User talk:ImprovingWiki - Knowledge (XXG)

2282:

which is not from Kant but from 20th century philosophy ("An intelligent man..."); and since the reference given for the paragraph is Russell, who is not an authority on what was thought before Kant's time. What you need is an historical introduction - like the one I tried to provide - and then a gentle introduction of the topic, which I also tried. I would prefer it if you would discuss your changes with me before deleting them, since in that way we might reach some consensus. I am perplexed how I am to go about editing this article from now on, and would like your feedback. Please excuse formatting errors, since I am new to this, but you did not merely correct these. (

2174:(hi Maunus) to be applying. I just wanted to invite you to explain this a bit more as at this stage I am not on board. You seem to suggest that in order for an editor to suggest that particular material should be removed, that editor must first test the appropriateness of all other material in the article. Or at least all other comparable material in the article. To me this seems to be both an impractical burden to place on editors (that is a lot of work for an editor to do every time he or she spots something suspect), and an unnecessary burden (almost always it the merit of content can be discussed on a case by case basis). 492:

observations about her departure from her previous content was both fair and objective. You may disagree but deleting my edit is not the appropriate way to handle it. A discussion on that page would have been more appropriate. That you had the nerve to post on my user page Thank You as though you were being polite is a laugh. I realize my opinions are not politically correct, but I was careful not to be either mean spirited, vulgar or offensive in any way. Unless my thoughts are offensive. If that is the case, free speech and tolerance are dead, and wikiapedia is the shovel being used to bury them. I do hope I am mistaken.

2070: 2427: 3673: 1645:

pie. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using loaded words; for example, "John said he did not eat the pie." Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source).'

3931: 3879: 3827: 3775: 3615: 3563: 3511: 3459: 3305: 3249: 3193: 3137: 3081: 3025: 2933: 2877: 2821: 2765: 2709: 2653: 2597: 2541: 2349: 1941: 3365: 1383: 829: 2245:

properly in the Edit Summary - does this mean I should redo them and add an explanation? Or should I rest happy with your verdict on my corrections? I ask politely, since I am new to wikipedia editing, and I am confused how it all works. If you could let me know what you think, as well as how I go about editing this page from now on, I would be very grateful. Thank you, froggie213 (

519: 762: 2464: 3948:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3896:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3844:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3792:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3632:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3580:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3528:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3476:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3324:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3268:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3212:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3156:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3100:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 3044:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 2952:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 2896:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 2840:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 2784:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 2728:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 2672:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 2616:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 2560:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 2368:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 597: 1144:(which it might as well do given you are generally the rule and not the exception), feel free to remove anything I post. But if the information I post is reliable, comes from a meritorious source, and is valuable for the purposes of who understanding who Goethe was and what he believed, than you have no business at all editing anything I post. 1981: 1649:

subject? The chain of disciplic succession cannot be proved nor disproved neither historically nor scientifically. Religious articles in Knowledge (XXG) are intended to present the beliefs of the adherents (regardless of ridicule by others). Therefore different guidelines apply compared to articles on verifiable mundane topics.

1635:(please excuse my little pun, I couldn't stop myself) You undid one of my edits that was made in the spirit of removing bias in religious articles. Now, at the risk of sounding like I'm trying to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs, perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of (taken directly from WP:NPOV) this: 2298:

The article may well need drastic improvement, but making the lead much longer is not the right way to go about it. I'm afraid the likely consequence of making the lead as long as you want it to be is that no one will bother to read it. Thank you for explaining what you see the problems with the lead

1660:

In fact, I've given up attempting to correct the many discrepancies in ISKCON related articles because it seems a pointless endeavour - folk outside of ISKCON persist in promoting their biased POV and win out in the end. It makes Knowledge (XXG) a joke. I believe it will never be taken seriously as a

1143:

It is also out of your (or for that matter Gothean's) jurisdiction to edit or revert anyone's contribution because you "disagree" with it; you do not have any authority to remove information you don't want to be portrayed. If you invented Knowledge (XXG) and have listed it as a site promoting atheism

970:

I am amazed that you said I gave "no reason" for reverting his revert when you explicitly read my reply to Gothean explaining why his reason for reverting what I posted was factually incorrect and showed an ignorance of the historical method. Earlier accounts are always more reliable than later one's

2314:

I set down what I thought was a rough description of the premises of Kant's position, but realised that it needed to be broken up into sections, and expanded upon, which I intended to do at a later date. I guess this is what the sandbox is for - drawing up a text which you post when you're satisfied

1412:

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

1248:

It does not matter what you want to do, because if you're going to revert someones contribution than you'd better be ready to defend that view. The reason given for editing my contribution was explicitly about the historical method, so if you're going to use that pretext (it is clear that the actual

1008:

That's because there was not enough room to explain why the User who reverted why I wrote was factually incorrect, but I did do so on his own TalkPage, which you clearly saw, so you were dishonest when you said that I did not do so. What I've added to Goethe's religious views is valuable information

858:

1900:

Hello ImprovingWiki: There is currently a section open concerning the "crazed editor" phenomenon on the User:Bishonen Talk page titled "Third time around at Freud". User:Bishonen is presently taking reports concerning one editor in particular who has been needlessly taking up an excessive amount of

1720:

BOZ, I have no special skill in finding images. The two book covers that I uploaded were found through Google Images, and believe me, it takes no unusual abilities to do that. I sincerely doubt that I would be able to find images that you would be unable to find, for example. Respectfully, I am not

1656:

In my opinion incidences like this are an example of the lack of objectivity that pervades edit warring on spiritual and religious articles and highlight the improbability that Knowledge (XXG) will ever achieve credibility on noumenal topics that are beyond the realm of scientific provability. WP's

1648:

I perceived that the use of the quoted "claims" illustrated bias (insinuating that the 'claim' is false) in respect of the Knowledge (XXG) article about ISKCON in reference to the Sampradaya that it descends from. Surely this is a matter for ISKCON to decide - who else is a better authority on this

1206:

do not. Tell me what is more reliable, accounts of what Hitler said or did in 1948 or 1999? Obviously it doesn't take a genius to know that later accounts are embellishments and and its best to look at those in 1948. Goethean fail to undrestand that very simple principle of history, and so do you.

1205:

Please look at the paragraphs of writing that you explicitly ignored before we arrived at the point that we are at now. You are as ignorant as Goethean as in on this matter and you should quit giving the pretense that you understand anything about Goethe or history, which is patently clear that you

1644:

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Knowledge (XXG), but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word "claim" is an expression of doubt; when used as in "John claimed he had not eaten the pie", it can imply he had in fact eaten the

1540:

For what it's worth, I think you're wrong about Freud and Reich. Of course they were atheists. The category of Jewish Atheist is well-established - W. even has a Userbox for it (it's on my page). Unique among Western religions, you are a Jew no matter what you believe or practice. You can become a

1287:

Asking you to defend your views is drivel? That is expressly mandated by Knowledge (XXG)'s editing policy. Do not worry about what I do with my free-time; if you do not want to put in the time and energy to propagate your new atheist agenda to the world than do not attempt to edit or expunge other

1047:

Perhaps I am just frustrated by much of the New Atheist dishonesty and fabrication that so pervades our society, and especially Knowledge (XXG), so I apologize for being unduly critical of your actions. I have given a reason now, so I hope that you will allow the valuable information from a famous

2281:

Hi, I notice you have taken out everything which I wrote yesterday and find this hard to understand. This article needs drastic improvement, and the first section is confused since it implies that before Kant the term "analytic" was in currency; since it gives an example of an "analytic" sentence

2181:

a particularly onerous one for me. I would have had to investigate the appropriateness of all other 'further reading' items before removing the obviously inappropriate ones. Instead, I think it is important that I was able to say "I haven't assessed the other content, but that does not change the

2047:

Was looking at your user page and found the "Banned users" section amusing. In the same paragraph you bemoan the fact that only administrators have access to "that valuable information", yet you (as acting administrator of the saved copy) will only condider access "on a case-by-case basis". Funny

1592:

how to structure the article. I think your bright-line rule, of no reference to criticism in the summary section, is much too broad. In my editorial judgment, that depends on the book, and on what reliable sources say about the book. But I will be glad to hear your point of view and that of other

2265:

might have been improvements, and if so, I apologize for reverting them. I have not yet had time to review all your edits at that article carefully, but I do note, looking at your recent edits there, that some of your changes, including formatting, are incorrect. I have corrected the formatting.

1845:

Contested? It's sourced, you're the one that edit wars to avoid something which presumably does not agree with your opinion being in teh article. Information is not subject to editors' vetoes, when the talk page is used to exclude certain information it is because the quality of such sources is

491:

On Jan 25 I attempted to post content on Daina Gabldon's page that you disagree with. It was not vandalism. I am a huge fan of hers and would not vandalize her page. However, I nearly bought the entire Lord John Series when I found a deal on it. Fortunately I started with the first one. My

1139:

You cannot give a reason for why you disagree with me; only pretexts to hide the information that I posted, because you do not want anyone to think that Goethe was a Christian, even though such claims are corroborated by earlier and more reliable accounts. It is because of people like you that

2244:

I noticed your corrections or reversions of my attempt to edit the page on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It is not that I mind you reverting my additions, but I am keen to point out that I do not understand what happens if I am not totally happy with them. Some of my edits I did not explain

1140:

Knowledge (XXG) is regarded as a joke in the extant academy, and why teachers in universities and secondary schools alike refuse to accept it as a citation; you only have an interest in portraying your very distorted, infinitely biased, and atheistic view of history. Goethe would be appalled.

1190:

Capital letters? Really? In my experience, the only people who write messages in capital letters - which comes across as shouting - are those worried that their message can't genuinely be convincing. In any case, I do have a valid reason for reverting you, which is that your edits don't have

568:

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

1031:

I'm not interested in arguing with people who spuriously accuse of me of dishonesty. When I said you gave no reason for your revert, I meant that you gave no reason in your edit summary, which indeed you did not. You would do better to take any further comments to the article's talk page.

1962:

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

1069:

What would you like to have an agreement about? You wanted a reason for the edit and I gave a logically coherent one. What else is bothering you with what I've written other than the fact that it doesn't portray Goethe as a vitriolic atheist opposed to the core tenets of Christianity?

1652:

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

2132:. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged 1117:

Okay, it is clear to me that you have no interest in defending your actions, rather merely to silence me. In that case, please tell me who I can report your account to? I do not believe you should be in a position to edit other peoples contributions.

923: 971:

with reference to a particular person or event because they are less corrupted by later fabrications and additions. This is a very common fact, and I will happily further elaborate if you are still confused as to why I reverted his undue.

2326:, where he cites a letter Kant sent to Moses Mendelssohn in 1783, and another one to Christian Garve in the same year. We could therefore either refer the reader to Kemp Smith, or to the letters themselves. Which do you think is better? ( 1741:, I just wanted to say thank you for all the work you did on D&D images this week - I never expected you would do so many, so your efforts are greatly appreciated! In my opinion, you definitely live up to your username. :) 1009:

that, above all, contains truth and is well-documented unlike the New Atheist, propaganda driven historiography that largely permeates Knowledge (XXG). You are only doing the website a disservice by hiding that information.

2209:

Kant's aim isn't to explain the "relationship between reason and human experience" but his aim is to explain the relationship between mind in general (including the reason, the understanding, and the sensibility) and human

1228:

Sorry, there seems to have been a misunderstanding here. I'm not interested at all in arguing with you about historical method, or anything else, for that matter. You have failed to make a convincing case for your edits at

1901:

time from other editors on the Freud page. If you have a chance to visit the Bishonen Talk page, any short drop-in comment you might make on your experience with that other editor might help future long-term issues.

1545:. Spinoza was definitely an atheist (he was thrown out of the Jewish community by the Jews of Amsterdam), but he remains a Jew, which the Amsterdam people would have said too. See the Jewish categories he's in. 1271:

What have we here? More pompous drivel, with a personal attack, too. You could be blocked just for that, even without your edit warring. Have you no outlet for your time and energy other than Knowledge (XXG)?

803:

Oosh, if you want to leave a template on my talk page, try one that makes sense. I've looked at your edit history, and it seems that you haven't reverted even one of my edits. Care to explain yourself?

699: 694: 685: 678: 1158:

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO UNDUE OTHER PEOPLES CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT A VALID REASON. YOU CANNOT ENFORCE YOUR OWN POLICY'S AND MANDATE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT AMONG EXTREMELY BIASED EDITORS. PLEASE STOP.

2136:. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 1819:

I do have arguments. I stated them on the article's talk page. You, by trying to restore contested material after another editor removed, are the one who is behaving disruptively. Your edits at

1360: 2403: 1792:

If you have no arguments to remove something, then don't revert. Saying that there's "not enough consensus" for something and demanding widespread agreement in talk page for every change is

2261:

Froggie213, if there are disagreements over the content of an article, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss them on the article's talk page. Some of your changes to the article on the

1947: 1916:

Thank you for notifying me. However, I am not sure that there is anything I can usefully say there. I might reconsider later and comment, but at the moment I'm not sure I want to do that.

2299:

as being. You may be perfectly right that the use of the term "analytic" is misleading. Problems like that could and should be fixed without making the article's lead unreasonably long.

1191:

consensus. If you had bothered to read Goethean's edit summaries, you would have noticed that his reasons for reverting you were valid, too. Your childish response will not help you.

30: 1233:, and as such I disagree with them. Since you don't have support for your edits there, they will be reverted. That's how it works at Knowledge (XXG). Too bad if you don't like it. 3372: 3358: 1549:

Freud and Reich may have been Jews in an ethnic or cultural sense, but that obviously does not make "Judaism" categories applicable to them. Your comments only muddy the issue.

2081: 1249:

reason you're removing it is because you're a Christopher Hitchens-worshipping, Richard Dawkins-idoling new atheist fanatic) than you'd better be ready to defend that view.

2431: 605: 608:

useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the

172: 1488:

Do it yourself. Was the edit warring template placed on my talk page just because I reverted you, or was there some other, perhaps better reason for it? Do explain.

540: 3468: 2182:

fact that this particular content should be removed" (paraphrased, of course). Does that make sense? Anyway, I will be interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers

34: 1872:, as you should know perfectly well. You are as or more guilty of edit warring as I am and are in no position to lecture me. You should be discussing at the 657:, as they were a "vandalism only account" that had been warned and was "hot". They were thereafter blocked, which at least for now puts an end to their 1606: 216: 3960: 3908: 3856: 3804: 3734: 3644: 3592: 3540: 3488: 3428: 3336: 3280: 3224: 3168: 3112: 3056: 2964: 2908: 2852: 2796: 2740: 2684: 2628: 2572: 2380: 726:, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. 2133: 2095: 1429: 875: 3407: 993:

You gave no reason in your edit summary. It's considered appropriate to do that, and failure to do it can be one reason for reverting an edit.

3836: 2513: 2113: 2229:

Feel free to revert me if you wish. I only reverted you because you used no edit summary. Giving an edit summary in future would be helpful.

2832: 465: 67:

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the

212: 399: 3940: 3572: 2776: 1295: 1256: 1213: 1165: 1125: 1098: 1077: 1055: 1016: 978: 770: 3888: 443: 190: 1612:

I replied on the talk page. You could also try encouraging the IP that was editing the article to discuss matters on the talk page.

635: 342: 3738: 3432: 2121: 1421: 867: 271: 194: 2888: 2608: 1342: 3713: 3624: 3260: 64: 2944: 377: 372: 321: 1437: 919: 883: 526: 303: 262: 131: 123: 3148: 2360: 3944:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3892:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3840:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3788:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3784: 3726: 3684: 3680: 3666: 3662: 3628:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3576:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3524:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3472:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3420: 3376: 3354: 3320:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3264:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3208:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3152:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3096:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3040:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2948:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2892:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2836:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2780:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2724:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2668:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2612:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2556:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2501: 2364:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2101: 2085: 1441: 887: 457: 308: 228: 140: 3384:

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

2315:

with it - except that then no one else gets to comment on it whilst you are producing it. Maybe I should try this method?

1756:

Thank you. I should note, though, that I do not think I will be uploading more Dungeons and Dragons images any time soon.

1602: 3949: 3897: 3845: 3793: 3730: 3633: 3581: 3529: 3477: 3424: 3325: 3269: 3213: 3157: 3101: 3045: 3036: 2953: 2897: 2841: 2785: 2729: 2673: 2617: 2561: 2369: 2117: 439: 333: 325: 245: 241: 224: 203: 836: 774: 631: 2472: 2129: 1400: 1048:

scientific study conducted by one of the greatest psychometricians in the 20th Century to remain unedited. Thank you.

846: 421: 381: 267: 2552: 2017: 2720: 2125: 1657:

flip-flopping guidelines completely fall apart to the point of being ridiculous when it comes to esoteric "facts".

394: 390: 250: 207: 3444: 1598: 1580: 1230: 937: 666: 2664: 2487: 2483: 2479: 350: 232: 199: 3316: 2167:. I would reply there but the conversation seems to have moved on a bit and I didn't want to interrupt the flow. 1589: 2109: 1433: 1405: 1394: 879: 851: 840: 653:, etc. and reverted some of the inappropriate work of a vandal. FWIW, I warned them, and also reported them to 346: 337: 117: 113: 3520: 3204: 1593:

editors laid out in more detail than an edit summary permits on the article talk page. See you on the wiki. --

612:. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. — 452: 448: 403: 3092: 1804:, which can only be removed when there is something wrong with the sources or another source contradicts it. 2318:

By the way, I have discovered a reference for the statement that Kant spent four to five months writing the

2262: 2104:

is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means

2013: 2009: 1448:

You made an edit; I reverted it; grow up and deal with it. I'm prepared to discuss things on the talk page.

1361:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_25#Category:Critique_of_the_basis_of_psychiatry

1299: 1260: 1217: 1169: 1129: 1102: 1091:

I don't know how to post on the talk page without editing it. How am I going to have a conversation there?

1081: 1059: 1020: 982: 1291: 1252: 1209: 1161: 1121: 1094: 1073: 1051: 1012: 974: 275: 237: 58: 2411: 2149: 1432:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

1390: 1368: 878:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

619: 579: 539: 497: 78: 42: 3742: 3436: 2449: 1581:

Let's discuss the edits to the article on the book A Troublesome Inheritance on that article's talk page.

1425: 922:. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - 871: 429: 425: 316: 299: 258: 167: 3440: 2213:

We are using the understanding to decide what is beautiful and the reason to decide what is sublime.--

2139:

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

2089: 1594: 927: 898:

recent edits to that page. So please spare me the over-aggressive templating, Oosh, or whoever you are.

662: 546: 2105: 1868:

It's never enough for material simply to be sourced. It has to be used in a way that is in accord with

918:

Hi ImprovingWiki. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the

493: 312: 109: 1770:

No problem - I figured you were done, so that's why I was thanking you now. I truly do appreciate it!

723: 716: 3760: 3344: 2331: 2327: 2287: 2283: 2250: 2246: 2164: 1906: 1666: 3454:

Orphaned non-free image File:A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, German edition.jpg

1311: 778: 609: 435: 368: 1310:

If you cared in the slightest about Knowledge (XXG)'s editing policy, you would have taken note of

558: 127: 2445: 2300: 2267: 2230: 2187: 2108:

administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the

2028: 1964: 1917: 1877: 1828: 1757: 1738: 1722: 1703: 1613: 1570: 1550: 1489: 1449: 1323: 1273: 1234: 1192: 1033: 994: 899: 805: 1688:! If you were interested and willing to do some more, I could compile a list of needed images? 461: 2988: 1541:

Muslim, but you're still a Jew. It's by birth (or conversion, which Jews don't make easy). See

3750: 3709: 3403: 2407: 2388: 2170:

The comments i am thinking of are your ones you made around the double standard you perceived

2145: 1364: 614: 574: 550: 530: 73: 68: 1869: 1824: 1106: 1085: 1063: 1024: 986: 781:. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 386: 254: 162: 2507: 2218: 2171: 2053: 1993: 1681: 1519: 1471: 743: 650: 562: 3696: 3390: 2752: 2497: 1797: 1319: 1315: 654: 158: 136: 3968: 3916: 3864: 3812: 3756: 3652: 3600: 3548: 3496: 3340: 3288: 3236: 3232: 3176: 3120: 3064: 2972: 2916: 2860: 2804: 2748: 2692: 2521: 1950:

has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the

1902: 1662: 1350: 661:. Keep up the good work. Happy editing If I can be of assistance, please let me know. 50: 3945: 3893: 3841: 3789: 3629: 3577: 3525: 3473: 3321: 3265: 3209: 3153: 3097: 3041: 2949: 2893: 2837: 2781: 2725: 2669: 2613: 2557: 2365: 510: 3012: 777:

because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the

3008: 1851: 1809: 1409: 924:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination)

855: 793: 782: 3695:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

3389:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

3180: 2069: 2500:. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may 2441: 2202: 2183: 2178: 1775: 1746: 1711: 1693: 1566: 957: 2482:

that was created to violate Knowledge (XXG) policy. Note that multiple accounts are

700:

Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

2384: 1685: 601: 71:

field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!

1956:

template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

1588:

That's an inspiring user name you have there. Let's discuss at the talk page for

1420:

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

1417:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 866:

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

863:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 3822:

Orphaned non-free image File:The Confusions of Young Törless, German edition.jpg

2636: 2580: 2214: 2049: 1989: 1706:, please let me know if you are interested in helping out with that, thank you. 1515: 1467: 727: 2163:

Hi ImprovingWiki. I just wanted to follow up on some comments you made over in

1382: 828: 518: 3964: 3912: 3860: 3808: 3648: 3596: 3544: 3492: 3284: 3228: 3172: 3116: 3060: 2968: 2912: 2856: 2814:

Orphaned non-free image File:The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World.jpg

2800: 2744: 2688: 2517: 1346: 2177:

As an example, if the principal you suggest were in place it would have made

3972: 3920: 3868: 3816: 3764: 3656: 3604: 3552: 3500: 3469:

File:A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, German edition.jpg

3448: 3348: 3292: 3124: 3068: 3004: 2976: 2920: 2864: 2808: 2696: 2640: 2584: 2525: 2415: 2392: 2335: 2308: 2291: 2275: 2254: 2238: 2222: 2191: 2153: 2057: 2036: 2021: 1997: 1972: 1925: 1910: 1885: 1873: 1855: 1847: 1836: 1820: 1813: 1805: 1779: 1765: 1750: 1730: 1715: 1697: 1670: 1621: 1574: 1558: 1523: 1497: 1475: 1457: 1372: 1354: 1331: 1303: 1281: 1264: 1242: 1221: 1200: 1173: 1133: 1041: 1002: 960: 943: 907: 813: 797: 789: 766: 750: 709: 706: 670: 639: 625: 585: 554: 501: 84: 3926:

Orphaned non-free image File:Studies on Marx and Hegel (French edition).jpg

3558:

Orphaned non-free image File:Difference and Repetition (French edition).gif

1514:

You are free to respond to my comments on the talk page any time you like.

2758:

Orphaned non-free image File:Nietzsche and Philosophy (French edition).jpg

1800:

is no justification. The fact is that Knowledge (XXG) is written based on

3874:

Orphaned non-free image File:From Hegel to Nietzsche (German edition).jpg

1771: 1742: 1707: 1689: 658: 3749:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

2434:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

1796:. If you're not willing to argue this out, then simply don't revert it. 822:

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

761: 596: 2463: 1542: 63: 1345:

hasn't listed at cfd for some reason (TW should do it automatically).

2987: 2632: 2576: 2322:(see footnotes 5 & 6 of the article) - it is Norman Kemp Smith's 2870:

Orphaned non-free image File:The Accursed Share (French edition).jpg

2590:

Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Marxism, a critical analysis.jpg

3610:

Orphaned non-free image File:Discourse, Figure (French edition).png

3242:

Orphaned non-free image File:The Social Construction of Reality.jpg

2421:

For Commenting on his SPI of yours, he's accused me of wikihounding

2926:

Orphaned non-free image File:The Great Mother (German edition).jpg

787:

You should know better than to engage an IP editor troll in a war.

57:

on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to

686:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

679:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

1565:

I disagree with you and I think many other Jews would as well.

1408:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 854:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 722:

Hello ImprovingWiki. I am just letting you know that I deleted

3770:

Orphaned non-free image File:Paedophilia, The Radical Case.jpg

2458: 2404:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/FreeKnowledgeCreator

1935: 1466:

Quite, feel free to comment on the talk page at your leisure.

690:

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

286: 96: 24: 3929: 3877: 3825: 3773: 3671: 3613: 3561: 3509: 3457: 3363: 3303: 3247: 3191: 3135: 3079: 3023: 2931: 2875: 2819: 2763: 2707: 2651: 2595: 2539: 2347: 1381: 1318:, where I shall suggest that you be blocked, in accord with 827: 684:

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of

517: 3018:

Orphaned non-free image File:The Whole Lesbian Sex Book.jpg

3837:

File:The Confusions of Young Törless, German edition.jpg

2534:

Orphaned non-free image File:Philosophy in a New Key.jpg

37:

to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out

3737:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

3719:

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing

3431:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

3413:

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing

2702:

Orphaned non-free image File:The Emperor's New Mind.jpg

2496:, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban 1399:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

1314:, which you obviously have not. I'll be taking this to 954: 845:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

769:. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of 3702:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

3396:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

3279: