Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:47, 14 August 2015

"...We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old-faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is Truth , that Truth is Divine" -Friedrich Nietzsche, commending the edits of Kingshowman for their love of Truth, and Kingshowman's yeoman's service to her on Misplaced Pages "

LATER GOONS

LATER

Category

Please stop adding a non-existing category to numerous articles. Is some kind of WP:POINT being made? If not familiar with how categories are supposed to be used, please examine WP:COP and ask at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I was just trying to create a new category. It seems strange for wikipedia to not have this category. I searched for some easily verifiable names to add to it, and then just added them to get the ball rolling. What's the problem?Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman

In other words, I'm not hearing you give a reason for the non-existence of the category. You just send me to a page that doesn't answer my question. Kingshowman (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iraq War. 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 Misplaced Pages'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. (Hohum ) 13:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in an edit war. You just removed my contribution without cause. It is you who are "edit warring." I added 7 citations and could give you 100 if you like of how commonly the Iraq War is referred to as the "worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. History" in policy discussions. This is an uncontroversial position. What do you think was the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. History? Kingshowman (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Coal. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Coal

You should stop adding commentary to the article and start trying to find better text to add, so that the health effects are mentioned. It is not helpful to indulge in excessive language and use references that only mention coal ash. Mikenorton (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, I was getting frustrated at other people's deletions (not yours) that I thought were unreasonable, but I'm being serious again. Can you fix my link fuck-up for me on the coal page? I screwed it up and I don't know why all the links came out incorrectly.Kingshowman (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Nevermind. I fixed it. Hopefully you'll find the new edits more reasonable. Kingshowman (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

They are a considerable improvement, but I've moved the bulk of them to the relevant section and integrated them with the existing text and added a brief summary to the lead section. Mikenorton (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be in the lead. You're wrong on this, but I have other things I need to do. The health effects of coal should obviously be in the lead. I've yet to hear a single argument why they shouldn't be. You even said earlier that they should, and now you're backtracking. I'm just wasting my time with this, too many shills who won't accept any criticism of coal in the header of the article, like it should just be presented as some harmless rock when I've clearly cited multiple reliable sources that it kills 10-20,000 a year depending on estimates.Kingshowman (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Returning to adding commentary is not helpful, virtually everything that you added is in the article, just not in the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the article - see WP:LEAD. Mikenorton (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Truth. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages'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, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Coal Industry Shills are Winning!

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing the next time you violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Coal. KSFT 18:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingshowman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ALL I DID WAS TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT COAL WITH SOURCES. Those who blocked me ARE IN THE POCKET OF BIG COAL and i exposed their nefarious plots. LOOK AT MY EDITS. I PROUDLY STAND BY EACH ONE. THEY EACH TOLD THE TRUTH IN A VERIFIABLE FASHION. Please FREE KINGSHOWMAN! William Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM! William Wallace: Alba gu bràth! They won't even tell me what I did because they know all I did was Bring Justice and Tell Truth! I'm not being disruptive. I simply added a single sentence about Misplaced Pages and Truth. And some paid coal industry supporters have been reverting my edits where I try to add useful public health information that coal kills 10-20,000 per year, with provided citations. They claim it's not neutral, but if you check, they are all Ph.D's in Coal Theory working for big Coal. This block is rather unfair since it is not even mentioned what my supposed crime was. If you want to claim I was disruptive, please tell me what edit was disruptive so I can at least defend myself. I don't know any court of law where you can accuse someone of a crime without telling him what the crime is. I really don't see what edits are disruptive, and the fact that no one has told me what edits I made that were "disruptive" indicates to me that the Coal people have gotten to you. My coal edits greatly improved that page, which was about as Non-neutral POV as could possibly be before I made changes to it. I also greatly improved the David Hume page, and several other pages today, as you can verify. I gather the admin didn't like that I added a single sentence about Misplaced Pages and truth saying "Misplaced Pages is actually not based on the search for truth, but the search for consensus." I fail to see how that was disruptive. Admin also appears steamed by the fact that I added this sentence to Landlord: "Some tenants find the term "landlord" offensive, since the person who one rents one's place of residence from is not thereby one's feudal lord." Again, I fail to see how that's disruptive, it's a statement of fact that many people find the term offensive due to its association with feudal landlord law,in which the "tenants" or serfs lived in a quasi-slavery relationship to the landlord. What is disruptive about either of those edits? And if this is about the coal edits, then this encylopedia is simply corrupt from top to bottom and has no mechanism of preventing large multinational billionaire corporations from using their resources to make sure public verifiable information about the negative health effects of their products cannot be placed in a public place of knowledge. Those who blocked me are corrupt! You allow yourself to be in the pocket of Big Coal. There was NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, wrong with my edit simply stating verified facts about coal in a neutral tone. I don't even get told by thel WIkipedia Block-Lord what I did that he/she considered disruptive? How can I defend myself when you won't even say what your problem was? This is a grave injustice! RememberIt is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to hang 1 innocent man!. Do not hang this innocent man! I have not even been told what my crime was! my only crime was my love of truth! If anything, I told too many truths! Kingshowman (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sure there's an actual unblock request in there somewhere, but I'm not going to spend time sifting through your attempts at humor to get at it. If you want to make a real request, please do so. Note that further nonsense will result in your talk page being disabled, and/or the block being extended. Kuru (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kingshowman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Old reason: I am being punished because I dared put information about coal being estimated to kill 10-25,000 Americans yearly in the lead of the coal article. I was never, never, never given a reason why it was being taken out, other than "not lead material"," not important." You can see some of the controversy below, and in the history of the page. It is frankly ridiculous that this is being considered an insignificant fact, unworthy of "lead status. " I wrote it conciusely,, neuytrally, backed it up painstakingly with multiple sources, replacing the ones that weren't liked, and still, for no reason, my edits kept getting reverted with little to no explanation, other than "Not lead material." I began to suspect that an underground Big Coal cabal might be behind the reversions because they were so unreasoned, and so clearly destroyed my hard work in improving the Coal page today. When I found the page this morning, it was in terrible, non-neutral POV shape. It looked as if it was a marketing brochure straight from the Coal Companies. I added some very neutral and well researched, concise, encylpedic sentences that I worked hard on, adding them very sparsely to the lead, just so the reader, MIGHT find out JUST from reading the lead that coal was a highly toxic substance, responsible for 10-25,000 premature deaths annually in the U.S. due to air pollution, and damage to heart, lungs, and brain. I was never once given a reason why this wasn't lead material. It was always, after very careful work BURIED deep within the article with little to no explanation. Soon after, it would just be deleted for no reason at all. Please have a look at the Coal page history. You will see my edits vastly improved the page and shifted it away from the state of ludicrously ideological Pro-Coal Propaganda piece that it is now. The other so-called disruptive edits were extremely, extremely minorafter my frustration with what appeared to be coroporate-controlled blocking of negative information about their products. Even so, the edits were hardly highly disruptive, but a short line, written in a neutral tone, albeit unsourced. I MERELY added to the Truth page this 1 line: "Although it is commonly believed that Misplaced Pages is based on the search for truth, it is actually based on the search for consensus." This was my apparently tremendous disruption to the truth page, by bringing up the topic of Misplaced Pages and Truth, in a separate 1 section sentence. I see that my edit to "Landlord" was also deleted, where the disruption was simply this "Many "tenants" find the term landlord offensive, as the person one rents a home from is not thereby their feudal lord." I can't see how either of those were really disruptions, so I am forced to conclude I am being banned for being insistent on the fact that mention of Coal's annual death toll deserves a fair spot in its Misplaced Pages lead--in fact you violate non-neutral point of view, if you omit it, since it is such an important fact about it, and only an ideologically driven, propagandistic source would omit the fact that something causes tens of thousands of deaths a year in one country alone. Also, I have to say it is kind of unfair that I was never even told what I did wrong. Kingshowman (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

New Reason: I promise to stop edit-warring about insufficient attention being paid to coal deaths, and will try to go back to my Philosophy edits where I have more subject knowledge and my edits have so far been generally well-received. I am a new user, but please look at my work on the Hume page today, which I think you'll see have been very productive. Kingshowman (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Actually, don't bother considering my request. I quit. In the few days I've been here, far too many of the helpful edits I've contributed to extremely low quality current articles like "Hume" "Plato", "childhood" "happiness" get mysteriously reverted without any reason by a variety of editors, for example, Flyer22, who reverts my sourced edits, and then marks them unsourced without explaining why.

You all drove me to make the few "disruptive" edits I made in the first plae, because after I spend my time making useful edits to your pages on Hume, Plato, Happiness, Childhood, etc. where I fix glaring omissions (no mention of Freud's theories on a page on childhood? can you all be intellectually serious at all? Or No mention of Nietzsche on the Sub-section of Philosophy of Happiness while you mention a bunch of lesser figures who have little connection with the topic? And then it gets deleted for no reason as "unsourced"?) It's far too easy for someone who knows nothing about the topic at hand to simply come along and revert sourced information and just not look at the link I've provided (hint; to an actual encyclopedia, with real information, one that solicits contributions from people who know about the philosophical topics at hand), and then deletes the information. And then I got blocked for "edit warring" on coal, once my contributions to philosophy pages have been deleted with no explanation or reason. Done contributing my time and knowledge here. Your encyclopedia is largely terrible for information outside of popular culture because you acitvely drive away people with substantive knowledge of the topics at hand. Most of the philosophy articles I looked at were pure dreck, but when I made helpful, productive edits, often they were reverted with no explanation or reasoning given, or false reasoning, like "unsourced" when I provided a link to a source at an actual encyclopedia, but you were too busy to read the link, or you have some stupid vendetta against me, because I reasonably insist that Freud's theory of child development ought to be cited in an article on childhood, a completely non-controversial opinion. Done here, later y'all! Enjoy those c-class articles , and I highly suggest you take a look at the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy or the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy to see what encylopedic articles on Philosophy or intellectual topics should look like. Wikipedians are drunk with their petty power and their silly "blocks" over "edit wars" when they can't win an argument with reasons. Hint: Having the "consensus" or the "most votes" doesn't in any way make you more likely to be right. Kingshowman (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't think you're ready to be unblocked just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kingshowman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You need me. Most of your philosophy articles read as though they have been written by people who have not read the books in question, and who "know about" the authors rather than have read them. There is little difference in tone or intellectual substance at the moment between your articles on Plato and Aristotle and your articles on the Kardashians. I tried to help, and you badly need people who have actually read the original sources to edit these articles. My helpful, productive edits keep getting reverted by vindictive editors who seem to have a middle school education for NO REASON. , It is impossible to have an enclyopedia that simultaneously covers intellectual topics of philosophical substance like "Childhood", "Happiness", "Hume", "Plato" and popular culture topics about garbage because the garbage editors come over and destroy hard work for no reason. And as for coal. and landlord-- I am being discriminated against my the American Big Coal Association, and the American Landlords association, who have sent members of thier cabal on here to destroy me, because I added well known facts about "laws are necessary to protect tenants against landlords" -- no citation should be needed for such a banality, not every sentence in wikipedia has a citation, and there is no person alive who could contest that claim. NONE. As far as coal, i provided extensive references to coal killing 25,000 americans yearly and 1,000,000 people worldwide, information that is elsewhere on wikipedia, and I just kept getting disciminated against by Big Coal for putting it in the front. THIS ENCYLOPEDIA IS DYING THE DEATH OF LOSS OF KNOWLEDGE. FREE KINGSHOWMAN Kingshowman (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman Kingshowman (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Max Semenik (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The landlord thing was because you were putting an unsupported claim in. "Many people do this" things need to be referenced reliably and independently - see WP:RS - otherwise the claim is regarded as WP:OR original research. If you can prove that the people reverting you at Coal are really working for Mr Peabody and his like, please do so. Otherwise, don't say it. (I'm not a landlord, not do I have one, and where I live, the term often means the chap who runs the pub. My only connection with coal is that I have been down three coal mines - one still working.) Peridon (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not everything in Misplaced Pages is cited. I see no citations for all of these sentences in "Landlord": 1." Many owners hire a property management company to take care of all the details of renting their property out to a tenant. This usually includes advertising the property and showing it to prospective tenants, and then, once rented, collecting rent from the tenant and performing repairs as needed" 2. "In the United States, homeowner–tenant disputes are primarily governed by state law (not federal law) regarding property and contracts. State law and, in some places, city law or county law, sets the requirements for eviction of a tenant. Generally, there are a limited number of reasons for which a landlord or landlady can evict his or her tenant before the expiration of the tenancy, though at the end of the lease term the rental relationship can generally be terminated without giving any reason. Some cities have laws establishing the maximum rent a landlord can charge, known as rent control, and related eviction. There is also an implied warranty of habitability, whereby a landlord must maintain safe, decent and habitable housing, meeting minimum safety requirements such as smoke detectors and a locking door." 3. "A rental agreement, or lease, is the contract defining such terms as the price paid, penalties for late payments, the length of the rental or lease, and the amount of notice required before either the homeowner or tenant cancels the agreement. In general, responsibilities are given as follows: the homeowner is responsible for making repairs and performing property maintenance, and the tenant is responsible for keeping the property clean and safe." 4.. ."A landlord is the owner of a house, apartment, condominium, land or real estate which is rented or leased to an individual or business, who is called a tenant (also a lessee or renter). When a juristic person is in this position, the term landlord is used. Other terms include lessor and owner. The term landlady may be used for female owners, and lessor applies to both genders."

Yes, my sentences were uncited, but they were as uncontroversial, and matters of common knowledge just as these. They fit perfectly with the rest of the article., and made it read like less of a landlord propaganda piece.Kingshowman (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

A great Injustice has been Committed Today

A crime AGAINST THE TRUTH ABOUT COAL

A question for you Kingshowman - have you read Environmental impact of the coal industry? Do you find any evidence there of editors denying the serious impact of coal mining and use? The environmental part of that article is summarised in Coal#Environmental effects, while much of the health impact is summarised now in the Coal#Health effects. The lead section is supposed to present the important points from the article content in a concise manner. I've tweaked the sentence on environmental and health effects in the lead - to me as a scientist 'significant' has a particular meaning, but I understand that others may not read it that way, so I've changed it to 'severe' after reading the sub-article mentioned above. I am a member of an international environmental organisation as well as a geologist and I don't take kindly to being called a shill for an industry with which I do not deal. Mikenorton (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Need I have read it? First, of all, part of the very point is that information should appear in the lead, because 90 percent of people aren't going to read past the lead! . I'm sure Tobacco, and Mercury, and Asbestos, and other similarly toxic/hazardous products all have information about their negative health impact in the lead. Killing thousands yearly should not be buried halfway through the article as "unimportant" as if the deaths of thousands of human beings are incidental. I really can't tell if you're serious about this-- do you honestly think it isn't important enough to be in the lead? Thousands are dying. Seems important if anything is. I really don't understand if you're serious, because that's the kind of thing that I would think someone would only say as a joke. I should not be getting punished for speaking the Truth about Coal! It is not a subsidiary bit of information that coal kills 25,000 Americans annually. Anything with a Misplaced Pages page that kills more than 10,000- 25,000 human beings annually should have that information in the lead. I didn't even realize coal was this horrible until I started looking for citations for this-- how is coal power even legal given how lethal it is? And more importantly for our purposes, how is killing 10 -25 ,000 humans in any country alone unworthy of lead ? This seems like one of the most relevant and important facts to know about something. I really don't get it. How can coal killing tens of thousands of people per year not be "important" information about Coal? I would think it's by far the MOST IMPORTANT thing to know about coal. Arguably, that's all one really needs to know about it. If you are a member of an environmental organization, why are you sticking up for Coal? I don't know of any environmental organizations that supports Coal. Coal is almost universally regarded as retrograde energy source that should be left in the ground. I understand exactly what 'significance' means in your sense which is precisely why it was inappropriate. Significant is the completely incorrect word.Kingshowman (talk)

Kingshowman, accusing people of working for coal organisations is not going to help with an unblock at all. And have you looked at the lead of Environmental impact of the coal industry? All but the opening sentence of it is negative. —George8211 / T 20:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, ok- I had not seen THAT article, but who is going to search for enviornmental impact of the coal industry? You're going to search for Coal, and info on coal death should be there. FIght the Power! Kingshowman (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)KingShowman

A suggestion-- why do we separate out "Environmental Impact of the Coal industry" into a separate article, which no one reads, allowing the main coal article to remain clean? Why don't we just take the lead from Environemental Impact of the Coal Industry, and add it as a PARTIAL lead to the Full Coal article?Kingshowman (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Ok, I've just gotten back from the suggested Environmental Impact of the Coal Industry article. It's even worse than I thought! 1,000,000 lives worldwide per year from Coal? Why is Coal even legal again? Are we all living in some Charles Dickens novel?Kingshowman (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

The environmental impact of the coal industry article exists because it's too long to include all of it in the main article. Perhaps the lead of Coal isn't balanced, but improvement of it will be reached by discussion, not edit warring.

And by the way, I don't like fossil fuels either. —George8211 / T 20:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, George. I guess you're right. I suppose my countervailing concern would be if you split off "negative effects" always onto a separate page, and then leave it mainly out of the main page for purposes of redundancy, you won't present an accurate picture in the main page.Kingshowman (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Don't remove declined unblock requests or anything else related to your block while it's active, or you might lose the right to edit this page. This time, I've restored it for you. Max Semenik (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015 edits to Shakespeare

@Kingshowman: Please stop your disruptive editing, as you have been doing at Shakespeare. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Any proposition that Shakespeare may have used cannabis is entirely speculative, purely hypothetical and undocumented, although a discussion of the clay pipes found in his garden in recent years by the South African study team is included in the article. The pipes found there, however, may not have even belonged to William Shakespeare, but possibly belonged to any number of others over the years during and since his periods of residency there. Consequently, it is not appropriate to make the inductive leap, as you are wont to do, from finding the pipe-stem fragments, to our being receptive to categorizing him with a "Cannabis User" tag in an encyclopedia-quality Misplaced Pages article. Thank you. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the clay pipes filled with cannabis information to Shakespeare page, under the heading "speculations". I didn't present it as non-speculation.

As for the category, I was just trying to create a new Category page. You have plenty of categories less worthy of inclusion than "Cannabis users", which is a perfectly respectable category.Kingshowman (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

@Kingshowman: Your edits are welcomed, and no problem with having a new "Cannabis User" category --- that's fine, thanks for the contribution --- it just can't, and shouldn't be tagged to Wm. Shakespeare on the basis of existing (or non-existent in this case) evidence. And, the article as it stands now is OK, too, as it includes your contribution, and discusses the recent pipe-stem fragments study, etc., but makes clear that any possible connection to Shakespeare himself is pure conjecture and speculation. So, both of your contributions (the new category, and the pipe fragments with traces of cannabis) are now in fact included, but with necessary qualifications vis-à-vis their applicability to "the Bard". Your contributions are always welcome and encouraged, but may be challenged and edited as appropriate by others, particularly if they go beyond that which can be verified with valid sourcing. Happy editing. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Professor, many thanks. I agree your changes were an improvement, and for the reasons you state, the studies were indeed more speculative than I had originally taken them to be. Kingshowman (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Misplaced Pages

1. If you find something that should have a citation but doesn't, it's not an excuse to add more uncited stuff.
2. Don't accuse people of working for companies, industries, etc.
3. Administrators can revoke talk page access if you become too disruptive.

—George8211 / T 16:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Serious Question: Does Misplaced Pages, in fact, even have a policy AGAINST persons working for industries, say, for instance Big Coal, editing the Misplaced Pages page on Coal? If not, Misplaced Pages would lose a great deal of intellectual legitimacy in my opinion.Kingshowman (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

And I did not mean it as an excuse to add more uncited stuff, but that my information fit in with the rest of the page, which added well-known stock information about landlords (but curiously omitted any negative information, as if this was a paid advertisement of the Landlord industry.)

See WP:COI. —George8211 / T 16:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And think about this: if you are in a campaign to tell The Truth about Big Coal or anything else, you too have a COI. Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not in a campaign to tell the truth about Big Coal. Everyone knows this. It's been extremely well-evidenced since at least 2009 WHO studies that coal kills millions annually. I simply happened upon a page that was shockingly non-neutral and not up to date. It would be as if the wikipedia "Tobacco" page buried the fact that Tobacco is highly lethal 12 paragraphs down in the article and no one was allowed to write that this substance kills millions annually in the lead. If you think such information doesn't belong in the lead of the article, frankly, it is you who are wrong and ill-informed. However, I take the point that I need not have accused my opponents of being paid employees of the Coal industry or fundamentally morally corrupt because they disagreed with me. Still, they were quite wrong, and continue to be so.Kingshowman (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Sweet Freedom!!!!

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty we are free at last!--Dr. MLK, Jr.Kingshowman (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM! William Wallace: Alba gu bràth! Kingshowman (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. --the first president of freedomland

The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.- Albert Camus, philosopher of freedom

Freedom is never given; it is won.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.- GOETHE

Is freedom anything else than the right to live as we wish? Nothing else.Kingshowman (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)EPICTETUS

Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost.--ROUSSEAU

BEHOLD KINGSHOWMAN IS FREE

THE TRUTH WILL OUT

August 2015

Thank you for your contributions to Cannabis, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Misplaced Pages is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce jokes into articles, as you did at David Hume, you may be blocked from editing. Misplaced Pages is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call this "vandalism", it was some dry, encylopedic-style humor. Rule #1: Assume good faith! I'm not sure this really was so un-encylopedic as you've implied, but I'll defer to your judgement.

Your edit added "Unlike Tobacco, Cannabis is generally regarded as tasty, delicious, and possessed with a lovely bouquet and aroma. " which is most definitely not encyclopedic. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's like a tasting note. Kingshowman (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

I QUIT DUE TO UNWARRANTED HOSTILITY. WILL NO LONGER WASTE MY TIME CONTRIBUTING TO A HOPELESS ENCYCLOPEDIA

REQUEST FOR DELETION BECAUSE I NO LONGER WISH TO ASSOCIATE WITH THIS WEBSITE

WP:Courtesy vanishing is only available to accounts in good standing. Given your block history and your recent deletion of material from articles, I don't think bureaucrats would deem your account suitable for it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC

Flyer22 told me she was going to personally have all my contributions deleted, so I pre-emptively deleted them myself. I don't understand your refusal when I've been effectively chased away anyway.Kingshowman (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Whatever though, I'm done anyway. And I only deleted my own material that I personally contributed.Kingshowman (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Parting question: If I was indeed such a "terrible editor" according to some, why does my material keep getting restored now after I deleted it? Why am I being reprimanded for removing material I added when I was told my edits were all "poor"?

That's fine, don't vanish me, I don't even care anymore. But Fred, do realize that I only deleted "content" that I wrote, because I was rudely getting badgered by an editor that "your edits are poor, plain and simple." The content you restored was content that I authored andI deleted once I was falsely told my edits were "poor," I didn't delete any material from articles that was already there or written by others, Fred. I only removed my own content when its quality was rudely and ignorantly questioned (by someone with likely no acquaintance with the primary sources on which I was writing) I do have to note how remarkable it is that if my edits were so "poor, pure and simple" why is it that nearly all of them got restored wholesale by others within hours of my deleting them, FLYER22, despite that I even requested that they be deleted? Puzzling. Kingshowman (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Anyone wanting to know what I actually stated to Kingshowman should click on this link. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's quote from there, shall we? "Your editing is poor, plain and simple." "You don't listen to anyone about how poor your editing is " "Your edits to the David Hume article consist of such editing, and I am tempted to revert you there and assist Theroadislong in doing so.". We are all extremely lucky you didn't give in to such temptation, since when I took up your suggestion, and reverted all my edits myself, they were immediately restored, and I was told not to get rid of them. Amazing how if they were so "poor, plain and simple" - your words- my edits got restored. You are an ignoramus who enjoys opining on topics she knows nothing about., "plain and simple."

And you're an insufferable, humorless boor to boot. Kingshowman (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Other than this, I have nothing more to state to you. Your childish WP:Personal attacks are only adding to my case against you. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What is your "case"? I already quit this POS encylopedia to begin with due to your unwarranted Hostility and Personal Attacks against me. You insulted my edits, told me they were "poor, pure and simple" and yet, strangely enough, they were restored within hours of my requesting them to be deleted (aside from the dead pages you patrol that no one posts on and which you allow to be filled with garbage, crackpot theories like "Nature deficit disorder", a concept apparently invented by a journalist in 2006 to sell some book and which has not been heard from since. . So you were, in fact,quite wrong in your assertions.. And you lack the integrity to admit your mistake. Don't you have some articles on sexology you could be editing? The world needs your expertise! Any tips to share with us mere mortals?Kingshowman (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Hi Kingshowman and Flyer22, I have been pinged on Talk:Happiness on an issue that might better be continued here (or not at all, as you wish). Just to clarify: I reverted your self-revert for two reasons: one was indeed that my edits also disappeared with that revert, and the other one was that I believe the prose added to the lead of David Hume indeed improved that article. While the referencing is terrible, the syntax not perfect, and the English somewhat weird, the new prose captures much better what Hume is about than what was there before.

Nobody appreciates insults from a new user. Conversely, a new user probably does not appreciate that a case be made against them, and that every edit be checked. But for now the odds are against you, Kingshowman, and I guess you're pretty close to an indefinite block along the lines of 'not here to build an encyclopedia'. If you really want to improve articles on Misplaced Pages you'll have to step back a bit, ingest Misplaced Pages:Etiquette which, just underneath the 'Assume good faith' rule that you already know lists the Golden Rule, and withdraw from the drama. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the sweet, sweet taste of victory. Triumph! Are you ready to eat crow yet, flyer22, you ignorant, know-nothing fool? "I believe the prose added to the lead of Hume indeed improved the article ...the new prose captures much better what Hune is about than what was there before." This was exactly my point, and I sincerely thank you pgallert. Victory is mine!!! Next time , flyer22, you decide to open your uneducated mouth and tell me my edits are "poor, pure and simple" on an author you undoubtedly have never read, maybe you'll think twice. Maybe you should go back to editing your comic books and pop culture or sexology articles, or back to your sock puppetry that earned you a month ban. This user has been blowing smoke out of her ass since the minute I got here, because she lacks enough of an education to appreciate who Hume and Freud and Nietzsche and other such thinkers were and deletes my work under spurious pretenses, spouting off insupportable opinions about my prose being "poor" when it has just rightly been praised and restored as an improvement to the article. Long live the king!----

Now, there's the problem that has you in so much trouble. Misplaced Pages isn't a battleground, it's a collaboration. You have won no victory, you have merely achieved the goal that we're all striving for: you added content that (in the eyes of at least one editor) improved an article. But your belligerent attitude here will undo any good work you may have accomplished in the article, and it is that belligerent attitude that will likely find you blocked in the end. I highly recommend a WP:WIKIBREAK, after which you can come back cool, calm, and once again ready to do the collaborative work necessary to build this encyclopedia. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because Pgallert has made comments in your favour, it doesn't mean you can insult Flyer22. —George8211 / T 17:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* I did link Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, didn't I? --Pgallert (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In what way has Pgallert validated you or stated anything about why he kept your edits that I had not already essentially stated? You don't listen. Like me, he stated that he reverted you because your edit reverted his edits. I also noted that he likely saw that your edits could be improved. He also stated of your edits "the referencing is terrible, the syntax not perfect, and the English somewhat weird." That is poor editing.

As for my editing, I don't edit comic book articles unless it's to revert a highly disruptive editor or unless it is about characters from The Walking Dead television series. And as for stating "sock puppetry that earned month ban"... I was never WP:Banned (a WP:Block is different than a WP:Ban). And like I told another editor who didn't do his homework, all my blocks were misunderstandings, except for the one where I was blocked to protect my account since it was WP:Compromised, as is clear at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 10/Block cases. Administrator The ed17 agreed with what I stated to that other editor. So if you are going to read/report on a person's block log, then actually comprehend it and report on it accurately. Same goes for reading my user page and/or talk page. As for anything else you state about me, such as me supposedly being uneducated, my reputation here at Misplaced Pages speaks for itself. Time to ignore you now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice none of you come to my defense or reprimand flyer22 when she personally attacks me over and over again and puts her ignorance on display for all to see. Hint: pgallert kept the edit and said that it significantly improved the article and the article's core function which is to display to readers who Hume was and why he is a significant figure in the history of philosophy. She started this war with her rude, boorish, uncivilized comments but apparently cannot take the heat when impartial parties tell her she was wrong. Why again, pray tell, were the edits kept and regarded as an improvement if they were "poor" and I am a "poor editor, pre and simple?" It is sad to see the bias displayed towards editors on the basis of seniority she started this fight and when she was proven wrong by impartial parties lacked the basic moral integrity to admit her mistake and agree that the edits were non-poor, improvements to the articles. Your denied yourself the opportunity to have me further improve this or other articles due to your completely unwarranted hostility, ms. Sockmeat puppeteer.

Have you even looked at the link Flyer22 gave you? She is not a sockpuppet, nor a meatpuppet. —George8211 / T 17:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't give a shot about her sock puppet incident. The point is, she made an ignorant statement about my Hume edits being detrimental to the encyclopedia. Au contraire, they were restored in full and eloquently defended by PGallert. Game, set, match. She is the one who clearly cannot read and should not be wading into philosophical articles when she has not read the relevant arickes. I wouldn't give my opinion on the Walking Dead Article because I haven't watched the program and she should likewise refrain from commenting on my edits about Nietzsche, Freud, or Hume since she obviously lacks even a novice's familiarity with their writings. If you want to get on someone for I civility , look at her who personally attacked me and my contributions without grounds, merely dispensing from on high that they were "poor." Ludicrously , even after they were restored she continues to clutch at straws on minor critiques on my referencing and syntax. You're welcome to adjust the syntax or referencing if you find them deficient, but until then they seem to be the best your encyclopedia has on the subject. Adieu.----Kingshowman

The point is not what others have done wrong, if you make attacking remarks it doesn't matter what other people have done.

And no, this is not a "war". —George8211 / T 18:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I was joking in calling it a "just war." I know this isn't a war. Nevertheless, I think it was quite uncalled for of Flyer22 to call my edits "poor, pure and simple" with little to no reasoning or grounds. She has more or less been hunting me around since the minute I got here, reverting my productive edits as soon as she finds one, almost seeming to begin foaming at the mouth at the prospect of reverting one of my edits, typically with a completely fictitous explanation given in the comments box. And what caused this incident to begin with is that SHE INSULTED AND PERSONAL ATTACKED ME- AND IN in terms that UNAMBIGUOUSLY turned out to not be the case (my edits were clearly not so "plain and simply poor" as she claimed considering many of them were kept even after I tried to delete them. regardless of what else she says, that's the end of the story. she was proven wrong.) When she needlessly insulted me, I retaliated in kind. In my opinion, you should take just as hard a look at what she said and her completely unnecessary attacks on all of my edits wherever I go, even on subjects she has not given me any indication she is actually interested in, other than to try to thwart my having any contributions on this website. Kingshowman (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)KINGSHOWMAN

Wrong again, Flyer22

I noticed, much to your chagrin Flyer22, that nearly all of the original content I contributed to the coal article was restored, despite your persistent efforts to disappear it without even citing a reason on the talk page. Next time, leave me the fuck alone and stop pursuing your trite and chilidish little editing vendetta against me. You are the one who caused all this disruption by being rude, hostile, and pursuing a personal vendetta against me and making reverts for no reasons, or using spurious reasons on the edit page to edit. I hope you can learn to cut out your bullshit.Kingshowman (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Proposed deletion of Joe Maddon's Beard

The article Joe Maddon's Beard has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Just because someone wrote a news article about it, that doesn't make it notable. Not really a useful redirect term either.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. A page you recently created, Joe Maddon's Beard, may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.Template:Z43 Bongan →TalkToMe← 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Joe Maddon's Beard, you may be blocked from editing. Please don't removing deletion templates without them being discussed, thanks! This is also known as Blanking a page here on Misplaced Pages. Snowycats (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I was told the article was not notable, so I went to delete it. Kingshowman (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

To clarify, your actions on Joe Maddon's Beard, wherein you blanked the page you yourself created, are generally allowed and are recognized by the community as an author's request to have the page deleted. In the future, should you wish to take this action, you should place the {{db-author}} template on the page. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Happiness. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

She did the same to me. Check her log of "contributions" which mainly consist of unwarranted personal attacks on me, after I questioned her on her reversions without any reasoning given. Why is she not being warned?Kingshowman (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

An offer

I'm willing to work with you on the Happiness material, as I am sympathetic to the notion that Nietzsche has something to say on the matter. Drop me a response here or on my talk page if you are interested. Mangoe (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate the offer and your feedback. I think I'm going to at least temporarily take the advice some gave, and take a short break from Misplaced Pages, to cool down from the recent hostility. (I also have a lot of real world writing that I'm currently using Misplaced Pages to procrastinate on that needs to get done before I write more here.) I'd like to work with you on including Nietzsche on the philosophers views of happiness section when I get back, and will look for a few references and secondary sources in the meanwhile.Kingshowman (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Hume, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Locke (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) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis and primary sources

Please read WP:SYN and WP:Primary sources. Vsmith (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to here? It would be helpful if you mentioned which of my edits are a "synthesis" when you direct me to this page, which I've seen before. It's quite irritating how vague Misplaced Pages editors are when giving feedback. Do you mean the Dickens?Kingshowman (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, this is rather uncivil for you to just drop in on my talk page without any explanation of even which edits you regard as "original research", nor do you provide a reason why, anything I've written is "original research." I'm open to feedback but this is really just a vague, non-explanatory gesture. You don't even say which edit you have in mind..Kingshowman (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, you kept part of my edit. So I guess it wasn't so "synthetic" after all. There's no fucking need for you to be so rude.Kingshowman (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm not going to suck up to you people just because you are "admins" and have some misplaced pride in your place in the crony Misplaced Pages hierarchy. I give no shits about your title and rank and if you're going to just drop in on my talk page, and make non-explanatory, rude notes, fuck off. If you have criticism, explain what you mean. I'm not here to be a fucking puzzle solver. I added content to articles, and if you don't like it, say why, rather than linking to some cryptic articles and leaving me to guess which of my edits you even found problematic in the first place. Later! Kingshowman (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: this isn't your high school classroom, and you don't get to condescend to me. Maybe you should read some of the policies as well, and get off your high horse. Kingshowman (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingshowman, while I agree that Vsmith's comment was cryptic and not terribly helpful, your reaction is rather over the top. I understand that you've had a hard time with the other editors here at Misplaced Pages, but belligerence is not the answer. A simple "could you please clarify that?" would have sufficed. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair. Thanks Dan. Kingshowman (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

May have been cryptic, but I felt you needed to be aware of those two pages in light of your editing history. Also read WP:Civility and WP:NPA, thank you. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No mention of why you "felt" this "need", or what about my "editing history" you have in mind, but I suppose providing explanations and giving reasons for the things you do isn't your strong suit. I asked quite clearly what you meant by your edit and your direction to the irrelevant link and was greeted with silence. Other editors concurred that your statement was largely pointless and obscure. I'm still waiting for that explanation, and your explanation for your once again, groundless, accusations of "synthesis" on David Hume, a page you have not previously indicated any interest in, as far as I can tell. One can only assume that you decided to go there to see if you could destroy some of my work there under similarly flimsy pretenses.Kingshowman (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Rather than assuming that Vsmith went to any particular page to "destroy some of your work", please instead assume that Vsmith was acting in good faith and attempting to improve the encyclopedia, as are we all. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 22:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A new creation

Behold! I have created a new user page stuffed full of facts for all to read and enjoy. Kingshowman (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit goons are at it again

Presumably no one else here gets "citation needed" tags in their user page, since it is a user page, rather than an encyclopedic article, a distinction an overzealous editor seems to have failed to grasp. I'd love to see an example of another editor who had their personal user page subjected to such pointless scrutiny. You know, so I can continue to "assume good faith" rather than conclude than I've been unfairly targeted and treated once again. Kingshowman (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

HELP

HELP! Can't add picture of banquet to my User page! Oh no!! Please help!Kingshowman (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your userpage

Don't include false info, or make personal attacks. I do think Mean as custard may have overstepped the line in their edits to your userpage, but it was quickly reverted by Vsmith.

However, as before, I won't do anything to the rest of your userpage. —George8211 / T 14:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks George. As I'm sure you realize, it's meant to be funny. Kingshowman (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My quotes are gone! Alas, bestill my heart.Kingshowman (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

But....Arguably those quotes are all accurate and I am the Wikipedian editor in question making them, no? Kingshowman (talk)

It's still misleading. —George8211 / T 14:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean, it's mainly making a joke at myself and my (glorious) tendency to get into arguments with people here. I don't really see why someone else would find it offensive. I did leave out the "go shove it up your arsehole" bit this time.Kingshowman (talk)

Ok, to prevent anyone from deciding that it's offensive, you could put {{humor}} on the top of it. —George8211 / T 14:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. I think. Not sure it worked.Kingshowman (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I also can't seem to upload either of the "Banquet for Barbur" or "Last Supper" images I'd wanted to upload. Drat!Kingshowman (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of "edit goons."

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on "edit goons." requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If your purpose is to see how far you can go before you get blocked, why not just walk away now? WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

what have I done to get blocked? the only page I've really contributed to, I think you'll see I've improved. I'll blank "edit goons" since you're opposedKingshowman (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I still think 'edit goons' could have become notable if only you'd given her a chance to blossom. "Let a hundred flowers bloom."- Mao ZedongKingshowman (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring caution

Your recent editing history at David Hume 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. Vsmith (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you fucking serious? Again, what works of Hume have you read? Go fuck yourself, ignoramus. Stop trolling and spamming my talk page and spend the time actually getting an education and reading a book on philosophy for once in your life before you continue to make pointless, masturbatory edits on pages well beyond your comprehension. Please share, what is your interest i Hume beyond being a thorn in my side? Kingshowman (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your editing is being discussed at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding incivility and battleground mentality. The thread is User:Kingshowman using Misplaced Pages as a battleground.The discussion is about the topic David Hume. Thank you. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You must be a real loser and mental infant to try to block me when I've obviously improved that page, as a number of editors who have actrually read Hume and have an interest in him, strongly agree. Cheers. Kingshowman (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on David Hume. Using statements like This is another editor with no interest in the topic and no reading comprehension skills who has destroyed work without any justification. is only going to get you into more trouble. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing to prevent further disruption.

Your antics here on your talk page and at ANI haven't gone unnoticed. Frankly, after reading the paranoid rants about how all other editors are coal industry stooges and the like (above, this page) made me question your ability to contribute in a collegiate fashion at any level. Your desire to right great wrongs and climb on a soapbox and thump your chest is disruptive, and in fact, goes against the whole idea of collaborative editing. Your comments smack of self-aggrandizement, such as:

• You need me. Most of your philosophy articles read as though they have been written by people who have not read the books in question, and who "know about" the authors rather than have read them.
• ALL I DID WAS TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT COAL WITH SOURCES. Those who blocked me ARE IN THE POCKET OF BIG COAL and i exposed their nefarious plots. ... Please FREE KINGSHOWMAN!
• They won't even tell me what I did because they know all I did was Bring Justice and Tell Truth! I'm not being disruptive.
• I began to suspect that an underground Big Coal cabal might be behind the reversions because they were so unreasoned
• This was my apparently tremendous disruption to the truth page, by bringing up the topic of Misplaced Pages and Truth, in a separate 1 section sentence

None of us is indispensable, and sometimes we just need to get over ourselves. None of this speaks to your personal attacks and general incivility, which can only be tolerated to a degree. You have overstepped that boundary too many times. Regardless, I have fought the instinct to indef block you for the POV, soapbox and battleground issues you display, and have instead only blocked for one week, which is the next logical step from your last block. You are free to request an unblock, and obviously you already know how, but my recommendation will be to leave the block in place to allow at least one week of peace and quiet, and perhaps an incentive to not disrupt in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, nothing you've listed against me is new from the previous block on my edits on Coal, when I was a far younger, less seasoned editor. In any event "Coal" is just a hobby and many of my edits ultimately stayed there. I can see now that I was overzealous in my youth in accusing my opponents of being Coal industry lobbyists (although I wasn't actually serious in saying that). But I fail to see how any of your comments justify a block since none of the actions you've cited are new since my previous block. What you're proposing is essentially double-jeopardy, trying me twice for the same crime which I've already paid the penalty for. Also I was only blocked twice previously. Why does everyone keep saying this is my 4th block when the pages you link to clearly show it is only my 3rd? Why am I being so harshly punished for these good-faith, rookie mistakes? I am but a young, blooming flower who only wishes to blossom, and to let Misplaced Pages sing its siren song of Truth and Knowledge. Kingshowman (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly your fourth block. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Dan, just checked the link you sent me to. Unambiguously, what it says is "changed block settings." I.e. my block was changed to stop me from editing my talk page. It does not say "New block." So, no, sweet, kind, generous Daniel, not "clearly your 4th block." Unambiguously, that page shows 3 blocks, and one change of block setting. Not a 4th block. As a lover of Truth, I must stand up for the Truth and for Knowledge, no matter the personal cost. I shall even drink the hemlock like Socrates if the demos here makes me, so great is my love for Truth.Kingshowman (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Daniel, perhaps you would do well to review the Misplaced Pages page on counting] or Mathematics to help us come to consensus on this. Please do share what the 4 blocks were for, if you count 4. As I see it, you are double-counting a single-block to strengthen your flimsy case against me. Please check more carefully before making false claims in the future. I have improved this encylopedia. I stopped edit warring. I left Flyer22 alone, even though she was rude and nasty to me for no reason. I have no longer even been editing coal but sticking to my core expertise where I can most help the encylopedia, and as far as I can tell, the most reason block has been claimed for crimes I have already been punished for. Is there no Misplaced Pages policy on Double Jeopardy? Kingshowman (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, everything you linked to Dennis Brown, was quite obviously meant as humor. "ALL I DID WAS TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT COAL WITH SOURCES. Those who blocked me ARE IN THE POCKET OF BIG COAL AND I EXPOSED THEIR NEFARIOUS plots. Please FREE KINGSHOWMAN!" Kingshowman (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't Misplaced Pages editors catch obvious attempts at humour? Perhaps you didn't find them funny, but they were meant as attempts at levity during the heated so-called "Coal Wars". I was also not entirely alone in the position I took there on coal-- which was simply that a paragraph needed to be added to the lead to reflect Coal's Health and Environmental Effects. I wasn't taking an unreasonable position, and you will now see, that thanks to my tireless, thankless efforts to improve this encylopedia, that information is now in the lead on Coal. (not through reverts by me, but by others who agreed with my position.) I have not edited coal since my block, so I'm not quite sure how it makes sense to blocvk me again for something that I haven't gone back to doing.Kingshowman (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I did not harrass Flyer22. She harrassed me. May I relate the course of events, which you may verify? First of all, I stopped communicating with her since she requested that I do so. Second of all, she got steamed because I added a paragraph on Nietzsche to her "Happiness" article under the section "Philsoophy of Happiness." Arguably (as other editors agreed) Nietzsche may have something valuable to say here, and I very quiickly made a summary of the SEP article on Nietzsche's moral philosophy on this topic. No, it wasn't perfect and the referencing could have used improvement, but it was better than omitting it and leaving readers with a somewhat one-sided impression of the Great Philosophers on Happiness. Flyer22 reverted my edit, giving a basically spurious reason: "Unsourced" as I recall. But it was directed to THE MOST RELIABLE source on Philosophy, by general and academic consensus, the SEP. It would in fact be very easy to improve a great deal of Wiki Philosophy articles by just having editors sum up information from this wonderful free, peer-reviewed, academically rigorous resource.Kingshowman (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Then, withouit provocation, after I asked her what exactly she found problematic about including Nietzsche in a list of philosophers who have written about Happiness, including similar statured luminaries like Augustine, Aquinas, Aristotle, Mill, etc. she responded, not by listing what was wrong with my Happiness edit, but by telling me "ALL OF YOUR EDITS ARE POOR, PURE AND SIMPLE. YOU ARE A POOR EDITOR." I thought this was rather rude and ignorant, especfially as she saw fit to specifically attack my Hume edits (when Hume was not under discussion) telling me "your edits on Hume largely consit of such (read=poor) edits and I'm tempted to revert them." Since I hate to see a poor soul suffering under the weight of such crushing temptation, I gave in to the temptation myself, and deleted all of my contributions from this encylopedia. Within hours, a throng of rebellion began to emerge,. a grass-roots protest movement which demanded the immediate return of all the much-loved Kingshowman edits to the encylopedia. Editors rushed to my defense. I told Flyer22 to eat crow and admit that, contra her opinion, my Hume edits and contributions to this beloved tome of knowledge were not so poor after all. She declined and escalated her attacks. She was the one who harrassed me, and I thought we were done with this sordid little episode until she popped back up, eager to participate in the latest round of mob justice. Kingshowman (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Dennis, I'd really love to hear an answer as to why my Coal edits are relevant here. I've stopped editing coal, and this consitutesDouble Jeopardy since I've already been punished for this and have done nothing since then.

Dan is also missspeaking when he says there were 4 blocks, there were 3, and one "change of block settings". Unless "words no longer have meaning" to quote that great curmudgeon Antonin Scalia, that means there were 3 blocks, not 4. And this one is somewhat strange since I seem to be getting blocked again for the same problem. Obviously my edits have improved from my first week at the encylopedia, but I keep getting unloaded on for my youthful indiscretions. Also, Flyer22 has been following me around reverting my edits since I first did her the indignity of adding a minor, brief, referenced note on Sigmund Freud's theories to her beloved childhood page, which has little to no useful philosophical material, and yet is classed as a high importance, low quality philosophy, with begging for improvement ("If you can improve this page, please do so. It has little or no material") then afterwards, she began to follow me around to other philosophy pages, and reverting my work with dishonest comments in the edit summary given as reasons. Yes, I did get annoyed at this, but I think it was rather uncivil to tell a new editor that their edits are "poor, pure and simple" don't you? Especially when she doesn't seem to actually posssess any abiding interest in the topics I edit other than the fact that they are my topics, and she wishes to see me be annoyed and removed from editing this website? I'd really like a response, Dennis, since I don't see how the coal quotations from prior to my previous block are germane at all here. Kingshowman (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I consider the change in block settings as a separate block action because clearly you were behaving in so disruptive a manner that you lost access even to your own talk page. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 00:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You can consider it that, just as I can consider $10 to be worth $20. But what is actually the case, and what is stated on the link you yourself provided, is that there are now 3 blocks, and 1 change of block settings on my talk page, not "clearly four blocks" as you stated previously. Whatever you personally consider it in your head does not thereby make it "clearly your fourth block." Cheers. Kingshowman (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingshowman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's unclear why Dennis Brown mentioning the reasons for my previous blocks is germane to a potential new block, when I had already been blocked for the quotations he summons for the prosecution. This really does not make sense. All that is mentioned against me are youtful indiscretions that I have already been punished for and stopped doing. I have done nothing but improve the David Hume page in recent days, and all I may have recently regrettably done was expressed some minor irritation towards persons who unfairly targetted high quality edits of mine simply because they were mine. I was also unfairly maligned and harrassed by editors calling my edits "poor, pure and simple" and reacted in kind. But it appears I am being blocked here once again for events I have already served Hard Time for. I've not even been on coal since I was blocked-- how can the quotations mustered by Dennis Brown be the reason for my block here? I don't understand this at all. You will also see a number of witnesses called for the defense above, as I give a more richly, detailed and well-plotted account of the events in the preceding paragraphs. I must also say, despite Dan's erroneous remarks, I "clearly' have now only been blocked 3 times. Dan is falsely double-counting a taking away of talk privileges (and for rather silly reasons, and by a robot-- I simply added a line to the top of my talk page while blocked saying tell the truth about coal-hardly a reason to prevent me from using my talk page, and not a penalty a human would have ever levied, I thought talk pages were for just this kind of expression of personal views during a block, as an additional block. Thus, I also ask Dan to stop spreading these malicious untruths as we are all here, even we "godless anti-metaphysicians" (and especially us)we are all prividing our time at Misplaced Pages in service of the "the flame lit by the thousand year old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith , that God is Truth, that Truth is divine(Aphorism 344, The Gay ScienceKingshowman (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Finally, let me say this, whenever I am unblocked, I will refrain from uncivil personal attacks in the future. This being said, the objects of my previous attacks had indeeed generally treated me unfairly, and many stated nasty, untrue comments about my edits which they may not have even read, or were attacked because they posted one word "explanation" links to a policy which wasn't germane to the edit at hand, kept following me to various articles to revert me at which I had checked they had never demonstrated any interest in before. I also feel like I am being swarmed on here by a team of editors who keep looiking for the slightest error in my work to delete the whole thing, rather than make a request for a citation, when I'd obviously spent time on it. In fact, I did not edit war at all- I was warred with, as I rarely revert, I simply make a new contribution. Users however in some cases would revert me with a single word like "Synthesis" instead of just making a "citation needed" tag which would be more approrpriate. When I asked for details, none were forthcoming. I may have lost my cool and said some hostile things, and I will not engage in further "flaming" since it is a waste of time, but many editors have been ganging up on me and purposely trying to obstruct clearly good-faith edits to an article instead of making suggestions on what they would like to improve in them, which as Mannus noted in my defense on the ANI noticeboard, I have been quite open to and eager for collaboration. However, I don't particularly like warring drive-by reverts who seem to be looking for ways to get to me. I will keep things civil whenever you unblock, but don't think I was just attacking people for no reason. They hadn't been very nice or productive or helpful either. Finally, as for the Flyer22 incident, obviously my response was somewhat over-the-top and comically grandiose. You'll see that I'm going to refrain from such incivility in the future. However, this being said, she did begin the personal attacks on me first calling me a "poor editor, pure and simple" which was absolutely uncalled for and also, plainly, let's not shit ourselves, a personal attack (and therefore she through the first punch.). I did escalate rather rapidly, in my defense, I did not begin Personal Attacks with her. Also again, I hope you can realize that some of this was quite obviously meant to be comical: "are you ready to eat crow yet, you ignorant know-nothing fool?" I still laugh out loud at that one. It's just because I'm new here. You'll come to recognize my dry sense of humour over time, and I daresay you'll come to love it more each day. But I digress... As for Vsmith, she had also made hostile edits to my pages, repeatedly deleting/edit warring writing the single word "Syntheiss" Please see synteheis, in cases where it absolutely wasn't applicable, and what she meant was she would prefer a better citation. Since she had come over to Hume and I had also been adding a Bleak House Dickens reference, she also left me irritatingly to guess which page she even meant. She then refused to answer my questions as to just why she thought quoting directly from Hume's autobiography somewhow consituttes a syntehsis, and why she would delete it with a single word, instead of maybe suggesting I improve the referencing, which I later did, adding 3 scholarly secondary sources, in addition to the primary source. Again, this was a case of over-the-top, but also a case of a vengeful, angry editor following me around and attacking me and acting uncivilly first. As for the guy who deleted "influential" in the Hume article, I'm still not sure why he thought the words "highly influential" in the opening sentence of Hume required a citation, when it is elsewhere in the article, and leads don't need citations for truisims like Hume was influential in the opening sentence. Still, I can see that my response here was unduly harsh. I'm going to try to be civil, but I hope you bear in mind that several editors are targetting me and many began the incivility, which I merely escalated, but did not bring into Being. Cheers. Kingshowman (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you want to continue editing hear, you're going to need to drop the "I'm an invaluable asset to Misplaced Pages and you are all ignorant fools" shtick, along with the persecution complex. If you want to continue contributing to this project, you're going to need to demonstrate that you can collaborate with others and discuss disagreements in a civil fashion. Further advice: an unblock request as lengthy does nothing but reinforce the "battleground mentality" concern. OhNoitsJamie 02:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

But that shtick is the most beloved aspect of my entire editing persona!Kingshowman (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)