User talk:FelixRosch

Hello, FelixRosch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that someone is taking note of my comments on the Irenaean theodicy talk page, I really can't see how any of them are relevant to the Augustianian theodicy. They're all very specific to the literature on the IT and respond to particular points in the article on the IT. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have any plans concerning the articles- a user contacted me because I'm familiar with Wikipedia policy and academic philosophy, but the user in question was something of a time-waster and ended up blocked for some reason. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with Plantinga, so anything you could add in that regard would be good. I'm afraid I've not got enough time to devote to improving the article right now, but I may be able to find some time at the weekend to take a closer look. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please address what I wrote on Talk:Problem of evil. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Problem of evil. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix, I see that you filed a report at AN3. I also see that you're new here. Welcome to wikipedia, of course! I get that you're frustrated by the experience on Problem of evil, but as an experienced editor I can tell you that the way you are handling the dispute is contrary to the way we do things. I would very strongly suggest you remove the section you posted on AN3. You can do that by just blanking the section. If you do not, it is extremely likely you will be blocked as soon as an uninvolved admin handles your report. I don't think that would benefit anyone. If you need help, please feel free to ask.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Felix, three notes. First, if you file an ANI against somebody, you must notify that user. You did not notify me. Bad form and a violation of the rules of ANI. I am not going to make a big deal out of it as you are new, but please keep that in mind going forward. Secondly and much more importantly -- Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. People disagree all the time here. The only thing that makes this work, is that people discuss their differences and work toward consensus. It is disappointing that you made an administrative move against me, without even discussing the issues. That is a bad road to go down. Third, I have not filed a 3RR against you; I prefer to discuss things. I do look forward to hearing whatever reasoning you have to retain the HB passages in the Judaism section of the Problem of evil article. Best regards and good luck. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yeah, I think the colour schemes should be the same for both the table and the bar chart, on the Wikipedia article. But the table is auto-prepared by Wikipedia software, and I did not know what exact colours they used, so while writing the bar chart code, I entered names of the closest colours I could think of, at that time. If you know what colours they used, then you can simply enter them in the "colors" field of the bar chart code. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for replying so late, but I was busy studying for the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering that I had on 16th February 2014. The pie-chart (depicting quality-wise article distribution) and bar-chart in the Wikipedia article now have the same color scheme. Regarding the link you sent (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/photo/29073061.cms), it shows percentage change in page views for some language editions of Wikipedia for only one period (December 2012 to December 2013). The percentage changes may be presented as a bar chart, but I think it would be useful if there was data for at least 2 periods, and also for some more major language editions, like Dutch, Swedish, French, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Polish, Waray-Waray, etc. So I think the information of that source can be presented as simple text in the main body. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the Obama-related articles are under article probation, referred to at the top of Talk:Barack Obama, and edits there are under some extra scrutiny as a result. I would appreciate your laying off accusations bad faith such as censorship and having "personal reasons", as you make here.[1] Your content edit, an opinionated narrative about the significance of an editorial critical of Obama foreign policy, fails WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:OR — but if you do want to propose the now-rejected content, best do that on the talk page and assume good faith of the editors involved. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm not sure if there is a simple way to do this, since the numbers are entered in by transclusion. I'll look into the chain and try to find if we can get those numbers for you. If you don't hear from me next week, please check in with me again. Walkerma (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ukraine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FelixRosch, I noticed that you've reverted Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles to version by User:Discospiner on 8 March. I have moved it to version by User:G4m3rMatthew @ 03:04, 22 March. Behind the 200 sum updates on this page, there has been some relevant info added and a lot of the old info has been condensed. The February 21st ISU statement was summarized and a new update to this debate came out March 21st (South Korea stating it indents to file a complaint on the composition of the judging panel). Regardless of all the disruptive edits, I don't want to lose what progress was made in this article. Instead of reverting, could you check the state of the current article (as of my 18:30, 22 March 2014 update). Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your response on my talk page. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your new response on my talk page. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FelixRosch, I just wanted to update you that Heritoctavus (talk) has reverted the order of the debate/controversy to opposing opinion, supporting opinion, official response. I don't have an strong opinion on the order one way or another. If you disagree with Heritoctavus' decision, please engage with him. If talking goes nowhere, you may wish to seek a third opinion since this issue keeps popping up. Good luck, Kirin13 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Meaning (philosophy of language) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p. 223 ''ff''. Macmillan, 1969). See the section on "Tarski's Semantic Theory", 230-231.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Consciousness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Craig (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Always try an write additions to articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. However using quotes for basic info that can summarized is not a good thing. Use of copyrighted text must be in compliance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste for more info. -- Moxy (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - your edit summary at the Barack Obama article, removing the sentence about Kerry's comments in November, has me puzzled. "Isolated sentence fragment from last November has not been updated by either Obama or anyone on his staff since then. Archiving unless someone can supplement the cites. Template from previous editor was left over after previous editor withdrew it on Talk. " Actually it isn;t a sentence fragment - it's a complete self-explanatory sentence - but I agree that it isn't adding anything to the article, so I don't mind its removal. But it did have a valid cite, so I assume you mean that you would want cites for any further discussion or statements made on the subject, making it more notable. I don't know what you mean by your last sentence - I didn't find anything on Talk about this, unless I missed it. And I just want to be sure that when you say "has not been updated by either Obama or anyone on his staff" you're not talking about updating this article, but are talking about whether Obama or staff have made further statements about this subject. Just would appreciate some clarification. Cheers Tvoz/talk 08:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tvoz; My appreciation for the commment. It was certainly the Monroe doctrine comment which was being referred to. This comment was made by Kerry last November, with no follow up from either Obama or any one on his staff since then. No difficulties if you have more cites on this and would like to develop it further, though if its Kerry alone then maybe the Kerry page would be the better place. There was no follow-up by Obama himself for six months and that was when I placed the edit comment you refer to above. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation - all sounds fine to me. If there is more of value it likely all would go in the Presidency article, not the main bio - this has not been a major issue that Obama is associated with. Cheers Tvoz/talk 23:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on my talk page. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, do not copy and paste text from other sources. This includes websites of charity or non-profit organizations, educational, scholarly and news publications and all sources without a copyright notice. If a work does not have a copyright notice, assume it to be under copyright-protection.^[1]

Even the employees or representatives of an organization may not copy and paste copyright-protected text from the organization's resources into Wikipedia. However, license owners may donate their texts to Wikipedia, as described in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

It is acceptable to copy and paste text from public domain sources or those that are explicitly licensed under a compatible licensing scheme. (In case of the latter, attribution of the original author may be required: see Wikipedia:Plagiarism.) However, copying and pasting contents from all other sources entails what is explained above.

In case of uncertainty, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Help desk for input from other editors.

No. Superficial change of copyright-protected text is not enough. Wikipedia articles must be written in the author's own words. If the way in which a source has said something is important, please employ quotation.

No. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material anywhere, not even in talk or user pages, not even temporarily.

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Use of copyrighted text must be in compliance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy.

Please read over Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I started a conversation on this 10 days ago.-- Moxy (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And will paste my other reply here -

• Finally a reply to my posts and edits. Sorry its come to this - but please stop copy and pasting news articles and book quotes all over. Quotes are incompatible with an encyclopaedic writing style. Put in some more effort and write the content in your own words and cite the sources used. At Wikipedia:Quotations#Example you can see how to do this. WP:QUOTEFARM explains why. As noted by a different editor (an admin no less) with this edit after your reverting again the whole section is a problem because of the quotes. Simply not what we are looking for in the way of contributions. -- Moxy (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FelixRosch. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block.

The three-revert rule states:

-- Moxy (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous editor is edit warring on multiple wikipages and has been reported for ANI for edit warring (see the noticeboard for details). There is currently a BRD on the Ukraine Talk page. A BRD revert is not to be confused with other forms of reverts, previous editor is continuing edit warring. FelixRosch (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several different editors have reverted you on many pages and have tried to explain the problems with links to policy, guidelines and essays....still think everyone else is the problem is the problem here. You need to step back and look at what others are seeing. -- Moxy (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please read over Summarizing Written by Leora Freedman, English Language Learning. --Moxy (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FelixRosch. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I have reverted your edit to Romeo and Juliet ‎again sourced to Harold Bloom (2009). Romeo and Juliet. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4381-1476-7.. Let me explain why ... as explained in the book and our article. "Romeo and Juliet takes its basic story line from Arthur Brooke's long narrative poem" - this is before the play is written so cant be criticizing the play that is not written yet...source William Shakespeare (2008). Romeo and Juliet. Yale University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-300-13828-3.. As for Swan all he did was quote a speech by Friar Lawrence..source Richard Dutton; Jean E. Howard (2008). A Companion to Shakespeare's Works, A Companion to Shakespeare's Works: The Tragedies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 131 (note:24). ISBN 978-0-470-99727-7. -- Moxy (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response on Romeo and Juliet Talk page. FelixRosch (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you cant see the source here on this page! So would you like me to quote the sources? And for the love of god please follow our basic bold revert practice...meaning dont edit war in content that has been disputed. -- Moxy (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far 2 outside editors one with an actual copy of the source and the other with a second source that describes what Arthur Brooke roll was in all this is were we are at. As for Swan no one seems to be able to find another source then the one I found. The RfC will run for a week or so... lets see what others have to say and lets see if other sources can be found. -- Moxy (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have filed two incorrect WP:3RR reports against Moxy and are now making things up out of thin air ("The report of edit warring is required by Admin for your 3RR violation. It must be retained for Admin use."). I suggest you read WP:3RR carefully and understand how to make a proper report as your edits are becoming disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reverting you again. Put back the message Moxy has already removed and you can explain your actions at WP:ANI. Editors are allowed to remove such things from their own talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Okay, FelixRosch. I am an admin, and NeilN is completely correct. Editors have every right to remove talk page messages (other than block messages) - removal is viewed as tacit admission to having read such messages - and your continued reinsertion of them is disruptive. I suggest you not do it again. Resolute 15:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And please, learn how to use diffs. This is to your benefit as your last two reports to WP:3RRNB were largely closed because of a lack of them. Cutting and pasting is not a diff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix, I have been watching your problems with Moxy for some time, but you are not going to achieve anything here so you need to walk away before some admin blocks you. I can see how irritating and exacerbating to a dispute Moxy's patronizing attitude is - his use of "our" and "we" when referring to matters of Wikipedia are particularly riling as is his sanctimonious and holier than thou quoting of policy and rules rather than explaining and debating in a normal fashion. You may well feel that his virtual appearance would be considerably improved by a virtual fist in the middle of his virtual face - and perhaps it might, but that really won't solve anything. In my very long and considerable experience of Wikipedia, every dog eventually has his day, and so will you; just be patient. Those like Moxy always trip up in the end - it wasn't so long ago that he was a shared account with half his virtual family. So my advice to you is: put up, shut up and watch. Giano (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get you to just try and summarizes things over pasting huge quotes - as has been mentioned before by many at this point. Perhaps reading this link will help.- Moxy (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your current and past assertions on BRD you may want to read Wikipedia:Competence is required. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. -- Moxy (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for letting me know; I had no idea that so much important and valid content was deleted. It was all deleted by User:Chealer, who seems to be removing content on various articles for quite some time. I have seen an ANI notice on his talk page, but it was posted on 14 August 2014 and now seems to have been archived. If there was an active ANI for that user, I would have complained. Anyway, I have restored the content (which took a lot of time), posted a message on User:Chealer's talk-page, and also posted a message regarding User:Chealer on the talk page of the Wikipedia article: Talk:Wikipedia#Blatant_deletion_of_important.2C_relevant_and_reference-backed_content_.28without_any_discussion.29_by_User:Chealer. If he carries on such vandalism, then I hope some administrator would notice it and ban or block him. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! I have left a message regarding this matter on the talk-page of User:Retrohead. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply, I was busy. I have put the table and charts back in the Wikipedia article. Chealer seems not ready to accept the usefulness of this data, and instead of improving, he is just deleting whatever he considers inappropriate or incorrect. He may again try to delete the table and charts. Anyway, you too can put your suggestion or comment in Talk:Wikipedia, Talk:English Wikipedia and/or other talk-pages, if you like. Consensus can be built when different users participate. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply, I am busy these days. It is also because I am busy, that I do not have much time to edit articles, start ANI, etc. I was also irritated by Chealer's constant removal of content, so I thought I would restore that content later, when I am free, and Chealer seems less obssesed with the Wikipedia article. Anyway, I see that you restored it a few days back. Thanks!

If I get time, I will perform more edits. - EngineeringGuy (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you don't stop mis-attributing things to me which I did not say, we can discuss the matter at WP:ANI. I never expressed an opinion about how many names should be in the infobox. I simply undid your destructive edit. — goethean 23:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed all the information on Fredrick Nietzsche? (unsigned message from allan ruddock)

Information was edited to represent a fair summary. You can adjust it as needed as long as the material represents a summary and not something more than a summary. FelixRosch (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have reverted this edit of yours. If someone opposes a change you have made to an article, you should go to the talk page and make a case for it. If we remain deadlocked, the article has to stay in its last stable version. James500 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should point out that the definition from aquinas is verifiable to the books by Lord Lloyd of Hampstead on p 97 (which is an extract from the cited work) and by McCoubrey and White on p 73. The definitions from Austin, Holmes and Robertson are respectively from 1830s, 1897, and 2006, not the 70s and don't obviously have anything to do with Hart or Dworkin. Saying that they are not general definitions is meaningless because there is no general definition of law, only a massive dispute about what it means. Proposed definitions belong in the section headed "definition" and not tucked away in an illogical place at the end. That dictionary isn't a general definition either, and being aware of how that type of dictionary is compiled (my understanding is that they may have regard to sources that lack credentials and they are interested in common rather than correct usage), I cannot regard it as a reliable source for the meaning of any term of art. And our policies advise us to avoid tertiary sources anyway, and use secondary sources in preference to them. James500 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also assume you meant to move the section rather than blank it, and that was done in error. James500 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this reversion : You could have a "universally accepted definition" that was anything but simple (ie an incredibly complicated one) and you could have a "simple answer" that wasn't universally accepted. James500 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see how that section can be headed "discussion of the definition" (my emphasis) when the sources in it are largely denying the existence of a single definition that could be described as the definition. James500 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I doubt that a section headed "dictionary" is compatible with WP:NOT. James500 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Acetotyce (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors at Artificial intelligence think that the phrase "human-like" should not be used in the lede paragraph of the article. You have at least twice inserted references to "human-like" intelligence. Are you willing to agree that consensus is to leave "human-like" out of the lede paragraph, while describing efforts at human-like (as well as non-human-like) intelligence in the body of the article, or do we need to use an RFC to determine consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About your assertion that "It is Wikipedia policy to make full and fair disclosure of bias in poorly formed RfCs directly. There are at least 3-4 editors who have questioned the format of this RfC and bias for "Weak-AI" in RobertM":

Regardless of what someone may have told you, it is definitely not Wikipedia policy to make the editors on the talk page look stupid by having Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology say something like, "Disclosure: The format and bias of this RfC is currently challenged and is currently being discussed. Any participation should be informed by pending changes or deletion of this RfC. FelixRosch (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)" instead of the actual question. [reply]

The actual rules are at WP:RFC, and I suggest that you actually read them. If you see anything in there that sounds even remotely like "Make the science RFC page useless by filling it up with uninformative 'disclaimers' instead of the actual topic of the RFC", then I request that you post a detailed description of whatever confuses you to WT:RFC, so that we can clarify the directions for you. We've got enough problems with the bot that maintains it; we don't need irrelevancies added by editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict.) Deciding what is or is not bias is the point of having an RFC. Refusing to participate, or adding template-breaking "disclaimers" just undermines your own credibility. APL (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To both editors: Wikipedia policy is not to support undisclosed bias and the NPOV issues which result. The author of the poorly formed RfC, RobertM, has refused to make a full and fair disclosure of his bias for "Weak-AI". If you can prevail upon him to make a full and fair disclosure of biasing the article towards his own prefered point of view favoring "Weak-AI" then please do this. Also note that the defects in the RfC are becoming even more prominent with editors changing its format while it is taking place. Multiple complaints on that page, and my request for a full and fair disclosure by that author has not been answered. If you can prevail upon that author to make the full and fair disclosure of bias for the "Weak-AI" position, then please return here and let me know that you have succeeded. Otherwise, it is only fair to make full and fair notice of the bias to new editors. FelixRosch (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia policy to require the starter of a RFC to state their biases/position. All that is required is that the wording of the RFC be neutral and succinct. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's assumed that one or both "sides" of an RFC will have strong, but potentially wrong, opinions. That's why you have an RFC!

The whole point is to bring in (presumably neutral) third parties, and have them decide what is or is not a NPOV issue.

It's entirely proper, and in fact, recommended, to start an RFC in that sort of situation. Nobody has to "declare their bias" to start an RFC. Such a rule would be extremely counter-productive. APL (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop your disruptive edit warring over the RFC.

Even if you did have a legitimate complaint about the RFC, which I don't think you do, you're putting it in a very disruptive place, as has been explained to you repeatedly. APL (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix, do feel free to quote to me the exact lines from these policies that allegedly require that an internal RFC page be disrupted to display your complaint instead of the RFC question. While you're looking for something, keep in mind that I have been heavily involved in writing most of the English Wikipedia's major policies for years now, so I'm pretty familiar with their contents. NPOV, for example, says (in the very first paragraph) "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view". You might notice that this sentence completely excludes discussions on talk pages. So you can quit claiming that NPOV requires your complaint to be presented instead of the RFC comment. But if you still think you can find another one that does, then the complete list of all policies is in Category:Wikipedia policies, and I wish you lots of luck in your search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit war on Talk:Artificial intelligence despite this visit to ANI. Please stop. --Mirokado (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response on ani. FelixRosch (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Artificial intelligence. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

The fact that the information you are adding is properly sourced does not trump WP:UNDUE. Two editors think that you are adding too much information on a subtopic. You are welcome to submit an RFC if you want consensus that the addition is appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting four different editors not including myself. No one else is reverting to your version. That is a good indication the material should stay out until consensus is reached. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk: Artificial intelligence. Your edits appear to be disruptive .

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. You are ignoring the question on how to go forward with regard to whether there should be a long section on deep learning and are instead attacking other editors and arguing over an unrelated RFC. Please try to edit collaboratively rather than complaining and carping. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Deep learning question was answered on AI Talk page. FelixRosch (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You completely disrupt a RFC on Talk:Artificial intelligence because of your mistaken insistence about stating biases and yet think this RFC statement is neutral? Are you for real? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict in the Ukraine has reached a level of casualties surpassing the level of 9-11 casualties in New York and your edit history shows that you are reverting the edits which post this data. FelixRosch (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way to dodge the subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

Your RFC at Ukraine is extremely non-neutral, which is very inappropriate for someone who defaced an RFC for the claim that its author (not the RFC itself) was non-neutral. Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, and so disruptive editing in Ukraine is subject to WP:ARBEE. I have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to collaborate with you on Artificial intelligence, but it appears that only want neutral or collaborative editing when it supports your position. Please do not push the community to topic-ban you from artificial intelligence, and please do not push to be topic-banned from Eastern Europe. Please try to listen to other editors rather than just being stubborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment appears somewhat stale and not informed of all the RfC guidelines and purposes, as your recent discussion with User:Bishonen appears to show. User:Bishonen presents a good example for you to follow. FelixRosch TALK 18:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note regarding making Law more accessible to the widest possible audience. I don't have the time to dig into the article at this juncture, but I'll bear the matter in mind. I do appreciate the cleaner intro. :-) ENeville (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix, just FYI, I don't believe in pinging listed disputants or notifying them if the listing editor fails to do so. It's up to the listing editor to follow the instructions and up to the other disputants to decide whether or not they want to participate. (Also, BTW, I just noticed the glut of footnotes at the bottom of this page. There's a little-known tag that can fix that. If you'll put {{reflist-talk}}, no parameters needed, at the bottom of the section where the refs appear, then the refs will show in a box at the bottom of that section, rather than at the bottom of the page. It can be used repeatedly on the same page and each set of refs will renumber for just the section in which they appear.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous editor record of baiting and edit warring with new editors for Admin review
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent editing history at Barack Obama shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You need to read Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_78#Legacy_of_first_term_.2F_Evaluations_of_first_term again (or look up the definition of WP:CONSENSUS) NeilN talk to me 21:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:FelixRosch, I very much appreciate your participation and input at DRN and I know that all your contributions have been with the best of intentions. You appear to be a good editor and level-headed moderator so I hope that you will stick around and help out. Regarding other issues:

• We try to discourage discussion until all parties have been notified and added summaries and a DRN volunteer has opened the case for moderation. Otherwise an un-moderated discussion amongst a limited number of participants ensues and DRN becomes a continuation of the talk page. We don't want that and we will close discussions and cases that take that route.
• If you are planning on participating in the discussion of a case it would be ideal if you officially opened the case for moderation first. If you want to give input on the case but don't want to be the moderator then I'd like to ask that you refrain from making comments in the discussion section until the case is opened by a DRN volunteer.
• Regarding the sock-puppet issue. There is no policy that says sock-puppet issues must be resolved before opening a case at DRN. It is DRN's policy that we do not accept cases if there is another open discussion about the content issue or participants behavior in another forum such as RfC, ANI etc. (this does not include the article/user talk pages). Therefore encouraging the inexperienced IP to open a case at WP:SPI is equivalent to closing the case at DRN. This is not productive as the IP appears to have little or no evidence of sock-puppetry, only suspicions, and the SPI case will likely not be accepted. Also it will not resolve the content dispute. Furthermore the IP has a propensity for personal attacks and drama so talking to them about sock-puppetry only throws gas on the fire. I would strongly recommend no further interactions with the IP. Let the case sit as it is until an experienced DRN volunteer with a strong hand opens the case for moderation. Even then I would not encourage any univolved editors to become involved in that case. There is enough volatility there and the DRN volunteer will have their hands full keeping the IP in line without other distractions.

Let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification on any of these points. Keep up the good work. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your question at VP, I redid Naraht's suggestion of {{ill}} for Villa del Poggio Imperiale. His second suggestion didn't work because of a syntax error. Now they both work.

This is only to show how it's done. The advantage of doing it with {{ill}} is that it shows a red link, which will encourage people to write the article here on the English Wikipedia.
The advantage of doing it with normal interwiki links, like you did in your latest edit, is that it shows as a blue link, if you don't like the red one. The disadvantage is that it might send readers who don't understand Italian to the Italian wiki, which could be surprising to them.

Anyway, this is just to show how it works and give the reasons for preferring one way over the other. If you prefer the way you did it in your last edit, please feel free to revert my edit and go back to yours. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds about right. I imagine that others shall be looking at it as well. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue edit warring on the Sigmund Freud article you will be blocked. That means no more reverts unless it would be covered by WP:3RRNO. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc; Thanks for protecting the Freud page, this is the 4th time around with that same user during this calendar year warring against User:ImprovingWiki and User:MartinEvans. Separately, User:Bishonen has left me a back-to-back message with your own on this same topic which perhaps you could glance at on her Talk page. Its like being pulled in two directions, and the iceberg graph is spurious to the degree that I could prepare a vandalism report against its inclusion if requested. In either event, I express appreciation for your protecting the page. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the plot summary you keep attempting to restore on the Metropolitan article is vague and incomplete. There is no logical or practical basis for your insistence that a poorly written summary remain intact simply because it has not been discussed with you. Further, you have offered no criticism of the new, concise plot summary beyond it not having "reached consensus." Future attempts to restore this version will result in a request for protection on the article and for disciplinary action to be taken against you.76.31.249.221 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think I will asked for this page to be locked as I did with "Sigmund Freud" ...if noone is willing to start a talk on the matter in the appropriate space. Its concerning that this seems to happen all the time all over the place. Time to step back and look at what is being done wrong to end up in this situation all the time.-- Moxy (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page of the user has been posted for edit warring and the User has refused to start Talk in spite of multiple requests. IP editor has made a bold edit which has been reverted under BRD. My revert restored the old version of the section which should stand until consensus is reached. Further comments on this issue should be kept on the Talk page at Metopolitan. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors should be proactive and start a talk on the topic by now for sure....not chastising each other for the same behaviour. Someone just start a conversation .....and if need be ask for a third (neutral) party to get involved. Felix you may want to read over Wikipedia:Clean start ...comments like this indicate to me that a fresh start may be something you need. Or at the very least archive your talk page or blank it. If people lack respect for you ..they may not be willing to talk at all. Also must assume that as an IP they may have no clue about procedure here...thus linking policies and how to pages (as i have just done here) is a good idea -- Moxy (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to keep your comments on the Metropolitan Talk page. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix pls try and be responsive ...as you can see I have no interest in the topics of all the edits wars your in. I am trying to give you advice here on your tlak. Its concerning that your still having such problems. For example this post why are you talking to him in a third voice and not linking anything (copy and pasting again?). Anyway I

(cur | prev) Moxy (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(cur | prev) 06:29, 19 December 2014‎ 2601:e:2000:1a3:e998:1d86:9381:9ec1 (talk)‎ . . (8,176 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (→‎Plot)

(cur | prev) 18:31, 18 December 2014‎ 76.31.249.221 (talk)‎ . . (8,148 bytes) (+1,357)‎

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. Thank you.

Hi Felix, at long last I have time to look at this page. I'm not over happy with some of the info in this section It's either too vague or a poor translation, so I'm wondering if you can point me to the original text. I can't believe neoclassical is the term used for work carried out between 1622 and 1625 - I admit, it is neoclassical, but not in the way we use and understand the term today - that paragraph seems to be describing Palladianism so that has to be explained. You see, in the previous section, it says: "Neoclassicism was a style which evolved as a contrasting reaction to the more ornate Baroque and Rococo styles which preceded it" (which is correct), but in the next section you are more or less saying the Neoclassicism arrived before the Baroque and Rococco otherwise. It is complicated to explain and I don't want to risk sounding patronizing if you already understand the finer points. Let's have a look sources and see what they are saying. Giano (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Giano; Yes I am in agreement with you on that. I have also removed my last edit from Cresti, Villas of Tuscany, The Vendrome Press, pp 366-369, which has the benefit of having a full page (8 inch by 10inch) floor plan of the Villa prior to the expansion of the T-shaped floor plan (in the 17th century) to its current rectangular neo-classical form (18th century on). Without the floor plan diagram in the Wikipedia article, it is more difficult to rely on narrative descriptions alone and I removed the short discussion of the T-shaped floor plan expansion. Possibly the current version reads better, and I have added some Baroque and Rococo clarification if it improves the section. If any of the deletions belong back in the section, then maybe the Cresti book can be useful. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have submitted your response while I was working on my edit and I may have botched something up in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard when commiting my changes - I can't find the edit link to the bottommost section of the discussion on the Kings of Judah article. Apologist en (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were mediating this DRN case when I weighed and you hatted my comments. My view is an opinion of an outside, uninvolved editor, but one who has volunteered off and on at DRN since shortly after its conception. It isn't an easy place to help, but you seem to still have an interest in DRN so I hope you were not too put off by my opinion. It is up to you to close the case as you were identified as the mediator (really, there is no rule that says you have to sign on to a list to help at DRN, it just triggers a bot). I will not close that case as the history shows your were trying to make a good faith effort, it just appeared that the case was unmediated at a glance of names and the way there seemed to be no resolution or attempt at such at key moments when a rough consensus of agreement was made by the participants. Our responsibilities as mediators is to research the case first and cross all the "T" and dot all the 'I". Part of that is to be sure the dispute is valid and not a behavioral issue, check the article talk page history to see all the involved participants in the actual dispute, in case not everyone involved was listed. We check the content enough to be sure it is summarized by a reliable source and that policy, guidelines and proper procedure are followed. it seems daunting but it really isn't that difficult and help and assistance is always a click away. You can also continue to help refine the chart on the talk page after the DRN close. Anyway, please feel free to continue the discussion if you feel there is more to cover or and close at your own discretion.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case was closed on Monday morning. Appreciation to both editors for comments. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello FelixRosch, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix, I've posted this on the Metro talk page, but I'm putting it here in the hopes that you'll read it in one of these places:

Please try and understand: The version that another user and myself (I do admit that I am two of the anonymous editors; my IP changes randomly, though I don't know why) are to restore is, quite simply, better written than the version you are so passionately trying to protect. There is quite simply nothing good about it. It is incomplete, badly written, and much of it, as the other anonymous editor has pointed out, appears to be written by someone with a poor grasp of English. If this is something you wrote, I respect that you want your work to stand, but from any objective viewpoint, it's bad writing, and a bad summarization of the film. Also, even after the other editor tried to engage you at the talk page, your only response was the somewhat childish "acknowledge me." Nothing that you've done has helped the Metropolitan article; it's simply resulted in a lot of complaints and emphasis on the bureaucratic procedures of Wikipedia, without improving the page content. I'll echo the other editor: If you feel that the version you want to protect is superior, explain why. Others have given their reasons against it; you've still failed to give rational support FOR it, beyond some very vague statements about "thematization".2601:E:2000:1A3:49D5:DC30:ED1F:507F (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Felix, Thanks for all your help at DRN these past weeks. If you need any help or advice any cases you are moderating please ping me on my talk page and I'll lend a hand. Meanwhile, would you mind putting your name on the DRN volunteer list here? It's not required but it's helpful for us to have an official record. Thanks and happy holidays! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays as well Felix. Just a reminder to always introduce yourself when mediating a case with something like "Hi, I FelixRosch a volunteer for the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard....." (even if you don't add your name to the formal DRN volunteer list). That way both participants and other volunteers will know that the case has been taken by a mediator. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings for the New Year to Keithbob and Mark Miller; I'm still not sure how much free time there is for me now, though if there is a backlog at the page let me know, and I do believe in chipping in. New Year's Greetings. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So again I see some more copy and pasting of copyrhighted pages. This is the last time a metion this to you ..please read over Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources ..lets quote here "No. Superficial change of copyright-protected text is not enough. Donot copy and paste text from other sources. Doing so usually constitutes both a copyright violation and plagiarism" - Moxy (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate your enthusiasm and hope you see this notice as encouragement to keep going but in compliance with copyright law. I hope you appreciate that other people are here to support you and anyone else who adds content to Wikipedia. The quality control is what makes Wikipedia strong. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bluerasberry; Thanks for your note. Actually, after double checking, the edit does not have any copyright issues. The material in the edit appears in full quotation marks and is attributed to its author by name in the same edit, along with the link and url being provided to the source of the material. If you could restore the material then I would support you in doing this. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem upset that others have intervened with many of your edits (this is normal).. You clearly need some help... I suggest you read Wikipedia:Mentorship and signup for Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user...there you can get help in explaining the problems thus far and help in the future. I have no dought your trying to help the project...just going about it in the wrong way. -- Moxy (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous editor does not appear to have knowledge of WP:Fairuse and WP:PD, and appears to be edit warring on multiple Wikipedia articles. Please stop edit warring on multiple Wikipedia articles. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy and Felix - I think the quotations are fine. What is the source of the information under "Career at Oxford University"? No citations are used for this. If there were citations for the information in that section, then I think I would be happy with the information re-inserted. Felix, is that information from the same source as the quotations? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerasberry; Yes, that's correct. The information for the "Career" part was from the citations given in the blindsight linked article which gives: Weiskrantz, Lawrence (1997). Consciousness Lost and Found: A Neuropsychological Exploration. ISBN 0-19-852301-7. If you could adapt it as needed and restore the edit, then I would support you. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the content on the basis of my not seeing a copyright violation. Limited passages are quoted with citation and another part is said to be adapted from a publisher's biography. An outstanding problem with the article is that there are no sources cited which are not self-published, and in most cases, this person would fail to meet general notability guidelines for inclusion into Wikipedia. However, because this person is known for writing about blindsight and has held prestigious academic positions, this person meets WP:NACADEMIC even with the unusual sourcing. I do not feel that the quoted information should be rewritten or adapted until or unless a lot more autobiographical information were added. Wikipedia should not be a collection of quotations, but when used in moderation as in the case of this dated narrative, I think it is acceptable to have a colorful personal description quoted on the basis of re-written text not being able to convey the story without the odd dated language. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have had a look at Lawrence Weiskrantz. To me, it makes no sense to have a section headed "career at oxford university" followed by a section headed "career", because his career at oxford is part of his career as a whole. I think that his career at oxford should be included in the section headed "career" and not as a separate section. Best regards. James500 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

- Admin has deleted from public view the huge copyvio. -- Moxy (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get all involved to actually look at what is there....not sure why Felix cant type things out in his own words over copy and pasting. See the copy vio at User talk:Bluerasberry#FelixRosch....we cant copy and past whole articles to make our article and just link the site and all is ok,,,,this is not grade 5 ..... We have basic copyright laws to follow. Our copyright tools are red flagging the article again "Investigation of potential copyright issue" again!! And would be nice if FelixRosch could stop doing this ....then he wont have many of his edits reverted by others-- Moxy (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to see why this is a problem for the reasons I stated above. The content which was added could not be conveyed effectively in any way except by quotation. I commented to Wizardman about this on his page. His rationale was that if quotations are used in articles, then the article must contain more than quotations from a single source. I think this is a grey area and even if the content should be removed, I do not see why it should be removed on the basis of violating copyright. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's shocking to me is that you guys don't seem to understand the copyright issue. It takes no effort to just write the article in your own words; to prove that I just redid his early life and posted that. That's all you have to you for his professional career and you have a proper article. That being said, I shouldn't have removed the career part, just the giant quotes, so I restored that section. Wizardman 19:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what to say. I am failing to understand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my not seeing the nature of the problem, I could have seen that re-writing the content would have been a compromise that would satisfy the people complaining. Perhaps it would have been better from the beginning to take the compromise, then after doing that, reconsider whether the quotations could have been used. The compromise seems like the easiest resolution in this case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FelixRosch,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Hi, Felix, I watchlist Dollfrog's user talk page, so I saw your posts there, but what I don't see is a link to the talk page discussion you recommended to him. Could you kindly provide that link here, please? I research dyslexia and alexia (amid other research I do), and I should probably be aware of editor discussion about those articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed your recent merger of Alexia (condition). I have looked at ICD-10, and all I can see is a passage that reads "R48.0 Dyslexia and alexia": [2]. If that is the only evidence you are offering, it is not clear to me that it supports the merge. To me, the (admittedly cryptic) wording of the passage appears to suggest that dyslexia and alexia are different, albeit related, things. It does not say, for example, "dyslexia (including alexia)" or "dyslexia (also known as alexia)". Likewise R48 says it includes "other ... dysfunctions" besides "dyslexia". In my opinion, alexia should not be merged into dyslexia unless it is entirely a subset of dyslexia (ie everything that constitutes alexia also constitutes dyslexia), though that might not preclude it from being merged into an article titled "dyslexia and alexia", if they really are sufficiently related. My familiarity with medicine is limited, so I apologise if I have misunderstood the source. Best regards. James500 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WeijiBaikeBianji; Thanks for your comment. The discussion on upgrade for Dyslexia is at User talk:Zad68 for those interested in the upgrade process. Constructive comments are all welcome there. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it seems that this revision of the text on Alexander Luria. I have already removed the text. You may not copy and paste text from other websites, unless they specifically state that you can. Even if the text was not copyrighted, the tone is blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia. Thank you. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears source was from Wikipedia originally.

Please read Wikipedia:Non-free_content Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James; I just re-typed it. If you could reformat it as needed. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I have reverted your conversion of Art history into a redirect. Was this discussed and agreed? Can you point me to the discussion? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alexander Luria 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 Looie496 -- Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Felix. If you see this could you please respond? I see that you haven't edited since Jan 3, and I'm reluctant to carry on with my review if nobody is around to respond to queries. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alexander Luria you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alexander Luria for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Looie496 -- Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alexander Luria you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Alexander Luria for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Looie496 -- Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is to inform you that Dyslexia which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing[4] thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]