
• Fantastic Locations: The Frostfell Rift
• The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde
• Barrow of the Forgotten King
• Secrets of Sarlona
• Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave
• Expedition to the Demonweb Pits
• Eyes of the Lich Queen
• Fantastic Locations: City of Peril
• Expedition to Undermountain
• The Forge of War
• The Sinister Spire
• Monster Manual V
• Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land
• Fortress of the Yuan-Ti
• Dragons of Eberron
• Anauroch: The Empire of Shade
• The Grand History of the Realms
• City of Stormreach
• An Adventurer's Guide to Eberron

If you finish those and want to continue, I will eventually get you a list of books from other editions. I do not have anything handy (I made the third edition list years ago and kept on top of it whenever covers were added) for any other edition, and I am short on time at the moment, but I would love to have more covers if you want to do them, so I will find the time sooner or later! BOZ (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

These will take me a while to do. I made a start. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work! Did you find anything for Monster Manual V? BOZ (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I just missed that one for whatever reason. Will do it shortly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Growing Up Straight (1982 book) 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/Growing Up Straight (1982 book) 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. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity 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/Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity 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. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		As a fellow worker on book articles, I'd like to apologise for my earlier attitude towards you. We might not see eye-to-eye on everything, but you are clearly here to make Wikipedia better! Best wishes AusLondonder (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, for clarity and length it may help to add '{{collapse|title=quote }}' around the quote of my addition on Talk:Conversion therapy#Recent addition. I've replied to you there.

Thanks. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, forget about it. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for your improvement of No Man Knows My History. John Foxe (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Instead of just cutting my addition, if you still have an objection, can we maybe discuss it and arrive at a good solution? The problem is that Posner's quote leaves readers with a very misleading impression of chimpanzee intelligence. Frankly, he chose his example poorly. It would have made a lot more sense if he had said a generic "animal" here, instead of specifically a chimpanzee, because a chimpanzee has way more than 1% of the intelligence of a human. So another solution might be to cut or paraphrase his quote.

Also, this whole "Reception" section is pretty problematic, as it does not convey an adequate range of the responses to the book. I added the Newkirk quote to provide some positive balance, but much more could be done to indicate how reviewers and others have responded to this very influential book. Wilbur777 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The point of editing articles about books is not to join in some argument about the merits of the book concerned. If you can find a source that disagrees with Posner, and presents a view different to his, then fine, by all means add it. But Wikipedia does have a strict policy against original research, and it's not acceptable to use a source that does not even mention Posner to try to criticize him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There were actually quite a few fourth edition D&D books published, but at this time many of them do not have articles. These do have articles, but lack book covers:

• Player's Handbook
• Manual of the Planes
• Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide
• Forgotten Realms Player's Guide
• Scepter Tower of Spellgard
• Player's Handbook 2
• Monster Manual 2
• Dungeon Master's Guide 2
• Prince of Undeath
• Primal Power
• Psionic Power
• Heroes of the Fallen Lands
• Monster Vault

Eventually, I will work on getting articles started for more 4E books. If you like, I will let you know down the line when they are ready! BOZ (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, I will do this in the near future, but not necessarily right away, as I'm somewhat bogged down with other issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem! BOZ (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I will probably have the rest ready for next week. :) BOZ (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We have pretty well covered all D&D releases from the 1970s and 1980s. Coverage of books from the 1990s is spotty, but we do have articles for a large percentage of them. These are the ones that have articles but do not yet have cover images:

Product codes 1000-1400

• The City of Greyhawk (needs actual box cover)
• The Great Khan Game
• The Ruins of Myth Drannor
• The Astromundi Cluster
• Dragon Mountain
• City of Delights
• Fighter's Player Pack
• Thief's Player Pack
• Ruins of Zhentil Keep
• Bleak House: The Death of Rudolph van Richten
• DragonStrike (board game)

Product codes 2000-2635

• Player's Guide to the Forgotten Realms Campaign
• Advanced Dungeons & Dragons CD-ROM Core Rules
• Dragon's Crown
• Black Flames
• Earth, Air, Fire, and Water
• The Will and the Way
• Windriders of the Jagged Cliffs
• Mind Lords of the Last Sea
• Defilers and Preservers: The Wizards of Athas
• Psionic Artifacts of Athas
• Joshuan's Almanac & Book of Facts
• The Eternal Boundary
• The Deva Spark
• Something Wild
• Hellbound: The Blood War
• On Hallowed Ground

Product codes 3100-3147

• Player's Secrets of Ariya
• The Sword of Roele
• Player's Secrets of Binsada
• Player's Secrets of Baruk-Azhik
• Player's Secrets of Halskapa
• Player's Secrets of Khourane
• Legends of the Hero-Kings

That's the first batch of two - if you get through these and wish to continue, I will give you the remainder. BOZ (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll provide images for these articles - or at least try to find images - in the near future. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! I will have the rest of the list ready next week. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for sticking with me so far! Here is the rest of the D&D books that have articles and still need covers (as far as I know):

Product codes 9300-9585

• Halls of the High King
• Realmspace
• New Beginnings
• Nightwatch in the Living City
• Anauroch
• Drow of the Underdark
• Sons of Azca
• Nightmare Keep
• Quest for the Silver Sword
• Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog
• Wizard's Challenge II
• Sword and Shield
• The Dalelands
• New Tales: The Land Reborn
• Krynnspace
• Van Richten's Guide to the Lich
• Roots of Evil
• The Created
• Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts
• Van Richten's Guide to the Created
• Thief's Challenge
• Tales of Enchantment
• Cleric's Challenge
• The Knight of Newts
• Rage of the Rakasta
• Adam's Wrath
• Ruined Kingdoms
• Corsairs of the Great Sea
• Wizard's Challenge II
• Caravans
• Cities of Bone
• The Dancing Hut of Baba Yaga
• The Seven Sisters
• When Black Roses Bloom
• Avengers in Lankhmar
• Cleric's Challenge II
• The Return of Randal Morn
• Elminster's Ecologies Appendix I: The Battle of Bones / Hill of Lost Souls
• Elminster's Ecologies Appendix II: The High Moor / The Serpent Hills
• The Evil Eye
• Neither Man nor Beast
• The Silver Key
• Warriors and Priests of the Realms
• Forged of Darkness
• Undermountain: The Lost Level
• Eye of Pain
• Death Unchained
• Volo's Guide to the Dalelands
• Heroes' Lorebook
• Death Ascendant
• Undermountain: Maddgoth's Castle
• Villains' Lorebook
• Champions of the Mists
• Demihuman Deities

Product codes 11300-11622

• The Vortex of Madness and Other Planar Perils
• Eye of the Wyvern
• Reverse Dungeon
• Against the Giants: The Liberation of Geoff
• Dragon Magazine Archive
• Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark
• The Apocalypse Stone
• The Dungeon of Death

Take your time, no rush, and thanks again! BOZ (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Did a couple. More to follow. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Great work, as always! You have truly done a service for both the D&D project, and for Wikipedia itself. Next time more articles on game supplements are created, I will let you know. In the meantime, the only other thing I can think of is that we probably have D&D novels that need covers; if you want to help with that, I could get a list together over the next week or two and get back to you. BOZ (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do the novels too. In cases where the novels are illustrated with something other than a first edition cover, I'll see if I can find a first edition replacement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Dragon Magazine Archive (computer program).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) 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

How about "By the end of the 20th century, Freud was the third most cited scholar in technical psychology journals, introductory psychology textbooks, and survey responses, behind only B. F. Skinner and Jean Piaget" (added emphasis would not be included in the edit)? - Jajhill 13 June 2015 01:48 GMT

We have to follow the source closely - does it actually say "scholar"? I would suggest that you take the issue up on the Freud article's talk page; it would be a better place to discuss this than my personal talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, I mentioned previously that there were just a few remaining monster pages that need images. If you want to add them, they are: Violet fungus, Forlarren, Hybsil, Korred, and Spriggan. Hopefully no bad reactions this time, but if you get those there are no more articles on monsters from the original AD&D 1st edition Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and Monster Manual II which need images that I know of. You did a lot! :) BOZ (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Coming soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm not shocked at all about the results, but I figured it was worth a try. BOZ (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DForlarren.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) 12:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DHybsil.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) 12:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DKorred.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) 12:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DSpriggan.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) 12:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DViolet fungus.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) 12:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Six weeks ago you went back-and-forth with some anonymous editor at The High King, but that one had the last word, unfortunately. You may be interested to check the Contributions by user 2600:1006:B107:50A:B54A:54DC:4A42:DE45 --which covers a single 200-minute session 2015-05-10 quite destructive in some cases.

The big changes reported in red primarily concern plot summaries. At The High King near the top of the red listings, this user simply deleted 10 of 18 paragraphs with the edit summary "... made it more concise" (under a false section heading). I don't recognize many of the pagenames, but The High King is a novel I know and I reverted its change last hour. I will work more on Prydain pages this summer.

By plan, I will visit some of those pages, probably in the next few days. But I must run now. Rather abrupt, I know. --P64 (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I did take a little look at this. The two main settings to produce novels are Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, and I will take a look at those soon. A few other settings resulted in a smaller number of novels:

• Birthright had six novels, none of which has a WP article yet.
• Dark Sun had over a dozen novels, and of those only The Outcast has an article so far.
• Eberron had a fair number of novels, and we have articles for The Binding Stone, Blood and Honor, Bound by Iron, The Grieving Tree, The Killing Song, Legacy of Wolves, and Storm Dragon.
• Greyhawk had several novels, of which we have Artifact of Evil, Keep on the Borderlands, and The Temple of Elemental Evil.
• Mystara also had several novels, but none have articles.
• Planescape had a handful of novels, none of which have articles yet.
• Ravenloft had a couple of dozen novels, of which we have articles for Carnival of Fear, Dance of the Dead, I, Strahd: The Memoirs of a Vampire, and Tapestry of Dark Souls still needing covers.
• Spelljammer had a handful of novels, none of which has an article yet.

Additionally, there are quite a few miscellaneous novels of no particular setting, which includes City of Fire. BOZ (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look and see what I can do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! BOZ (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Before getting more fully involved in the two remaining settings, I would like to detour into a smaller related project. Wikipedia prefers to use the first printing cover for books, and for the most part we do, but we do have several articles using later printings. Could you take a look at these and see what you can do? Category:Novel has infobox needing 1st edition cover has the following D&D novels: Azure Bonds, Crown of Fire, The Crystal Shard, The Halfling's Gem, The Legacy, Passage to Dawn, Siege of Darkness, and Starless Night. BOZ (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware that first edition covers are preferred; I prefer them myself. I will see what I can do about finding 1st edition covers for those articles. Regarding Azure Bonds, I've found an image I believe to be the first edition cover, but it's so similar to the cover already in the article that I would appreciate it if you could confirm that it is actually the first edition, BOZ. For The Halfling's Gem, there were two slightly different covers that I could have chosen. I'm almost but not quite absolutely sure the one I chose is the true first edition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure which ones are correct, but the covers you added do look good to me! BOZ (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Passage to Dawn.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) 02:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Siege of Darkness.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) 03:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Starless Night (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) 03:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Legacy (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) 03:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove table of contents from entries on books. They usually have hyperlinks and serve as useful overviews of books. Esp. books like Logic of Sense which are hard to summarize. The TOC in A Thousand Plateaus has links to useful material both within and outside wiki. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I could equally tell you not to restore disputed material without discussion. Kindly read WP:BRD, which gives advice on such situations. If you make an addition to an article, and the addition is removed, the appropriate thing to do is to start a thread on the talk page and discuss the issue, not to immediately restore the addition. That tables of contents "usually have hyperlinks" is an irrelevance; any useful links should be placed in a see also section. Your addition of links to external websites within the table of contents violates WP:EL, an important guideline that you should familiarize yourself with. Beyond that, tables of contents are not, despite your assertions, "useful overviews of books." They are almost always useless and distracting. The contents of a book should simply be summarized in prose, not through listing chapters. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly it is not "disputed" material, and you could have discussed before removing them. This is what WP:EL says: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.... Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.." So it does not forbid the addition of EL in the body of the article if they are "useful and relevant", when external material can't be included in the article for reasons of copyright, and when there isn't enough info to link within wiki. This -- "tables of contents are not, despite your assertions, "useful overviews of books." They are almost always useless and distracting. The contents of a book should simply be summarized in prose, not through listing chapters" -- is your personal opinion. TOCs are useful and they are used all over wikipedia. The French wiki entry for Logic of Sense, for example, contains the TOC, so do many other book entries. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is disputed material. We are having a dispute over it, therefore it is disputed. Being under dispute is what disputed means. The whole point of WP:BRD is that you are the editor who should have begun a discussion before reverting. It was your responsibility to make the case for including that material after it was removed. There is no reason why the links you added cannot go in an external links section, and no reason to make an exception to the guideline. Repeating over and over again that "TOCs are useful" will not make it true. If you take the trouble to look, you will find that most articles about books don't have them. Listing the names of all the chapters of a book obviously involves providing readers with a great deal of pointless information that is of little to no value for understanding the book: why should the name of every chapter matter? The names of chapters are completely irrelevant in general. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that I should have discussed before reverting. This is what I am suggesting: let's have the TOCs until the prose summaries are added. It is better to have them rather than nothing. That's what I meant by them serving as useful overviews. I really appreciate the work you are doing on these pages and I understand what you mean when you say the TOCs are distracting. But it is useful to have TOCs as a stop-gap arrangement. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You would do better to discuss this at the talk page of A Thousand Plateaus rather than here. If a discussion takes place, a third opinion can then be requested; see WP:3O. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Gay Marriage.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) 17:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Lesbian-Woman.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) 17:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Marx and Modern Economics.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) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Marxism and Morality.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) 17:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Structure of Science, 1961 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) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) 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:

• of Call of Cthulhu was launched, it ended in June 29 of the same year and collected $561,836.<ref>[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/448333182/call-of-cthulhu-7th-edition</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Myth of Mental Illness, 1962 Secker & Warburg 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) 17:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Consciousness Explained.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) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:How are we to live.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) 02:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Scepticism and Animal Faith.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) 02:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Languages of Africa (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) 02:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Sense of Beauty.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) 02:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Sixpence None the Richer, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.I have no problems with WP:CONSENSUS but you are engaged in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Neither of you have had anything to do with maintaining this article and you are simply trying to make a point. The consensus discussion is taking place at the project page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:POINT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your warning to me above is ridiculous. You left a template on my talk page because you disagreed with an edit I made, and that is itself tendentious behavior. Regarding your comment that, "Neither of you have had anything to do with maintaining this article" (I assume the other person you are referring to is IllaZilla), you should see WP:OWN. Effectively you are asserting ownership over the article, which isn't acceptable. As for my trying to make a point, what point, precisely, would that be? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Marxism and Morality (first 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) 02:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Bounds of Sense.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted Arjun1491's edit on Immanuel Kant. I just wanted you to know that the user currently is edit warring to include this quote, claiming there's a consensus for this inclusion. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 14:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I found one, Red Steel, that does not have a cover. I must have missed that one previously. BOZ (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, I was going to send you a list of Dragonlance novels that need covers, but I got busy with other things. So, if you want to continue with this list, these are the ones that need covers:

Alliances

Dezra's Quest

Dragons in the Archives: The Best of Weis and Hickman Anthology

Dragons of a Fallen Sun

Dragons of a Vanished Moon

The Dragons

The Dragons of Krynn

Dragons of the Highlord Skies

Firstborn

The Forest King

The Gully Dwarves

The Irda

The Kagonesti

Kindred Spirits

The Lake of Death

Land of the Minotaurs

Night of Blood

Return of the Sorceress

Sacred Fire

Shadow of the Flame

Spirit of the Wind

Stormblade

A Warrior's Journey

Winterheim

Wizard's Conclave

BOZ (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll try to find pictures for these articles in the near future. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, excellent work as always! Were you able to find anything for Dragons of the Highlord Skies? BOZ (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I just missed that one; I should add a picture soon. By the way, I understand that there are Forgotten Realms novels that need pictures - if you want to provide a list of them, I'll try to do them as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks! That will probably be ready sometime in August. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I found one more cover for Dragonlance: Kaz the Minotaur. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and one more if you can: Dalamar the Dark. BOZ (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

hi, you reverted my edit on the judith butler website. i don't agree with you. writing on wikipedia is always a matter of interpreting the sources at hand. one source is a random 'bad writing contest'. i don't know why how this singular instance translates to 'she is well known for ...'. in the second source, however, the interviewer wants to demonstrate responsiveness and translatability of her writing. here, too, i don't know how this translates to 'she is well known for ...' that's odd... --NOTME NEVERME (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have shifted your comment. New comments go at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Aside from that, I simply suggest that you take up this issue on the Judith Butler talk page. It is a better place for discussing matters than my personal talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, you're right. thanks for this hint. --NOTME NEVERME (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I was going to revert your removal on Deleuze's article, but I thought it would be better to discuss it with you first. I don't quite understand why you did it. It is obvious that the "article is not about Sartre or Foucault", but that doesn't mean they can't be mentioned. In fact, they are already mentioned, and that's one of the reasons why I cited them when mentioning Deleuze's atheism: both were relevant in Deleuze's life (Sartre for being an inspiration and Foucault for being a friend and writing partner). Also, I think information that is lose, uncontextualized, out-of-the-blue, is not very encyclopaedical. We shouldn't write an article mentionend facts like "Deleuze was X, Deleuze was Y, Deleuze was Z", like "Deleuze was an atheist". It's better to contextualize and write introductions to new topics or pieces of information, which I did before presenting his atheism.
After looking at your user page, a thought came to me: does your removal have anything to do with the fact you have conservative views and doesn't want atheism to be publicised and talked about freely and as equally as religious beliefs, particularly Christian ones ? What I mean is that what I stated in the article is a fact, I have evidence for it, and, considering its relevance, I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article apart from your personal opinion that it shouldn't. Clausgroi (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

In an article that is not about Sartre or Foucault, there is a limit to how much information about Sartre or Foucault should be provided. Unless Sartre or Foucault encouraged Deleuze to become an atheist, the fact of their atheism is quite irrelevant in an article about Deleuze; including it simply makes the article stray from its actual subject. There is a difference between useful context and information that is simply off-topic; Sartre's and Foucault's atheism counts as the former only if one can demonstrate how it is relevant to Deleuze's atheism. Your comments about me personally are ill-advised and irrelevant; I won't respond to them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why Sartre's and Foucault's atheism must have necessarily and directly influenced Deleuze's in order for them to be mentioned. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't, but that's not the point. The point is that, in that context, their atheism might be considered very relevant for the simple fact that both philosophers had some kind of relation to Deleuze and were already mentioned some lines above. Read the "Life" section and try to notice how it makes total sense to note that Deleuze was an atheist just like the other two academics that have just been refered to some sentences before, both of whom were his contemporaries, compatriots and fellows of profession. Regarding my question, I really meant it: you should ask yourself if what I said isn't at least somewhat true. And bear in mind that rejecting consideration about a proposition and labelling it "ill-advised and irrelevant" are not clever ways to deal with it. Clausgroi (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Your arguments could be used as an excuse for mentioning any amount of information about Sartre and Foucault in the Deleuze article. If "their atheism might be considered very relevant for the simple fact that both philosophers had some kind of relation to Deleuze", then you could put literally anything about them in the article, which would then turn into an article about Sartre, Foucault, and Deleuze simultaneously. Please do try to remember that the article is meant to be about Deleuze, not atheism in general. Perhaps you would do better to edit Atheism rather than Gilles Deleuze, as that appears to be where your interests really are? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, I couldn't put literally anything about them, and I haven't even implied that at any moment. What I did imply was that anything that Sartre, Foucault and Deleuze have in common and is not obvious deserves mention. That wouldn't include, for instance, the fact that all three had two arms and two legs because that's obvious and silly, but it would include the fact that all three went to the same school or all three collected stamps. Something like that would be relevant enough to at least earn a citation.

Yes, the article is about Deleuze, not about atheism, and that's pretty obvious. You're the one who's implying I'm trying to force atheism into the article, which I'm not, I'm only stating facts, whether you like them or not (and in this case, the facts are that all three were atheists). And this leads me back to my original question: maybe you are the one who is obsessed about atheism, but from a negative perspective, that is, you want to cover it up, pretend that it wasn't massively common among philosophers, scientists and academics in general. So your thought might have been "Ok, he's got evidence that Deleuze was an atheist, I can't remove that from the article. But I can remove mentions to Sartre's and Foucault's atheism if I give the excuse that they're off topic, even though both of them are already mentioned in the article as having some relation to Deleuze and have something in common with him". And to be honest, I've never even read the Atheism article, nor have I ever edited it, unlike you. Clausgroi (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that maybe this discussion is a waste of your time and mine, and that my talk page isn't even the right place for it? Your comment that I implied that you were "trying to force atheism into the article" is absolutely bizarre, and certainly has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm not even sure what your comment is supposed to mean. The problem, obviously, was that you inserted off-topic material. That Sartre and Foucault are "mentioned in the article as having some relation to Deleuze and have something in common with him" does not make the fact of their atheism any less off-topic. Rather than try to explain rationally why their atheism is relevant in an article about Deleuze, you engage in some amateur psychoanalysis of me, which really is a form of personal abuse. Can you find nothing better to do with your time? Like perhaps reading WP:AGF, which gives good advice not to behave the way you are behaving? It really doesn't help harmonious editing when editors attribute weird, insulting, made-up motives to other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You make it seem like I'm doing this for pleasure, like I enjoy coming here to have this silly discussion with you, and it's clearly not the case. I came here and started the discussion on your talk page because the subject concerned you and me. Now that we've discussed it and haven't come to a conclusion, I guess the next step would be talking about it in the article discussion page. As I surely have something better to do with my time and want to end this soon, that's exactly what I'm going to do. Feel free to go there and present your arguments for other editors to decide who is right. If they decide it's you, I'll happilly back off this discussion and leave the article as you last edited it. Cheers. Clausgroi (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you are the one who wants to make the addition, it's up to you to make a case for it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you've edited George Santayana in the past. I'd be interested in your opinion. See User talk:Rothorpe#George Santayana. We've been discussing a recent edit, and we agree that it was not a good one. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Language, Truth, and Logic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meaning. 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) 08:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you removed my lead on the anarcho-capitalist page for "editorializing". I've provided evidence for my edits on the talk page and was hoping you could provide some input. I won't repost my edit, I want to have a reasonable discussion without being labeled a "retard" again. Sorry if this isn't correct wikipedia etiquette posting on your talk page. Im not so certain about the rules. Jp16103 (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Crucible, The Trial of Cyric the Mad (D&D novel).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) 17:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Elminster in Hell.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) 02:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Elminster in Myth Drannor (D&D novel).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) 02:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Elminster Must Die (D&D novel).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) 02:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Elminster's Daughter (D&D novel).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) 02:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Elminster, the Making of a Mage (D&D novel).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) 02:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In "An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology" (1992) by Pierre Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant it is acknowledged in footnote 18 on page 229 that "Bourdieu draws on the work of logician Peter F. Strawson (1959) to ground his relational conception of social space and of the epistemological status of individuals in it". Is this sufficient evidence? Thanks. Kodak400 (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is sufficient evidence. I have self-reverted. By the way, you should remember to sign your posts. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

I manage a project at the Richard Dawkins Foundation in which my team and I made a "Ultimate Collection for Richard Dawkins": https://wakelet.com/@RichardDawkins, which aims to bundle together everything from the web about Richard Dawkins, so all his articles or those about him, videos, talks etc. (additionally to Wikipedia where people get information, on there they can get content). We've started to expand to other scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox (not yet public) and are also in the process of expanding Richard's profile (a lot is not yet public).

SO: I'm here on Wikipedia to ask people if they want to join in on the project, either Richard's profile or help out on others. I hope you agree that this is a cool project :D

Thanks a lot, please email me at [email protected]

Best regards from Austria and sorry for the off-topic post,

Mario — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario1812 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, just so you are aware, Mario1812 was spamming that message across dozens of user talk pages, seemingly picked at random - several of them hadn't edited in years. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Redrose64, I am well aware that it is a spam post. Why would you assume, however, that its content is of no interest to me? I happen to have some interest in Richard Dawkins and his article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

~The Great Wiki Lord

Hi. Just so you know, you should sign your comments by typing four tildes (four ~). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Critique of Pure Tolerance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tolerance. 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) 11:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Night Masks (D&D novel).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) 02:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, here is a list of Forgotten Realms novels that need covers, if you still want to finish up with this:

Baldur's Gate

Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn

Baldur's Gate II: The Throne of Bhaal

Canticle

The Chaos Curse

Charon's Claw

City of Torment

Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad

Crusade

Crypt of the Shadowking

Darkvision

Dawn of Night

Dragonwall

Elminster – The Making of a Mage

Elminster Enraged

Elminster in Myth Drannor

Elminster Must Die

Elminster's Daughter

Exile

The Fallen Fortress

Farthest Reach

The Floodgate

Forsaken House

Gauntlgrym

The Ghost King

Homeland

Horselords

In Sylvan Shadows

The Last Threshold

Lies of Light

The Lone Drow

Lord of Stormweather

The Magehound

Night Masks

The Pirate King

Pool of Radiance

Prince of Lies

The Sea Devil's Eye

Shadowdale

The Shattered Mask

The Siege

Tantras

Temple Hill

The Temptation of Elminster

The Two Swords

Waterdeep

Whisper of Waves

The Wizardwar

BOZ (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll try to provide pictures for those articles sometime in the near future. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic work! If you wanted to add covers to Prince of Lies, Shadowdale, Tantras, The Temptation of Elminster, and Waterdeep, it looks like those have been restored. If not, I understand. Thanks for continuing to provide covers despite a bit of a dispute from other users. BOZ (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work, as always! Thank you. BOZ (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I know we didn't get off to a great start when I joined and we disagreed about some of the "preventing" homosexuality books and cat. But, as a creator of a number of books which you've added pics to, I'd just like to say  Thank you very much! AusLondonder (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. If there are any more articles you want illustrated, I'd be willing to see what I can do to help. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have created a couple of other book articles

see here. Appreciate your help. AusLondonder (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've provided pictures for all the book articles you have started recently except for one, which I'm going to do in a moment. Let me know if there are any specific articles I've missed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that, I really appreciate it! Definitely improves the articles. AusLondonder (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to impose, but if you do ever have time, a couple of others I've done need covers. I know you might not be able to find/do all:

• The House by The Thames
• Bedlam: London and its mad
• City of Sin: London and its vices
• Tideline (book)
• Riot City: Protest and Rebellion in the Capital
• London Under
• Speak for Britain: A new history of the Labour Party
• Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights

AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done one. The others should follow soon enough. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you find the lead too long, please selectively remove what you consider least important. Do not indiscriminately destroy. I have asked you to name a single work of Heidegger's you have read in full. You were unable to reply. Please do not destroy content above your head. I am open to collaboration, I am not open to destruction by someone without familiarity with the author. Show some respect. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please consider what you're saying. To revert your edits does not "destroy" anything - the content is still there in previous versions of the article in case anyone wants to restore some of it. Some of it may, indeed, be useful material, but that does not mean it belongs in the lead; it should be placed somewhere else in the article. I am never going to respond to your questions about how much Heidegger I have read, because I consider them an obvious example of game-playing behavior: they're an attempt to provoke me. I won't respond to provocation. Make your case for your edits on the talk page and stop the personal abuse. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Learn your own policies, pleb. WP: DONTREVERT specifically bans the use of outright reverts for non-vandalism, when some of the content could be preserved. I will be asking for a lifetime ban, since you are destroying content and filling up philosophy articles with falsehoods acquired during your ill-digested education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B41C:FFAB:7400:41D8:830B:2573 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone reading this, WP:DONTREVERT is part of an essay, not a policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevvin (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you have linking the two? I'm quite poor in linking socks. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have been following Kingshowman's edits carefully, it's not at all difficult to detect them. The edit followed on from previous edits by Kingshowman's socks at Sigmund Freud. Even the username is something of a giveaway - and he's just effectively admitted to being a sock, for heaven's sake. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You'd be amazed how dense I can be with this kind of thing... I did notice enough that I reverted him on Sigmund Freud. Just wanted to avoid WP:ABF. Jim1138 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Thanks for providing insight and input to the ANI thread, and for making sure that the sock got blocked. I wanted to reach out to you and apologize for the inadvertent confusion and delay that I caused; I responded before I saw your edit that provided the diff to that self-admission (haha, really?) and I delayed action with what you were correct in asserting from the beginning. It's a pleasure to meet you, and I'm glad that the ANI resulted in a positive ending :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note Oshwah; I understand that you were acting in good faith. I'm just pleased the issue has been sorted out now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

May I say that when mentioning that you appear to be the principal contributor in the making of the article[[2], that is not intended as a reproach, but as a grateful acknowledgment, in recognition of the service to the project which such diligent work offers. It just happens that I have belatedly noticed that it is blemished by the use "The" in giving the book's title, and I suspect that it is the source of (or reinforces) the error found elsewhere, where websites copy Wikipedia without acknowledgment. Qexigator (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will give up copy-editing the c**p English in this article. There are plenty of other WP articles that need help. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for crossness. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Dragons of Eden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Skoyles. 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) 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Being and Nothingness (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) 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not add garbage, gibberish, subjective opinions, and other nonsense to articles, as you did at Yoruba religion. — kwami (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You warn me? Really, Kwami? As I said, continuing edit warring after a recent block for such behavior is not a good idea. Try discussing the issue on the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I warn you. My block was inappropriate, as everyone commenting on it noted. You however are currently screwing up the article. It is also inappropriate to remove fix-up tags. The lead is gibberish: Yoruba religion is the religion of the Yoruba? Really? Why not define the Yoruba people as the people who are Yoruba, or Nigeria as the country whose capital is the capital of Nigeria? Any reason you insist on tautological gibberish? — kwami (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your vulgarity. My talk page isn't the place for this discussion anyway. If you have anything to say, say on the article's talk page, not here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please....do whatever you can to improve that article.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, improving that article is honestly not high on my list of priorities, but I may take another look later and see what I can do. If you're concerned about POV issues, I suggest that simply attributing views to their authors instead of putting them in Wikipedia's voice would do much to improve things. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Great Mother, first edition.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) 04:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Great Mother, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Mother. 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) 11:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Pointless" is not very friendly, wikilove word...--Doltoto (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Twilight Falling.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) 11:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind adding a book cover to Twilight Falling? BOZ (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think "was better before" the correct caption style is otherwise. Afterwriting (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Afterwriting, is there any special reason why you need to be quite so rude? Or why you cannot direct me to the relevant guideline? For what it's worth, I've just looked through several biographical articles, and in none of them does the caption identify the person who took the photo, as opposed to the person shown in the photo. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I missed The Vilhon Reach - would you mind adding a cover to that one? Thanks! BOZ (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to the detailing of The Shame and Disgrace of Colonel Blimp? You mention WP:EL but that doesn't seem to be a relevant reason for removing it -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Provide me with a link to the edit to which you object. Otherwise I cannot comment. Wikipedia contains many links that are inappropriate under WP:EL, and I do what I can to remove them - which usually provokes no objections. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Dragon's Crown (D&D module).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) 18:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sexual orientation change efforts 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 get 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. Closedmouth (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you warn the other guy? He is the one trying to press through a change - removing content - without any consensus or agreement? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you. As an admin, do you have any comment on the BLP issues involved? I don't expect you to settle everything, but some kind of outside opinion would be welcome. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Five Nations (D&D 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The description of S. as an "academic" thinker is obv. faulty. It must be a slip of the pen. 1. S. was all BUT an ac. one and it's commonly known; 2. also, it shows clearly from the context of the quote.

Regards, AlterBerg (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to make assumptions about what is a slip of the pen and what is not. If there is uncertainty over whether "academic" or "non-academic" applies, it may be best to use neither and simply call Sartre a thinker. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No assumptions, and no uncertainty about that. Btw. I ask myself who are you to continue to push through the same version regardless of, well, "disagreement". AlterBerg (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your saying that you are certain means nothing to me. If you cannot get agreement to change the article, the result will simply be that it will be restored to the previous version. I have suggested a slightly modified version as an alternative; if you cannot accept that, then the previous version will be restored. See WP:BRD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If your level of some general knowledge about philosophy would be as impressive as your bigmouth, then the article would have a chance of becoming a halfways decent one. Regards, AlterBerg (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What a pointless, foolish statement. I have no idea what you think you are accomplishing here, or what you hope to gain by insulting me. Did it not occur to you that it might worsen, rather than improve, matters? Perhaps you should quit Wikipedia if you cannot refrain from compulsively insulting strangers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, bumped into the "owner". Let's get on-topic then. Tell me, at which universities did Sartre teach again? AlterBerg (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeated posting of nonsense to my talk page could potentially be considered harassment. Stop doing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear lack of a community consensus for the wholsesale removals of "In popular culture" sections. When dispuited, these must be discussed on the article talk page just like any other edit. Please do not revert again without a consensus to do so. Also, you would be advised to read and understand WP:HARASSMENT. BMK (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I revert one or two of your edits and suddenly I am guilty of harassment? Am I to be allowed ever to revert any of your edits, Beyond My Ken, or is that now by definition harassment? If, conversely, you revert my edits (many or only a few of them) why would that not be harassment? Is there a double standard here? I really thought you would be above this kind of behavior. Perhaps you had better simply accept that this is Wikipedia, that at times your edits will be reverted by me or other users, and live with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not extend my pardon to you. Please read, in particular WP:Harassment#Wikihounding, which I will quote here:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Please note that this is a policy, and is therefore mandatory. Please be sure that your behavior is consonant with this rule. Thanks. BMK (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You are wasting my time and yours by posting such nonsense here. I am not guilty of harassing you. Take it to ANI if you disagree - and explain to the nice admins your rationale for edit warring at that article. I am interested what their response will be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#‎Age of lead images-- Moxy (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D&DLava children.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) 18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:BalCoder has removed an entire section "PR in the broader family of voting systems" from the Proportional Representation article without reaching consensus. The arbitrary removal of this thoroughly sourced material (which was not created by me) is a blatant act of vandalism. If you wish to revert back to an earlier version of the WP article in order to maintain the state of the article while it is in dispute, please consider reverting to an earlier version which included this section, rather than reverting to BalCoder's altered version.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello FreeKnowledgeCreator,

We have temporarily reverted back to a neutral older version of the article prior to BalCoder's highly disputed changes. As this content is under dispute, please do not reinsert BalCoder's controversial changes to the WP article. BalCoder's changes include the removal of the the section "PR in the broader family of voting systems" (which was not created by me) as well as several other politically motivated POV paragraphs.

The classification of voting systems BalCoder is trying to remove has been thoroughly sourced. Please visit the Electoral Reform Society of the UK for more information.^[1] This is just one of several sources BalCoder is alarmingly ignoring in these disputed edits.

Thank you,Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Swastika 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:

• * ''whirling logs'' (Navajo (native american): can denote abundance, prosperity, healing, and luck .<ref>{{cite web|url=
• Swastika Society Tai Po Secondary School and Hong Kong Red Swastika Society Tuen Mun Primary School]) and one in Singapore ([[Red Swastika School]]). All of them incorporated the Swastika in their

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Christina Hoff Sommers 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 get 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. BusterD (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are the same editor I reverted at Christina Hoff Sommers, then you should also be warning yourself. I note that while the warning above has the name "BusterD" in it, the warning was not actually placed by that user, but by XGustaX. Should you really be warning me in the name of another user, XGustaX? I don't think so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

With regards to these titles, there was a consensus established several years ago. The majority of those still linked in the master list are fine as we found sources, but there is nothing for these miscellaneous titles, hence they fail on the lack of notability. Asgardian (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Where was the consensus established? Does it apply to each and every one of the articles you turned into a redirect? Where is the evidence that there is still consensus now to redirect the articles? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There was and is no consensus. Asgardian is just a "lone wolf" vandal who likes to wreck pages. Please ignore him.87.115.70.17 (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with 100% of my edits, please explain why you disagree with each and every one of them on the talk page. If you have no reason for 100% of them, then only roll back those you have a reason for disagreeing with. Do you like apples (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No. As I noted on the talk page, if you insist on combining major, controversial changes to the article with minor and uncontroversial edits, then very likely all of your edits will be reverted. The best approach would be to first make only minor and uncontroversial edits. After make the minor edits first, then you could try to get consensus for any larger changes on the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't combined major and minor changes. I did them separately. Do you like apples (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

When you reverted the user who rolled back your edits, of course you combined major and minor changes. You should not have done so. You are edit warring against multiple users, and if you keep that up, then there is a predictable way this is going to end. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

He rolled back major and minor changes, he should not have done that. Nor should you be doing it. Let's move this to the article talk page. Do you like apples (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No matter what you believe another user should or should not have done, that does not make it right for you to immediately restore your changes after they were reverted. Persistently edit warring against multiple users is not a way to get your changes accepted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in your analysis of me as an editor. Please focus on content and not me. Do you like apples (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If you edit disruptively, you can expect to have your behaviour criticized. Other editors are also likely to note that you are editing disruptively, and it doesn't matter that you are not "interested" in this, as some of them have the power to block you for it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your criticisms have been duly noted. Now please focus on the content. Do you like apples (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you have placed a suspicion on the user's page. Please would you make a report to WP:SPI? Fiddle Faddle 20:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Pointless, because the user is blocked now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually not. It ensures that this is all linked together. Fiddle Faddle 21:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the outcome. You can pursue the matter further if you wish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone knows what a puff piece this is, it's you: I only continued what you started. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just that I embrace the old-fashioned point of view that editors ought to give an intelligible, rational, valid reason for the edits they make. A proper edit summary is one that does not leave other editors having to guess why the edit was made. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought "blah blah" was pretty apt. I don't disagree with you on the principle though--by the same token, I believe that editors should not add or reinstate unverified and promotional material to BLPs, since that's a violation of various policies. But that's just me, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You could add to the "In popular culture" section of your "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" article: In the Ace Venture Pet Detective movie "When Nature Calls", actor Jim Carey briefly impersonates William Shatner. During the scene in which he was flying to Africa, Carey frantically looks out his window then turns to the man next to him and impersonating Shatner says "There's something on the wing ... some ... thing!

Ddeninger (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, no one owns articles. So the article is no more mine that in its yours. Personally I do not wish to add content to an article without an appropriate source. You might want to add something if you can find an appropriate citation however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be wiling to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Little Boxes#In popular culture? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I came across that dispute before, and considered commenting. Beyond My Ken has accused me of following him from article to article in order to harass him, however, so I'm somewhat reluctant to become involved in yet another BMK-related discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your reservations. FWIW, I would stand up for you regardless of whatever opinion you chose to express on the matter, provided you did so in a civil manner that didn't violate any policies. DonIago (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Myth of National Defense.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) 19:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Prince of Lies (D&D novel).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) 18:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Shadowdale (D&D novel).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) 18:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Tantras (D&D novel).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) 18:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Waterdeep (D&D novel).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) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) I was working on the article The Logic of Scientific Discovery which has taken on a renewed significance with the controversial material on black swan. I added the content to the article's talk page. You were correct in removing it from the Reception section. I am considering putting it back into the new section I created on Popper and Carnap. I did not want to be misunderstood as an editing conflict. Thanks.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Somebody keeps reverting my correction in the introduction. Albert Einstein was a German-born American physicist. He was born in Germany, hence the German born part. An American citizen born in another country is a (country of borth) born American. His U.S. citizenship is even included in this very WP article under the title "U.S. Citizenship." I don't get the resistance to facts. NapoleonX (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually multiple editors have reverted your change now. You should be discussing it on the talk page and trying to get consensus, instead of making the same change over and over. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "David Irving". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 February 2016.

The request for formal mediation concerning David Irving, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

I make an edit and explain why it was done, and then it get's reverted because apparently I didn't explain why it was done. How is Liberalism a political philosophy? This doesn't make any sense. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I could use your endorsement of my proposed edit for the Engels article, if you're so inclined. Please bring friends. Aspencork (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, there's been a mistake here. I have not endorsed anyone's edits, or proposed edits, and don't intend to. I simply asked for an explanation of an edit that someone made - I never said it was a good or bad edit. As for, "Please bring friends", no. You need to read WP:MEATPUPPET. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Related and FYI: you are mentioned here. --JBL (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, you just passed 3RR on Christina Hoff Summers. I'm don't believe your claim that the difference between 'some' and 'most' is a BLP concern that gets exemption from 3RR, so please self revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing "some" to "most" violates BLP if there are no sources to show that "most" is correct. "Most" seems to be made-up opinion, unacceptable as such. I regret it if 3RR was violated, but why would you ask me to restore something I consider a BLP violation? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As to A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years: Revision history, thank you so. 'Twas mighty qweek. Please return any time. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

added a link pointing to John Kerr

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis

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)

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)

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)

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

added links pointing to A priori and Christian Wolff

Sexual Preference (book)

added a link pointing to Post hoc

The Homosexual Matrix

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

		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)

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)

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)

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

Thanks for uploading File:The Society of the Spectacle (original 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. Safiel (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed your edit that changed my revert (influenced versus exerted a massive influence). I agree "exerted a massive influence" is not ideal; but neither is the bare "influenced". WP:Peacock does not necessarily fit in this case—I think the bare "ifluenced" is WP:Weasel (see the Infobox "Influenced" list in all its ramifications). I hope you will try to find a "synthesis" phrase—I'll try also. — Neonorange (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Massive influence" does seem like language intended to praise the article subject. "Influence" can and should be qualified, but rather than adding a peacock term like "massive", I think it would be better to give readers some idea of specifically how Marx has been influential. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Emergence of Probability.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) 12:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Subjects of Desire.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) 12:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see that the phrasing as you have written it contains an imprecise 'he.' The nominative subject of the previous clause is the work, not Heidegger. So your rendering has an improper pronoun case shift, shifting from accusative to nominative from the first to second clause. While no one will be confused as to who the 'he' is, it is conceptually imprecise and stylistically undesirable. See Strunk and White page 11 for more on this. So I am going to restore the previous two-sentence version, which avoids both of these problems. Please tell me if you see a specific problem with this rendering. CCS81 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Humorously, I note that my response above contains its own pronoun error, with a 'who' that should be a 'whom.' English grammar is brutally difficult! Anyway, I hope that you see my point about the wording and that we can find a rendering with which we are both happy. CCS81 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for setting me straight, CCS81. I've taken your advice to heart, and made changes to a number of articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that helped. You are all over my watch list doing great work, so keep it up! Best, CCS81 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You might want to comment here. I only included the last 4 reverts. You might want to mention that this has been ongoing. Skyerise (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me - I have just commented, though. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator. You commented on this article before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Cziko Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, however, I have no recollection of having commented on that article at any time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Blibdoolpoolp.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) 02:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Almost diametrically opposed. As to the existential pychoanalysis, to which you probably seem to refer qua B&N, it was rather Bachelard and Stekel who really did influence Sartre. AlterBerg (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to the most recent (2005) edition of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. In his article on Sartre, Thomas Baldwin comments, of Being and Nothingness: "In the last part of the book Sartre develops this theme in a rich and detailed elucidation of the purposive structures of psychological explanations. Two aspects of this account are specially worthy of notice. The first concerns Sartre's attitude to Freud. In an early section of the book Sartre launches a well-known critique of Freud's theory of the unconscious which is motivated by Sartre's claim that consciousness is essentially self-consciousness. Sartre also argues here that Freud's theory of repression is internally flawed, but this argument is based on a misunderstanding of Freud. What is of more interest, however, is Sartre's attempt, towards the end of the book, to adapt some of Freud's ideas to his own account of human life, and thereby to develop an 'existential psychoanalysis' in which Freud's causal categories are replaced by Sartre's own teleological ones.'" So yes, Sartre was influenced by Freud. That is well-known, and easy to support with reliable sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

All these books are also called The Order of Things. Are you going to include all of them at the beginning of the article on Foucault's book? If not why make an exception of the Kipfer book? That Kipfer's book has a wiki article is not enough of a justification. So allow me to remove the unnecessary reference to Kipfer's book. Thanks. -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article about Kipfer's book. Your question as to whether I would mention the other books is irrelevant; no Wikipedia articles exist about those books. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Freeknowledgecreator. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.