Please finish the conversation on Ayn Rand's talk page on rejected vs. opposed, or I will assume you no longer care about the issue and change one of the instances of 'rejected' to 'opposed'. Michipedian (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Michipedian. Is there any other trivia you want to argue about with me? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Only a polite reminder of WP:OWN. Michipedian (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your proposed changes to the wording of the article did not get agreement on the talk page, Michipedian. I still do not agree with them, and there is no reason I would not revert them if you were to make them. I do not have to argue the issue with you endlessly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Two people of the three in the discussion supported some kind of change to the wording. Michipedian (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Michipedian, the problem with your proposed change is that "rejected" and "opposed" do not necessarily mean the same thing. So your change amounts to an unexplained and unjustified change of meaning. "Opposed" suggests a much stronger anti-religious position than "rejected", and I do not believe that it is accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

How is that not accurate, and how is it accurate for collectivism and statism, as the current lead suggests? I'm not trying to argue trivia with you, I'm serious about your argument not making sense, to me at least. Michipedian (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Collectivism and statism are not the same things as faith and religion. There is no reason at all why "opposed" could not be accurate to describe Rand's position toward collectivism and statism but inaccurate to describe her position on faith and religion. It is your arguments that do not make sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously that situation is conceivable, but in the case of Ayn Rand specifically, if you're saying that opposed is stronger than rejected, then the most accurate use of the term opposed would describe her stance on altruism, even more so than socialism and collectivism. I would be happy with changing rejected altruism to opposed altruism, which seems consistent with your logic. Michipedian (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I think you are simply wrong about this. I've already explained my reasons for not supporting "opposed" as a description of Rand's position toward altruism on the article's talk page, and it is not clear to me why you expect me to go over the issue again. Maybe you should find something else to do? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet you have not explained why the term is appropriate for collectivism and statism, which the current lead suggests. Please respond to that point. Why is it OK to use the term opposed for Rand's stance on collectivism and statism (not conceivably acceptable, but in fact acceptable)? Michipedian (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't you rather argue with me about the contents of my user page? It's really much more interesting than this tedious discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You evade that point because you know that's where your argument breaks down. Please respond to the question. Why is it OK to use the term opposed for Rand's stance on collectivism and statism (not conceivably acceptable, but in fact acceptable)? Michipedian (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I'm declining to respond to you because this discussion is fucking boring and you are being obnoxious by trying to endlessly prolong it in the hopes of getting your way. Hence, my suggested change in the subject of discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider it obnoxious to want to bring a logical conclusion to a discussion. I apologize for coming across that way, I will try to be more civil in my manner. Why is it OK to use the term opposed for Rand's stance on collectivism and statism (not conceivably acceptable, but in fact acceptable)? Michipedian (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take the issue to Talk:Ayn Rand instead of bothering me here with your boring crap? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your language seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia discussion, FreeKnowledgeCreator. I will return to the talk page with it, but if you do not engage with my questions, I will assume you no longer care about the issue, and I will go ahead and change rejected altruism to opposed altruism. Michipedian (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, your assumption is wrong. I reserve the right to revert unproductive changes made without agreement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have made quite clear in my comment on the talk page that the change is not unproductive. If you disagree, I look forward to your correspondence on the talk page. Michipedian (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] undoing edit with edit summary containing WP:BLP violation - don't do that

BLP applies to article context. Elsewhere I can express whatever opinion I have. Although I do agree that my remark was rather useless for the purposes of Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, not only to article content. So please do not violate WP:BLP in edit summaries, as you could potentially be blocked for that. By all means contact an administrator to get their view of this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I stay corrected. I was not aware of this relatively new (2013) extension. Still, I have already agreed that my comment was out of line, i.e., as the policy says now, "not related to making content choices". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, wishing you all the best for Christmas and New Year, and thank you for everything you've done this year making articles better. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you might be right here; I can't verify, initially at least, what exactly she meant by this term. -Darouet (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sexual Preference (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page After the Ball (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry for not having given explanations to the edit, I've done it now: basically, these sources are valid, but none of them speaks of an "influence". I keep the most valid, which speaks firstly of the relations between Schmitt, Jünger and Eliade. Guénon is mentionned, but not as an "influence". Anupamakk (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I was about to nominate it myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble. I'll be posting at the AfD shortly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Julie Bindel. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep restoring obvious BLP violations - restoring BLP-violating categories that are only going to be deleted - and you will find yourself the one in hot water, Andy Dingley. I seem to recall having read that upholding BLP takes priority... FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone reviewing this discussion should also see WP:3RRBLP: "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy", one of which is, "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2018 (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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John C. Loehlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Murray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please have some respect and discuss on my talk page instead of simply reverting an edit you disagree with. 70.114.211.80 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You should have respected other editors by taking the issue to the talk page immediately after you were reverted. You will not get your way by edit warring. Telling others to "respect" you while behaving toward others with a lack of respect is futile at best. Incidentally, you have now violated WP:3RR despite being previously warned that doing so was an offense for which you could potentially be blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to "get my way". I am simply trying, as my previous edits (additions and removals) show, simply trying to make Wikipedia better. The person who wanted to revert my change should have taken the issue to the talk page. 70.114.211.80 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits at Classical music are not making Wikipedia better. That is why they were reverted. You can believe that, "The person who wanted to revert my change should have taken the issue to the talk page", but you are wrong. That is not how things work here. If you want to change an article it is up to you to establish a consensus for your change. See WP:BRD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Your edits at Classical music are not making Wikipedia better. That is why they were reverted." That is your opinion, not a fact. My edit to the "Classical music" page was definitely not vandalism. The page should really be called "Western classical music", and the "Classical music" page should be a disambiguation page, with a list of different kinds of classical music. I will request a page move. As you can see from all of my edits, I tend to be relatively unbiased and I am very much into all kinds of music, so I would never vandalize the WP page of an artist even if I didn't care for their music. I could be doing lots of other things, but I thought it was worth my time to edit WP so people can understand music better. I did not know about that WP policy wrt changing an article, so thanks for letting me know about it. 70.114.211.80 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying Tagalog grammar is the grammar of Tagalog, and the Tagalog language is the language spoken in Tagalog, is not useful for readers. Anyone literate enough to read the article knows what "grammar" is, and per the MOS the lead to an article is not the place to define the words in the title. And anyone who doesn't know what Tagalog is is not going to know what the Tagolog region is either. You might be able to reword the lead to make it a better intro to the topic, but tautological definitions are not the way to do it. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. It is perfectly possible to have a very basic ability to read English, and still not actually know what grammar is. A child or an uneducated person might not know what grammar is, for example. A statement such as "Tagalog grammar is the body of rules that describe the structure of expressions in the Tagalog language" would by no means be self-evident to all readers and would be useful and informative for some of them. I also see no violation of WP:MOS. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If someone doesn't know what 'grammar' is, they can look it up. That's how we normally handle such things, per DICT. And if they do need to look it up, they're going to need to look up half the words in the article anyway, so it's not making the article inaccessible. They're also most likely to be coming to this article from the main Tagalog article, so they won't need a definition of Tagalog either. And even if they did, saying it's the language of Tagalog is of absolutely no help. So the lead is just a paragraph of gobbledygook instead of a useful intro to the topic. It's not quite as bad as saying "X Y is the Y of X", but it's close. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That is another disingenuous response. The lead of the article, in your preferred version, reads "In Tagalog, there are eight basic parts of speech: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions and particles. Tagalog is a slightly inflected language. Pronouns are inflected for number; and verbs, for focus, aspect and voice." There isn't even a direct mention of grammar, so someone who does not know what grammar is will not be encouraged to look it up or know how to do so, in the absence of a link to the Grammar article. Furthermore, it is ill-advised to make assumptions about how someone reading the article will or will not reach it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if I am doing this right, but I want to contact you about an edit re Jonathan Dollimore - am I in the right place? And is this a private or a public communication. Apologies but I'm newish to this. Skodajag (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Skodajag. This is my talk page, so yes, you can contact me here. The communication is public inasmuch as anyone with an internet connection can potentially see it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I am Jonathan Dollimore. Years ago now someone wrongly described me as a sociologist somewhere on the internet, and it's got duplicated all over the place. I'm definitely not a sociologist! But I do have a first class honours degree in philosophy, (Keele, 1984) and all of the half dozen or so books I've published are philosophical, among other things. That's why I was trying to correct the Wiki entry, but it was reverted. Advice on how I might correct the entry would be gratefully received. Skodajag (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Skodajag, and for explaining who you are. I see no reason not to accept your claim that you are not a sociologist. I am not going to argue with you about whether you are a philosopher or not, as that would be presumptuous and pointless. However, I feel I should remind you that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and the principle of verifiability. See WP:VERIFY, which states that "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". In this case, I believe that means that the claim that you are a philosopher requires a published reliable source stating that you are a philosopher. Rather than discussing the issue further on my talk page, it would be preferable to discuss it at Talk:Jonathan Dollimore, and present relevant sources there. You may also wish to review WP:BLPHELP, which is a page providing people with Wikipedia articles about them with information about how to get help in dealing with those articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/academics-tell-all-tale-omits-day-job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skodajag (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that article. It describes you as a "social theorist and philosopher", but presumably it simply copied that description from past versions of your Wikipedia article. See WP:CIRCULAR and WP:CITOGEN. Per Template:Circular reporting, if a "source is quoting material first published in Wikipedia" ... "this is a situation of circular reporting or "citogenesis", and the cited sentence can not be verified from the source". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I give up. It's hardly important in the scheme of things Skodajag (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Skodajag (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

'ts why I always check my edits. And go slower thereby. Shenme (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the error. You could have done so yourself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated Dirty Dancing for a good article reassessment here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the good article criteria. Thank you. Slightlymad 10:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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 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.

Although you didn't bother to sign your post, Staszek Lem, anyone can see that you are engaged in a revert war yourself. You violated Wikipedia's norms by restoring a bold edit, and for a frivolous reason, too. See WP:BRD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

OK we both were a bit edgy, sorry. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If you were really "sorry", you could revert yourself, which would show that you don't want to force your edits through despite disagreement from other editors, which is exactly the kind of behavior that WP:BRD is meant to discourage. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

OK next time I will be "really sorry". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello FreeKnowledgeCreator,

I’m Irvin from PhilWiki Community, a member of the Communication Committee of the ESEAP Conference. ESEAP Conference 2018 is a regional conference for Wikimedia communities throughout the ESEAP region: ESEAP stands for East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific. Taking place in Bali, Indonesia on 5–6 May 2018, this is the first regional conference for these Wikimedia communities.

East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific are the most under-represented regions within the Wikimedia community. There is a significant number of Wikimedia contributors in our regions, yet we continue to struggle in establishing a well-managed community. This conference will bring participants from various ESEAP communities together in order to better understand the issues and to look for solutions. It also aims to connect people of the Wikimedia movement within ESEAP regions, to share ideas, and to build regional collaborations that are impossible to achieve through online communication.

We’ve got a lot of participation from several countries, but we’re lacking from your country. As we need more participants from your country, we believe that your contribution and participation would be a valuable asset to the success of this event. If you would like to participate in the conference, please do fill the form as soon as possible (by April 5, 2018) and we’ll inform you if you get selected for the conference.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon. --Filipinayzd 01:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don;t do this. You know full well that when material is disputed, you need a consensus to restore it, and that you do not have a consensus to do so. The 3O opinion went against you. So, please, don't stir up trouble unnecessarily. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why you would say the third opinion went against me. It explicitly noted that the "and implement" wording was uncited. Please explain yourself on the talk page. It is useless to try to have a discussion here, as this is not the right place for it. I will note, though, that your comment "when material is disputed, you need a consensus to restore it" is strange, as I did not restore anything; I removed something. You were the one who restored something - without consensus and in violation of WP:VERIFY. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just stop, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop what, Beyond My Ken? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've restored a modified version of the statement about Camille Paglia claiming to be transgender, and added an additional source. Since I'm not sure if you're still following this article, but you did participate in the discussion, I thought I'd let you know in case you want to make your case against it, or if you wanted to add to it with sources that disagree or are critical of her claim. —Memotype::T 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Why? Why did you remove the entry I made? In the paragraph immediatly preceding it, there is someone who says "being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory. Publishing dissenting theories is important when they are backed by plausible evidence". That is precisely what I published: a study that backs up a dissident claim. I just don't understand why there is people who don't want to see it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.173.247.237 (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this is in regards to the reverted edit on the page about Catharine MacKinnon. I hope that you might consider these facts and undo your revert. Upon first reading the article, it sort of sounded like the administrative assistant was Catharine MacKinnon. It seemed like including the person's name makes that section read more clearly. More importantly, books that discuss MacKinnon's work often also discuss Carmita Wood in depth, [2] which I believe indicates she is closely tied to MacKinnon. Additionally, I believe Carmita Wood is notable of her own accord. Her case is the first one mentioned on this page. Discussion about her [3][4][5][6][7] I am planning on creating a Wikipedia article about Carmita Wood soon, and I thought it was worthwhile to place her name in some of the events she is notable for.

Lonehexagon (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Lonehexagon. Thank you for your explanation. Revert my edit yourself if you wish. I won't revert back, and I have no further interest in this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I made a few edits to Ayn Rand’s page which you seem to have reverted. While I can understand the reversion of my edits stating that Rand was an atheist, I do not see why it is necessary to revert that she was known for her political and philosophical views. --Векочел (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Векочел. I think in Rand's case it should be clear that her political views are part of her philosophical views. Saying that she was known for "her political and philosophical views" implies a false separation between the two. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sexual Desire (book) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Who are some people you would list among the greatest geniuses in human history? AndrewOne (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, AndrewOne. In principle, I think your question is completely inappropriate, since Wikipedia is not a social network, but a project to create an encyclopedia, and your question has no relevance to working on an encyclopedia. I should advise you that if you keep on asking random questions of random users, you would be risking a block for disruption. In addition to being inappropriate, your question also seems pointlessly open-ended - how many people, after all, do you expect me to list, and exactly what criteria should I use to determine who qualifies as a genius? Would you have me include borderline cases, that is, people who might arguably qualify as geniuses but would not be universally regarded that way? I am going to give you an answer that may seem both completely subjective, in that it is based simply on personal opinion, and also self-serving. I believe that the philosopher of science Clark Glymour is an unsung genius whose work needs to be better appreciated, and you can see my user page for why I think that. If this answer is dissatisfying, then perhaps that shows the misguided nature of your question? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Sexual Desire (book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sexual Desire (book) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Help add image the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.116.102.56.175 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really have no idea how to find an appropriate image for that article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You access [8].116.102.56.175 (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I said an appropriate image. I have no idea of the copyright status of that image, so I can't add it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC).

You specify an author name.116.102.56.175 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wasting your time here. I can't add that image. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Views on homosexuality, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The article mentions the opinion of one member of the British Board of Deputies. That is not what the Lead you keep restoring states. Fullstop or no. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss the article Mein Kampf on the article's talk page, not on my talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy to if there's a general editing issue, but this is an issue with your interpretation. Nevertheless, I'll do it there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please justify the statement that he advocated ghosts and telepathy on the talk page for the article if you want to include it.73.202.195.146 (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

the source that I've added clearly states what I've written. Moreover, there is a paragraph in Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman (not written by me) discussing this. I think my edit is politically neutral and not potentially libellous.--Fabrizioberloco (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Fabrizioberloco. Please discuss the article Noam Chomsky on its talk page, not on my talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there FKC. I wonder could you take a look at this new editor's User page and Talk page? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I just saw you note there about possible sockpuppet activity. What's the background exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Martinevans123. The background is that for some time now, I have been engaged in a dispute at the article Hans-Hermann Hoppe with a series of IP addresses that all geolocate to Oregon. I suspect that these IP addresses are all being used by the same person, or, alternatively, that meatpuppetry is occurring. The IPs deny this. I started a sockpuppet investigation to try to determine the truth. Because its first act was to revert me at the Hoppe article, the Jimbreeman3 account may be related to the IPs. On the other hand, of course, it may have nothing to do with them at all. In any event, the account seems to be a vandal and troll based on its behavior (its first several edits were mainly reverts of the edits of other users; a likely sign it is just trying to get up people's noses and cause trouble for the sake of it). It will probably be blocked in the reasonably near future. It would be a good idea for someone to revert its edits, as few if any of them appear to be made in good faith. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for explaining. I'll keep an eye out. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I did explain my edit in the summary, and you didn't counter what I said in any substantive way. I see no problem with using the rather loaded term "holocaust denier" somewhere, but it strikes me as rather frenzied to want to call Irving a "holocaust denier" in the first sentence, as if it was an occupation, which it isn't, when the term is used three more times in the lead! I can't see anything on the Talk page about this, so will start a thread there. Moonraker (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Moonraker. Yes, you explained your edit in your edit summary. However, I still disagreed with you, and I reverted your edit. The issue is controversial and needs to be discussed on the talk page. There would have been no point in my trying to respond to your reasoning in an edit summary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why there would be no point, but indeed it's always a good idea to go to the talk page to see what consensus there is. I have started a thread, I expect you will add some thoughts there. Moonraker (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just in recognition of your long term and continuous efforts to improve Wikipedia. Greyjoy talk 09:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Frankenstein Authorship Question

Wickedjacob (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The RfC at Talk:Neo-Nazism was closed as there being a "clear consensus" to use "implement" in the lede, so your changing it to something else of your own choosing is a blatant example of violating WP:CONSENSUS. I have reverted your edit. If you change it again, I will bring the matter of your behavior to ANI, which will undoubtedly end up with a sanction against you. Please do not bring this on yourself, resist the temptation to change the language again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied on the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bill Paxton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Golden Bough 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 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. Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to understand BRD... Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have. You were bold in removing the material, you were reverted, and now you should be discussing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps you should re-read WP:BRD, it doesn't say what you think it does: Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. When in doubt, edit!... Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. A bold addition was made. It was reverted. The editor reinserted it without change or discussion. A second editor agreed that it was not an improvement and reverted it. You then reinserted it without change or discussion. It has been reverted and a discussion initiated. You have reinserted it... Neil S. Walker (talk)

No, it does say what I think it does, and you are the editor who now needs to go to the article's talk page and start discussing things. I see two editors in favor of the addition (me, and the editor who originally made it) and two opposed. You do not have numbers on your side. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And sorry for my clumsiness. Just came across that and it bugged me interminably (I have a lot of friends who are sex workers, and people like MacKinnon are influencers that result in them out on the street, in dangerous domestic situations, or, ironically, in brothels.)

And dodgy references in general, including published academic papers is becoming another bugbear of mine. I don't normally even try and make edits. Blaedd (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

What's wrong with my edit? You say it's not relevant. Why? Martin Ravallion in quite famous and his opinions deserve a paragraph, I think...more than Noam Chomsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrizioberloco (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Fabrizioberloco. Simply put, your edit restored content that was not about The Black Book of Communism, but rather was about a different book entirely. That being the case, the content in question is hardly appropriate to the article. You might argue that it is indirectly relevant, but even in that sense it has only the most marginal bearing on the article. WP:PROPORTION applies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have edited the page The First Three Minutes where you seem to be the main contributor. If there is something you don't like or want to change, please leave me a message. Thanks. Herbmuell (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you added cleanup tags saying some articles about books should be based on primary rather than secondary sources. I'm not sure I agree with your argument. It is limited what we can extract from a primary source. O ask as support for this position WP:Primary. RJFJR (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, RJFJR. I am an experienced editor with nearly a decade's worth of edits, and I have succeeded in getting three articles good article status. Based on that experience, I can tell you that basing a description of a book primarily on secondary sources discussing that book is not the way to write a good article. In general, so long as one has a sufficient grasp of what one reads, there is no difficulty at all in basing a description of a book on the book itself. Basing it on secondary sources involves the problem that the sources concerned may have their own bias on or perspective about the book that a neutral article should do everything possible to avoid, and it involves other potential problems as well - for example, what the secondary source says about the book may not even be accurate in some cases, and even if it is accurate as far as it goes, it may be incomplete or give a partial or perhaps inadvertently misleading perspective on the book. You need to keep carefully in mind what those templates are actually addressing. If you look carefully at them, you will see that they concern only the summary sections of articles, discussing the book's actual contents, and do not apply to the article as a whole; your comment that the tags say that "some articles about books should be based on primary rather than secondary sources" is incorrect, because it is only sections of articles that are involved. Obviously it is appropriate to use secondary sources to describe the reception of a book, but it is wrong to base the description of the book's actual contents on such sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, are you still working on Virtually Normal? I left some comments on the Talk page. Let's try to get this upgraded from Stub to Start class. Thanks for your work.AnaSoc (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, AnaSoc. Thanks for your comments. For the time being, I am more interested in working on other articles than on that particular article, but I hope to do more work on it in future. NB, you left two identical comments, I presume by mistake. I've removed the duplicate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator,

Regarding your reverts of the edits to the sexual orientation articles: could you please say which parts of the edits were confusing or unnecessary? The edits were factual, well-sourced, and fairly self-explanatory. How can these changes be implemented in a manner that is agreeable to you?

Hope you are having a nice day. Looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, --Justthefacts9 (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Justthefacts9. The first problem with your edits at those articles was that they were unexplained. Although articles can always be improved and it is a good idea to try, if you make changes without explanation to articles that have used a particular wording for a long time, those changes are quite likely to be undone for that reason alone. That's just a fact of life about Wikipedia that it pays to be aware of. In the case of your edit at Sexual orientation, I noted that it changed the meaning of several statements in the lead without explanation of why the changes increased the accuracy of the article. "Romantic and sexual" does not mean the same thing as "romantic or sexual", for example; those are phrases with significantly different meanings. If you want to make such changes, it is up to you to show that they are correct; otherwise they won't stand. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator. What parts of the edits should preferably be explained? Which of the changes are you agreeable to and which of the changes could be refined? Hope you have a nice day! Looking forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, --Justthefacts9 (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You should explain all of your changes at the relevant articles, but ideally not on my talk page, thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citations for info that only appears in the infobox. Toddst1 (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't only appear in the infobox. Stop making destructive and incompetent edits to the article The Sexual Brain. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with my edits, but you do have to stop reverting them. Toddst1 (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't. Your edits are crap, lower the quality of the article, and I will revert them when I can per this website's rules. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to own the article and you don't get to run me off. Toddst1 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverting incompetent and destructive edits is not article ownership. I don't have to refrain from reverting your crappy edits just to prove that I am not trying to own the article. Why am I not surprised that you didn't even address the point that the article is not actually written like an advertisement? Can't you admit it when you get something wrong? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, waiting to "I will revert them when I can per this website's rules" is pure WP:GAME. Thanks for making your intentions clear. Toddst1 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should discuss issues related to the article on its talk page like a nice editor? If you want to make the case that your edits are actually good, please do feel free. I'll be completely happy to accept your edits the moment you make a single edit that is any good. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, just why do I have to stop reverting your edits? If you're advising me not to violate the three revert rule, then I assure you I'm well aware of it. If you are suggesting that I cannot ever revert any edit you make at The Sexual Brain, then that's just weird. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Sexual Brain, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. As the primary editor of that article, you need to allow others to provide relevant tags without reflexive reversion as you did. Otherwise, you are guilty of WP:OWNership. Toddst1 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The "problem" was bullshit invented by you. There is no actual problem. You accused me of writing the article like an advertisement. No, I did not. I don't write articles that way. The lead of the article clearly mentions criticism of and negative reactions to the book ("However, some reviewers pointed out factual errors, and noted that LeVay failed to prove that homosexuality has a biological basis"). If the article were really written like an advertisement, it wouldn't do that. Don't waste my time with your crap. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone reading this exchange: I emphatically did give "a valid reason" for removing the template. The reason stated in the edit summary was simple: "The article is not written like an advertisement." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Sexual Brain 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 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. Toddst1 (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong again Toddst1. An "edit war" does not consist of reverting multiple separate changes to an article. It consists of multiple reverts of the same change. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Sexual Brain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Lawrencekhoo. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Ayn Rand, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! LK (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ayn Rand is not a living person. For you to invoke WP:BLP is therefore stupid. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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 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.

Please note that you may not perform more than 3 reverts on a page within a 24 hour period. Especially at biographies such as at Ayn Rand.

Also, note that WP:BRD is an essay and is not policy. Policy states that controversial information in a BLP should be immediately removed.

Thank you, LK (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You should have taken the issue to the talk page after you were reverted. Instead you initiated an edit war against me. Your template above is hypocritical. The article Ayn Rand is not a BLP, as already noted, so it is stupid of you to even mention the policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Freeknowledgecreator. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Worldbruce (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not sure what that was. My apologies. Editor2020 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, FKC! I know I don't say it in words often enough, but thank you again for all the cover work you do in the RPG area. There has been a lot of deletion-related activity in that area lately, so I am likely to take a break from working on Space Gamer for a bit and focus on other things. BOZ (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ. You're welcome; I always enjoy working in this area. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that I understand how frustrating it can be to have one's work undone (and the related time lost), I wanted sympathize about that. It's also not about you or your other work, but about that particular article and the encyclopedia with its aims. —PaleoNeonate – 02:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The AIDS War 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/The AIDS War until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

While I am on hiatus from tabletop RPGs, if you still wanted to add covers to existing articles, I could go through the list and see what is still needed. For example, Hillfolk, Adventures in Middle-earth, and Capes, Cowls & Villains Foul recently survived AFD, while Cthulhu Britannica is going to be merged but could bring a cover image with it, and Cursed Empire and several others are still open. I don't know how many other articles out there still need cover images, but I would be happy to take a look if you are interesting in seeing what you can do. BOZ (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I'll look soon and see what I can do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I started going through the list of RPG articles and picking out the games and supplements that still need covers. Not all of them may have appropriate images available, but do whatever you can. If at any time you want to stop permanently or temporarily, just say so! Starting with 9th Generation, 13th Age, 2300 AD, A Penny for My Thoughts, A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying, Abyss (Flying Buffalo), Advanced d20 Magic, Advanced Fighting Fantasy, Adventure Class Ships, Vol. I, Adventure Fold-Up Figures, Adventure! (role-playing game), Adventures in Fantasy. BOZ (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. As usual I'll look and see what I can do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Great work, thank you! I've given it some thought and I'm not trying to marathon through the whole alphabet, but I want to get through A at least for now and then come back later for B at some point. If you are up for more, you can take a look at Agone, Albedo (role-playing game), Aliens Adventure Game, All the Worlds' Monsters, Alma Mater (role-playing game), Amethyst RPG, Angel Roleplaying Game, Apocalypse World, Arcana Unearthed, Arcanis, Archaeron, Arduin Character Sheets Combined Pak when you get a chance. :) BOZ (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ. I'll see what I can do. As you noted above, there isn't always an appropriate image available, but likely I can find images for most of those articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) OK, here is the last part of "A", whenever you can get a chance to take a look at them: Arena of Khazan, Armageddon: 2089, Armageddon: The End Times, Armored Trooper VOTOMS: The Roleplaying Game, Army of Darkness Roleplaying Game, Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, Ashen Stars, Attack of the Humans, Authentic Thaumaturgy, Avengers Assembled!, Avengers Coast-to-Coast. BOZ (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. They're all done. I'd be happy to do more. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, no problem! This thread could get big so I will start a new one so this can archive. :) BOZ (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick. Some time ago, you suggested that I might wish to ping you if I needed help resolving copyright violations; I do. I've removed a considerable amount of content that I consider likely copyright violation, and I believe several articles I started - From the Acting to the Seeing, Metaphysical Disputations, That Nothing Is Known, and Logik (book) require deletion. I've requested that they be deleted on G7 grounds, but G12 likely also applies. I am choosing to ping you as I am finding it impossible to work with Justlettersandnumbers. I will continue to discuss copyright problems with you if you have no objection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator,

Could you please review my new entry Talk:Immanuel_Kant#Did_Kant_maintain_christianity?

Have a nice day

Dan Gluck (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Intention (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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! We continue into the letter B: Babylon 5 Roleplaying Game, BASH! (role-playing game), Batman Role-Playing Game, BattleDragons, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Battlestar Galactica Role Playing Game, Beastmaker Mountain, Behind Enemy Lines (role-playing game), Beneath Two Suns, Bifrost (role-playing game) BOZ (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Great. :) If you're ready for more, first of all we have Erdor (Monastyr already has one) and The Pool (game), and then moving on to the rest of the B's there are: Black Crusade (role-playing game), Blackwatch, Blades in the Dark, Blasted Land, Blood Dawn, Break In At Three Kilometer Island, Bubblegum Crisis (role-playing game), Buccaneer (role-playing game), Buffalo Castle, Bullwinkle and Rocky Role-Playing Party Game, By the Gods. BOZ (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! :) I will probably be starting back up with more new RPG articles either later this week, or next week, but if you want to continue on with more C covers for now, here is the first half: Cadillacs and Dinosaurs (role-playing game), Cardboard Heroes, Cassiopean Empire, Centauri Knights, Challengers (role-playing game), Character Chronicle Cards, Character Role Playing, Children of the Atom (supplement), Chivalry & Sorcery Sourcebook, Citybook VII: King's River Bridge, Claw Law BOZ (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey FKC, I see you are dealing with some issues right now, so no worries on this little project - get back to it later, if and whenever you are ready. In fact, conversely, if you need help with anything, just ask and I will see what I can do. BOZ (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. You are correct that I am "dealing with some issues right now". That doesn't mean I am going to stop uploading images. It simply means that it will happen more slowly than it otherwise might. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, no worries then, whatever pace you are comfortable working at, as always. :) BOZ (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've now uploaded images for all of those articles, in the cases where I was able to find appropriate images. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Next up, a slight detour into a handful of recently created/updated articles: Companion Pieces: Fantasy Furnishing, Phase VII, Aslan Mercenary Ships, A Campaign and Adventure Guidebook for Middle-earth BOZ (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added an image to all of those articles, in those cases in which I was able to find an appropriate image. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. :) First, there and Dice & Glory and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. Here is the rest of C, when you are ready: Clockwork Mage, Commando (role-playing game), The Complete Book of Wargames, Concrete Jungle (supplement), Creeks and Crawdads, Crime Fighter, Crimefighters, Crystal Barrier, Crystalicum, CthulhuTech, Cutthroat: The Shadow Wars. BOZ (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Great work as always! The selection I have for D is the longest yet, so if you are up for it you can take your time. First there is Nemesis (role-playing game), and then for D it starts with Dallas (role-playing game), Danger International, Dangerous Journeys, Daredevils (role-playing game), Dark Conspiracy, Dark Folk (Mayfair Games), Dawning Star, De Profundis (role-playing game), Deadly Power, Deathwatch (role-playing game), Degenesis. BOZ (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Whenever you are ready, the next batch of D articles is Deliria, Delta Force: America Strikes Back!, Deluxe City Campaign Set, Demon City Shinjuku Role-Playing Game, Demon Hunters Role Playing Game, Demon's Lair, Diaspora (role-playing game), Dimensions of Flight, Dinky Dungeons, Dinosaur Planet: Broncosaurus Rex, Diomin. BOZ (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! Here are more for D whenever you have time: Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple, Domination (role-playing game), Dominion Rules, Don't Look Back (role-playing game), Don't Rest Your Head, Donjon (role-playing game), Dračí doupě, Dragon Age (role-playing game), Dragon Ball Z: The Anime Adventure Game, Dragon Lords of Melniboné, Dragon Storm (game). Many start with "Dr"! :) BOZ (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The next portion of "D" whenever you want to pick up with them: Dragon's Hall, DragonMech, DragonRaid, Dragonroar, Dragons (Mayfair Games), Dragonstar, Dread (role-playing game), Dread: The First Book of Pandemonium, Dream Craft, Dream Park: The Roleplaying Game, The Dresden Files Roleplaying Game. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ. I've added images for all those articles, in those cases in which I was able to find appropriate images. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! To finish up with D whenever you are ready, there are Droids (role-playing game), Dune: Chronicles of the Imperium, Dungeon Drawings, Dungeon Floor Plans, Dungeon Floors, Dungeon of the Bear, Dungeon Tac Cards, Dungeon World, Dungeoneer (game), Durance (role-playing game), Dust Devils (game), Dwarves (Mayfair Games). BOZ (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, The Mountain Witch needs a cover, but Primetime Adventures already has one. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I will let this thread archive since it has gotten large, and start a new one for the letter E.  :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Since you haven't been notified and you're active at Ann Coulter. –dlthewave ☎ 11:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Time for a smaller letter!  :) Whenever you are ready, we need covers for Echoes of War: Thrillin' Heroics, Eclipse Phase, Eden: the Deceit, El-Hazard Role-Playing Game, Eldritch Role-Playing System, Element Masters, Elfquest (role-playing game), Elfs (role-playing game), Elven Banner, Elves (Mayfair Games). BOZ (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Allright, great! Whenever you are ready for the rest of "E", there are Empire of the Petal Throne, Enforcers (role-playing game), Espionage!, Eternal Soldier, Etherscope, Everway, Evil Ruins, Exodus (role-playing game), Expendables (role-playing game). BOZ (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Whenever you are ready, here is the first half of "F": Fantasy Squares Grid Sheets and Mapers Aid Template, Fantasy Wargaming, Fear Itself (role-playing game), Fez I: Valley of Trees, Fez I: Wizard's Vale, Fez II: The Contract, Fez III: Angry Wizard, Fez IV: Wizard's Revenge, Fez V: Wizard's Betrayal, Fez VI: Wizard's Dilemma, Fifth Cycle. BOZ (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

...to WP as an encyclopedia, if you would go to the Vulcan article, and reduce it to its sourced statements, leaving behind a tag indicating that even that material needs to be checked to source. This issue of near complete article WP:OR at that article has gone on for at least a half decade, and your attempt to keep new material out that is likewise WP:OR is a losing, rear-guard action, since >90% of the article is already WP:OR (or worse, plagiarism or fabrication). This trend at WP has to be checked, and it can only be addreseed by people with long histories of contribution here. 67.184.62.39 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, 67.184.62.39. I am flattered by your suggestion that I could solve the problems of the Vulcan (Star Trek) article. However, editing Star Trek-related articles is not a priority for me. If there is a major problem with original research at that article, you might want to start a discussion about it here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Continuing on F: Fez IV: Wizard's Revenge, Fez V: Wizard's Betrayal, Fez VI: Wizard's Dilemma, Fifth Cycle. BOZ (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) Whenever you are ready, the rest of F: Final Challenge, Firefly Role-Playing Game, Flash Gordon & the Warriors of Mongo, Flashing Blades, Foes (RuneQuest), Forgotten Futures, Freedom Fighters (role-playing game), Freeway Warrior, Fringeworthy, FTL:2448, Future Worlds. BOZ (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Jeremiah: The Roleplaying Game and Vehicular Basic Loads. BOZ (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

When you're ready for more, we can start at G: Gamer's Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Gangster!, Garden of the Plantmaster, Gatecrasher (role-playing game), Gear Krieg, Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (role-playing game), Ghosts In the Black, Ghoulash: The Last Game on Earth, Giants (Mayfair Games), Goblin Lake, Grimm (role-playing game). BOZ (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I recently added Spinoza to Freud's influences, and you suggested citations before adding that influence. Freud has scarcely mentioned Spinoza throughout his writings, only writing about him in 2 works, but I was re-reading Spinoza's Ethics part 3 and 4, and I came across Spinoza's assertion that dreams are the place where we act out the desires we would not even dare think in conscious life. That to me showed the beginnings of psychoanalytic dream interpretation. Aside from that, Spinoza's idea that desire is what pushes us to do anything is a very Freudian concept. Various peer reviewed articles have discussed the similarities between Freud and Spinoza, especially given that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were influenced by Spinoza, and Freud also was influenced by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. What do you think would be required before adding Spinoza to the influences of Freud? Xemplar (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, looking through the Spinoza page showed Freud as an influence. Xemplar (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Xemplar. The relevant policy is WP:VERIFY: any information you wish to add about influences on Freud needs to be properly cited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Freud and Philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi. FreeKnowledgeCreator! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I have noticed the great work you are doing at Eros and Civilization. Thank you, and keep it up! Airplaneman ✈ 00:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Airplaneman. The Eros and Civilization article is still very incomplete, as you can see. I do plan to do more work on it, but in order to make significant improvements I am going to have to carefully re-read Marcuse's book. At present, I'm more active on a different article, Freud and Philosophy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a very difficult topic for sure. I recently read Eros and Civilization, but unless I give it another read and do some additional research, I don't think I would be ready to contribute substantially either. I'll have to take a look at Freud and Philosophy; I'm not familiar with the work. Take care, Airplaneman ✈ 22:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

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) 15:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear FreeKwnoledgeCreator, I would like to discuss your recent intervention at Assumption of the Virgin (Carracci) where you reverted my previous edit where I had removed the paragraphs about the Roman painting. I did this to separate the two paintings, and I also created a new article about the Assumption of the Virgin (Cerasi Chapel) with a lot of well-sourced information. This was part of my ongoing project to develop the articles concerning the Basilica of Santa Maria del Popolo. Generally I think it is better to have separate articles about important artworks than dumping them under a common title, and a Prado stub has the potential to grow into a fully-fledged article. If you take a look at the paintings of Carracci listed in the template, all of them have their own articles (except these two) so I think my edit was consistent with the general practice and policies. Due to these reasons I would like to ask you to restore the previous version of the article. As for my incorrect grammar, English is not my first language but I think English-speaking users could easily correct one or two mistakes. Zello (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zello. Your edits at Assumption of the Virgin (Carracci) were clearly made in good faith, but they were nevertheless insufficiently careful. The text you added read, "Two painting showing the Assumption of the Virgin Mary by the Italian Baroque painter Annibale Carracci was completed in 1590 and is now the Museo del Prado in Madrid." The problem there is not one or two mistakes that can easily be corrected, but that the sentence, as it stands, is borderline incomprehensible. I am afraid that I cannot easily correct that sentence, as I am not entirely sure exactly what it is supposed to mean (a grammatically correct version might read, "Two paintings showing the Assumption of the Virgin Mary by the Italian Baroque painter Annibale Carracci were completed in 1590 and are now in the Museo del Prado in Madrid", but I am only guessing that this is exactly what was meant; could you clarify?). I am not going to restore text that is confused or unclear in meaning. I would suggest that you start a discussion on the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator, this was a simple blunder by me. I meant "A painting showing the Assumption of the Virgin Mary by the Italian Baroque painter Annibale Carracci was completed in 1590 and is now the Museo del Prado in Madrid. The same subject was depicted by him on the altarpiece of the famous Cerasi Chapel in Rome." If you have no objection about the separation of the two paintings, and giving them their own articles, then I will change the text to this.Zello (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw that IP edit and thought of the drunken edits examples at WP:DRUNKEDIT, and added the page history there as an example because I thought it was funny. Then I thought that it's actually probably just my sense of humor, which will be amused by that and everyone else doubtlessly thinks that it is complete garbage so I self reverted using the undo button. just an FYI. Edaham (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Freud and Philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublimation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Rereading Ancient Philosophy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 you 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't insult or patronize me, David Eppstein. Your edits at that article are borderline vandalism, and I may be being too generous by using the "borderline" qualifier. You have zero justification for them and that's 100% obvious. You have tried to remove the only evidence anyone has presented that the book Rereading Ancient Philosophy is about a notable subject and have given an utterly mistaken rationale for doing so. I've described at length on the article's talk page why you're wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised you haven't edited the article to add the information that its print version was printed on paper, that the paper is shaped into pages, and that the pages have ink on both sides. The content you insist on keeping in the article is just as trivial. You can see it immediately from the previous footnote. It does not warrant a whole section of the article. It is filler and Wikipuffery. It makes the article look less notable, not more, because if that's the only thing you can say about the book then it's clear that there is nothing of substance to say. The identity of the reviewer is certainly not evidence of notability. The existence of published reviews may be such evidence, but notability through GNG is given by references (already listed in the previous two footnotes), not by adding text to an article stating the existence of the references. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It isn't trivial that a book received a review - it shows that the book received notice, that it received scholarly recognition, and so on. Maybe you don't give a crap about scholarship, but that isn't a justification for removing evidence that a book received scholarly attention. Your comment, "It makes the article look less notable, not more, because if that's the only thing you can say about the book then it's clear that there is nothing of substance to say" is nonsense. In terms of our policies, yes, of course the fact that a book receives a review helps to show it is notable. As for, "You can see it immediately from the previous footnote" - do you imagine that all readers of an article even look at footnotes? I'd hazard a guess that maybe 99% of them don't. Readers of an encyclopedia who happen to be interested in scholarly books can reasonably expect that articles about such books would present information about reviews they received clearly and in a dedicated section. Having a dedicated section about the reception of a book makes sense because it makes it possible to present information about the details of the reviews - obviously that cannot be done if reviews are acknowledged only in citations that probably most readers of the article will never bother to even look at. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The evidence that the book received scholarly attention is provided by the footnote. Your section provides zero additional information beyond the footnote. It is filler. It doesn't even say anything about "the reception of the book" because it says nothing about what's in the review, only that it exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The footnote did not belong where it was in the first place, and I've now removed it as duplicated material. Your comment is thus beside the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The new section content, describing rather than merely stating the existence of the review content, is acceptable. Why didn't you do that in the first place instead of edit-warring to keep the article in a worse state? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

“Thank you, but that is unnecessary editorial commentary.” What is that supposed to mean ? Those are false informations which I tried to correct ! One of them is mentioned on the discussion page, dated 24 August 2018 : “"He and Hamilton reprised their respective roles from the first Terminator film". Wrong. Terminator in 1st film was 'bad'; in 2nd film was 'good'.” Arnold Schwarzenegger did not “reprise his role” from the first movie, but took on the role of a similar looking cyborg (which happens to have a very different hairdo... Skynet must have a fashion division in its assembly lines...), with a completely different role and purpose. (Besides, the Terminator from The Terminator has been completely destroyed at the end of the first installment.) How can you argue with that ? And as it is accurately depicted in the “Plot” section, Dyson did not develop the CPU for the T-800, it's the other way around, he created a general purpose CPU by reverse-engineering the CPU from the first T-800 Terminator which was destroyed at the end of the first movie. You could have improved over this edit, but why did you just delete as if it was some kind of pollution ?--Abolibibelot (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Abolibibelot. Your edit changed "He and Hamilton reprised their respective roles from the first Terminator film" to "He and Hamilton reprised their respective roles from the first Terminator film – although the Terminator T-800 turned out to be a different cyborg, with opposite intents." As I said when I removed it, that addition was editorial commentary. It represents your personal interpretation or understanding of the issue, and it does not belong in the article. If reliable sources consider Schwarzenegger's roles in the first and the second Terminator films to be the same role, then for Wikipedia's purposes they are. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I can add more studies if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:CE4D:7800:540C:A49C:317F:5295 (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edit did not "suggest a link between sexual abuse and the causes of homosexuality" because there was nothing in it that either directly stated or implied that sexual abuse is a cause of homosexuality. It was an apparently unrelated article about lesbians recollecting sexual abuse, with no suggestion that the abuse was relevant to causing lesbianism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. XFD closer tends to mass delete the back links rather indiscriminately when deleting pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Continuing on with "G": Gunslingers and Gamblers, GURPS Aliens, GURPS Banestorm, GURPS Bili the Axe – Up Harzburk!, GURPS Blood Types, GURPS Cliffhangers, GURPS Conan, GURPS Espionage, GURPS Gulliver, GURPS High-Tech, GURPS Humanx. BOZ (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I also started some more articles today, including Caves and Caverns and Fate of the Sky Raiders. BOZ (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, Angmar and Grimtooth's Traps Too. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Also started Champions II, Damocles (The Morrow Project), and Gamesmen of Kasar today. BOZ (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The rest of "G" - all GURPS!: GURPS In Nomine, GURPS Lite, GURPS Rogues, GURPS Shapeshifters, GURPS Super Scum, GURPS Swashbucklers, GURPS Time Travel, GURPS Ultra-Tech, GURPS Vehicles, GURPS Wild Cards. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I also started some more articles today, including Cops, Crooks and Civilians, Crisis at Crusader Citadel and Darkling Ship. BOZ (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And more today, including Adventure Class Ships, Vol. II (sequel to Vol I of course), and also FORCE. BOZ (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! Whenever you're ready, here is "H"!: Happy Birthday, Robot!, Haven: City of Violence, Hawkmoon (role-playing game), Heaven & Earth (role-playing game), Heavy Gear, Hercules & Xena Roleplaying Game, HeroQuest (role-playing game), Heroes (role-playing game), Heroes of Olympus (role-playing game), Hexagonal and Grid Mapping System, Hexpressions, Hidden Kingdom (role-playing game). BOZ (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I cannot add pictures for all of those articles. In some cases, I do not believe that I can justify it on copyright grounds (since the articles already have some kind of picture) and in some other cases, there is no available image, so far as I can determine. I have added pictures in many cases, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just happy about all the ones you can do! Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are ready for the rest of H, here they are!: High Adventure Cliffhangers Buck Rogers Adventure Game, High Adventure Role Playing, High Colonies, High Fantasy, Hollyworld, Homeworld (Palladium), Hong Kong Action Theatre!, House on Hangman's Hill, Houses of the Blooded, How We Came To Live Here, Hunter Planet: The All Australian Role Playing Game. BOZ (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

One more new one, just now: Autoduel Champions. BOZ (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I added images to the articles where it was possible to do that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! BOZ (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, here is a smaller letter, "I", and these are all that need images: Ice Elves, Immortal: The Invisible War, Incursion, Indiana Jones and the Tomb of the Templars, Infernum (role-playing game), Infinity (role-playing game), Inner City (role-playing game), Iron Heroes, Iron Kingdoms, Ironhedge, It Came From the Late, Late, Late Show, It Was a Mutual Decision. BOZ (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, in those cases where I was able to add a suitable image. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. :) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got a couple of much smaller letters, so I put them together: John Carter, Warlord of Mars (role-playing game), Jonril: Gateway to the Sunken Lands, Judge's Screen, Justifiers RPG, KABAL, Kerberos Club, kill puppies for satan, Knight Hawks, Knights and Magick, Knights of the Round Table (role-playing game), Kobold Hall, Kryształy Czasu, Kung Fu 2100. BOZ (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

L is a bigger letter than those, but still I think there were few enough that I could put them together in one batch: Lace & Steel, Land of the Rising Sun (role-playing game), Lands of Adventure, Lara's Tower, Legacy (role-playing game), Legend of the Five Rings Roleplaying Game, Legends of Anglerre, Legionnaire (role-playing game), Leverage: The Roleplaying Game, Living Steel, Lone Wolf Multiplayer Game Book, Lone Wolf: The Roleplaying Game, Lord of the Rings Adventure Game, Lost Conquistador Mine. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I also started Champions III. :) BOZ (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

And Daredevil Adventures Vol. 2 No. 2: The Menace Beneath the Sea today. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Several more today, including Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser Deck Plans and Death in Spades. BOZ (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

And just one more for now, BeltStrike: Riches and Danger in the Bowman Belt. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I also did Flextiles today, in case that one has a cover you can find. BOZ (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you as always. :) This section is big enough, so I will start a new one and let this one archive. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator,

You should know that I think I'm the one who came up with "freelance ideas on child psychology." That is, I really do try to go right down the middle. The problem is, the references themselves are overwhelming.

Anyway, you often help me bring forth my best work, even if we disagree as often as not. So, welcome back!  :~) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on the edits to the astrology article! If you look at phrenology, Feng shui, homeopathy, and reiki, you will see that two of them start by saying the it is a pseudoscience, as I did with astrology. The others say it in the next sentence or very soon after. The suggests that the argument that "we need to start by explaining its specific features, not a feature it shares in common with many other things" doesn't pan out. Such a claim precludes introductions like "The Invisible Man is a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells", which are obviously ubiquitous. Moreover, your revision simply replaces "a pseudoscience" with "the study", which itself is a feature shared in common with many other things. You could argue that the study is then modified by the of prepositional phrase, but the same argument could be made about the phrase following pseudoscience. Please, reconsider your edit.--Brett (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Brett. Talk:Astrology is here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you generally see where I'm coming from regarding the Bruno Bettelheim page. Would you wish to suggest improvements that address both our concerns? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please review our NPOV policy. We should not say that the members of a particular religious group are healers. Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ExperiencedArticleFixer. As someone active on Wikipedia for more than a decade, I am familiar with WP:NPOV. I also understand the rationale for your edit at Mary Baker Eddy and I respect what you are trying to accomplish. Respectfully however, your edit is unnecessary and does not improve the article. Readers are able to understand that the term "spiritual healers" refers to people who believe that they heal spiritually. Use of the term describes what the people in question see themselves as doing, based on their religious beliefs; it is not a judgment about the correctness of those beliefs or the effectiveness of Christian Science. Adding "self-proclaimed" thus detracts from the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You and I are light years apart on the Bruno Bettelheim article, which is fine. RfC is a good way to involve the broader community. I think it's okay if either one of us initiates it, as long as we invite the other.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, FriendlyRiverOtter. You may well have done quite a lot of helpful work at the Bruno Bettelheim article - I admit that I have not looked that closely at most of your edits, however, so I cannot say. Unfortunately, the edits I had to revert here were blatantly biased. They are as obviously and as blatantly biased as any edits I have come across in some time. There is no need for a lengthy request for comment to determine whether they are acceptable or not - they just aren't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If I could discern your intent here, I'd fix it myself, but I can't parse that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not see a need for clarification. A man wrote a manifesto in which he denies that he is a Nazi. The text I added explained that. Where is the problem? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I supposed to be able to navigate "the author denies being a Nazi professes to be"? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it in my most recent edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Re this, Merriam-Webster say, sense 1a, disagrees with you. Do you assert some higher authority on vocabulary, such as a more respected dictionary? If it's just that you "know" better than the dictionary, I'm likely to take exception. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mandruss. Is there any particular reason you are coming here to my talk page to discuss this extremely minor issue? Generally, I prefer it if people discuss edits to a particular article on the talk page of the relevant article, not on my personal talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits. Making a first pass, I think your edits definitely improved the article. It's always good to have a fresh pair of eyes.

Now, yes, I continue to be unhappy with our lead, for I think we can do better. And I'm hoping perhaps you are becoming open to that as well. For example, the psychologist you created a link to, Paul R. McHugh, he wrote, "Bettelheim had no qualifications as a child psychiatrist or psychologist, having been a businessman with an art history doctorate in 1930s Vienna."

Or, to add a little humor to this whole situation -- in our article on Baby Face Nelson, should the first sentence describe him as a banking employee, and then only three or four sentences in, do we finally tell our readers, well, actually, the real story is? No, we wouldn't do that. Nor should we. And neither should we do the same in the Bettelheim article.

I'm not going to move super quickly. But I am going to take yet another look at the lead. And I invite you to do the same. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at David Frawley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 you 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. ∯WBG^converse 05:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You are edit warring to violate WP:BLP, making blatantly biased and unacceptable edits to an article about a living person. Stop, for all the obvious reasons. Note that per WP:BLPREMOVE, removal of such material is exempt from the three revert rule. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FreeKnowledgeCreator reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: ). Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked. There was nothing there. Guy Macon, I suggest that this is an inappropriate response to the issue of how to best describe Frawley and his work. Rather than restore contentious material without agreement, you should go to the talk page of the article and discuss matters there. I reiterate that describing someone in Wikipedia's voice as an "ideologue" is entirely unacceptable under BLP; it is an inherently pejorative term. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why my report wasn't saved. I will most likely have to redo it tomorrow.

It looks to me like you have already been given sufficient sourcing on the talk page to invalidate your BLP claims. But of course that will be something for an admin to evaluate and make a decision on. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that is patently false. "Ideologue" is an inherently negative, pejorative term. Go to an article about a living person and make the lead state as fact that they are an "ideologue", and that is biased editing. This version of the article, which you restored, states in the lead that Frawley is a "Hindutva ideologue", but while the main body of the article mentions various criticisms of Frawley, it nowhere describes him as a "Hindutva ideologue". So the statement that he is a "Hindutva ideologue" obviously was not properly cited, making it is unacceptable per WP:BLP. In any case, I noted at Talk:David Frawley, there certainly is no consensus for it. You would be better advised to engage in rational discussion there than try to get me sanctioned for reverting a contentious change for which there is no agreement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

As for admin opinions, it was Doug Weller who stated, " I'm happy to drop the word ideologue, I wouldn't use it." He could have put the point more strongly, but that's still the correct judgment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your recheck But dou to its refrence, thats true. I didnt find anyone with more citation. But i respect to your experience مسعوداص (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the excessive images again. I've really no idea what important encyclopaedic information they are supposed to convey. The image in the infobox is sufficient. There's absolutely no point cluttering up the page with multiple images of the same subject at similar ages. Thanks. 192.41.125.253 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The article See Jack Run has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable stub; film doesn't appear to have had any impact. I couldn't find any reviews or mentions other than to support that it was made.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Schazjmd, but I do not understand why you have placed that message here. I did not start See Jack Run. It is simply one of many articles that I happen to have edited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Evenings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advocate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Films featuring Howard the Duck, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of fascinating that you can, on the one hand, dive into the subject enough to do some quality editing on the specifics, and thank you for this.  :-) And yet, you seem to think "child psychologist" is just fine for our lead sentence.

I mean, our lead probably wouldn't describe someone as a "doctor" if they had merely taken three undergrad classes in biology, right? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As a participant in a previous RfC on Bettelheim, you are invited to a new starting RfC. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

PS You are the first invite I've sent out because I do wish to have your participation.

Please use the talk page when making controversial edits to the Heidegger article. Repeating an assertion that the text is badly written or rambling does not advance the discussion. Instead, please explain why you think that it is badly written or rambling.Sbelknap (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware that as the article lead explains; "An Experiment with Time is a book ... about his precognitive dreams and a theory of time which he later called "Serialism". The body of the article has two roughly equal-sized sections dealing with each of these aspects of the book. If you wish to continue challenging this approach in the infobox summary, it would help if you can first engage with Talk:An_Experiment_with_Time#Subject_of_the_book the discussion I have started on the talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Steelpillow. A) This isn't an issue of great importance, and I am not planning to make any more edits to An Experiment with Time in the near future (actually I am planning to read the book, a copy of which I was recently lucky enough to be able to find in a second-hand bookstore, and reconsider the issue of the infobox), and B) I am well aware of the existence of talk pages, thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just intending to be polite in coming here, as not everybody pays attention to the talk pages of the articles they edit. My apologies if it did not come across that way. I hope you enjoy the book. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding WLC, you are now edit warring. Two editors want to remove it, and two editors want to keep. Why don't we just discuss it? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Star Fleet Battles Expansion 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"M" is a bigger letter, so this list will come in four sections, and here is the first: M.I.S.S.I.O.N., Mach: The First Colony, Maelstrom (role-playing game), Mage (Archaeron), Maléfices, Manhunter (role-playing game), Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Marvel Super Heroes: The Heroic Role-Playing Game, Masterbook, Mechamorphosis. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Today I also created "Glozel est Authentique!" BOZ (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

More from the letter M: MEGA Role-Playing System, Mekton, Melanda: Land of Mystery, Men In Black: The Roleplaying Game, Merc (role-playing game), Merchant Class Ships, Metamorphosis Alpha, Michtim: Fluffy Adventures (current pic is terrible), Midgard (role-playing game), Midnight at the Well of Souls Role-Playing System. BOZ (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also just started Cities of Hârn, Goldfinger (adventure), and Dr. No (adventure). BOZ (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I also started Chill Master's Screen today. BOZ (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I did a couple more today: A Jakállan Intrigue and Deeds of the Ever-Glorious. BOZ (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am also wondering if there are any suitable cover images to be used for Dungeon World? BOZ (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I've added pictures to most of those articles. Not sure I can justify one for Dungeon World, as it already has several. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha! How about Millennium's End, Mistborn Adventure Game, Monsterhearts, Monsters and Other Childish Things, Monsters of Myth & Legend, Monsters of Myth and Legend II, Monsters! Monsters!, Morpheus (role-playing game), Morton's List, and Most Wanted, Volume 1? BOZ (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you see anything good that might be used for Heavy Gear? BOZ (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello BOZ. I'll look, but I have several other articles to get through first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If you see anything usable, go for it. :) BOZ (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, moving on to finish up the letter "M", we have: Mouse Guard Roleplaying Game, MSPE Character Folder, Mummy: The Curse, Multiverser, Mutant City Blues, Mutant Future, Mutazoids, Mutiny on the Eleanor Moraes, Mythworld. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I also just started Ascent To Anekthor, Lee's Guide to Interstellar Adventure, A Pilot's Guide to the Drexilthar Subsector, and Duneraiders today. :) BOZ (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

And I started Beyond the Wall of Tears and From the Deeps of Space today. BOZ (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Also London by Night (supplement). BOZ (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I started City of the Sacred Flame and Lair of the Freebooters today. BOZ (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

And three more for now: Isengard and Northern Gondor, Bree and the Barrow-Downs, Dagorlad and the Dead Marshes. BOZ (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I was on a roll today, so I started a few more: Enemies III, Daredevil Adventures 3: Supernatural Thrillers Issue, Death in Dunwich, Cloudland. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And, a few more again today: Adventure Pack K1: The Empire of Karo, Curse of the Chthonians, Battle Above the Earth, Border Crossing. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I also started Masks of Nyarlathotep. BOZ (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Today, I started Catapult Run, and Captif d'Yvoire. BOZ (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A few more today: Highland Terror, Clash of Kings (Timemaster), Goodbye, Kankee, and Moria: The Dwarven City. BOZ (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Two more today, that's it for now: Margin of Profit, Demand of Honor. BOZ (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Two more today: Ivinia, Creatures & Treasures. BOZ (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

OK! So today, I finished up the rest of the capsule reviews from the last issue of the Space Gamer run as published by Steve Jackson Games, so from what I can see the rest of the SG issues did not have such large review sections, and in fact I may be starting very few new articles, so this will give us a chance to catch back up with the A-Z routine.  :) That said, today I created Devil's Domain, Hillmen of the Trollshaws, Live and Let Die (adventure), Goldfinger II: The Man with the Midas Touch, A View to a Kill (adventure), and Face of the Enemy (Star Frontiers). BOZ (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I was right - I did a whole issue of this different format of Space Gamer, and only one more to add here: Alone Against the Dark. BOZ (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome work catching up on those! :) So when you are ready for the first half of "N", we have Nanorien Stones, Neighborhood (role-playing game), New York, New York (supplement), Nexus: The Infinite City, Night of the Ninja (role-playing game), Night's Black Agents (role-playing game), Ninja Hero. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ. Can't do it immediately. Soon though. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No rush! I also started Legion of Super-Heroes Volume I today when you are ready for that. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Finished another issue today, started HIL Sector Blues yesterday, and today I did Cthulhu by Gaslight, Fragments of Fear: The Second Cthulhu Companion, H.P. Lovecraft's Dreamlands, Lords of Middle-earth, Volume I. :) BOZ (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A few more from the issue I finished today: Griffin Island (RuneQuest), Adventurer Sheets: Human, Adventurer Sheets: Nonhuman, Call of Cthulhu Keeper's Screen. BOZ (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I started Black Sword earlier today. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And three more from that same issue today: Gods of Harn, Menglana, Death on the Reik. BOZ (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

All done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Back to finish up "N", we have Noble's Book, Northern Crown (roleplaying game), Northern Mirkwood: The Wood-Elves Realm, Novus (role-playing game), Numenera, Nystalux. BOZ (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

One new one from the issue I worked on today: A Naturalist's Guide to Talislanta. BOZ (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Several new ones today: Mind Games, C.L.O.W.N., Hardwired: The Sourcebook, Neutral Ground, Atlas Unleashed. There is only one more issue of SG left to do, and then I will take a little time to figure out which magazine to move on to next. BOZ (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

And as promised, I have now finished the entire run of Space Gamer, and started these from the final issue: Cloudships & Gunboats, Near Orbit, Desperados (role-playing game), More Songs About Food Vats. I will be taking a break from adding new RPG articles for probably at least the rest of the week. :) BOZ (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. That is the end of the sentence right? Shouldn't there be a period?Mcc1789 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mcc1789. You need to look carefully at the text. Prior to your edit, the relevant passage of the article read "Though Paglia admires Simone de Beauvoir and The Second Sex ("the supreme work of modern feminism ... its deep learning and massive argument are unsurpassed") as well as Germaine Greer, Time magazine critic Martha Duffy writes that Paglia "does not hesitate to hurl brazen insults" at several feminists." Your edit changed the comma following "Greer" to a full stop, splitting a single sentence into two, and resulting in an ungrammatical sentence stating, "Though Paglia admires Simone de Beauvoir and The Second Sex ("the supreme work of modern feminism ... its deep learning and massive argument are unsurpassed") as well as Germaine Greer." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DoctorAldebaran and "Jewish POV-pushing" by the "Jewish ethnic lobby". Jayjg ^(talk) 13:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Demihuman Deities (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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)