User talk:Beauvy

December 2012
Hello, I'm Widr. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Simone de Beauvoir without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Widr (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Beauvy, that is the way to do it. I'm relatively new here too, but I discovered early on that one has to justify, reference, and talk about subjects of controversy. So, I really appreciate the approach you are taking now. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Dialectic of Sex, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, you are the same person, using a different account so that you can revert my edits three times. Are we idiots? Please take it to "higher authorities." They will read my material and realize you have simply vandalized it for personal agenda. It is consistent with all of your other contributed material as well.

Your recent editing history at The Dialectic of Sex shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jim1138 (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Beauvy, you weren't blocked because of anything that happened at The Dialectic of Sex. You were blocked because of your edit warring at Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, where you insisted on restoring controversial material despite its rejection by three other editors. Haven't you got anything to say about that? I'm afraid you'll find that making complaints about me won't make your unblock request any more convincing: the issue is what you did, not whether I am perfect or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes because you are a warring combative person with 3 different usernames. So you blocked me via a different user name, that is related to a different IP address. Not rocket science. It's also obvious, since no one has contributed to that article in ages.. and would not report me for it writing a critique on it.

The Dialectic edits you have created are entirely focused on freud, who you desire to bring attention to. Summaries of Freud, whose work was 75 years earlier, and Jung who Firestone doesn't discuss at all, do not belong on Dialectic page. It fully overshadows the actual work, which you still have not explained. You have offered a summary of Freud. I urge you to see "Being and Nothingness" to learn how a book entry is written.

Eventually, they will unblock me and I will go back to editing Dialectic in an unbiased manner. You can have the other page, and your 3 different IP addresses used for warring. Few people will read that one and the bias it reeks, but many people will read The Dialectic, and it needs to be a correct representation of an important work.


 * As I said, you were blocked for edit warring at Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why. You still haven't properly addressed that, and it's predictable that you aren't going to be unblocked. If you seriously want to be unblocked, then remove your current unblock request and write a new one. An acceptable request would have to include an admission that your edit warring was wrong, and a promise to refrain from such behavior in future. Telling me that I can "have" the LeVay article isn't appropriate, and doesn't show any understanding of why your behavior was wrong. Your comments about The Dialectic of Sex are inaccurate, and suggest that you haven't bothered to look at the article lately. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not engage in edit warring in that article at all. I cited well known research indicating research within that book is not entirely correct. I will be unblocked tomorrow at which point I will add more information on that exact topic, which is relevant to that discussion. You have not ever mentioned why you removed ever line I wrote to this article, or to dialectic of sex? You also reverted edits for BOTH of those articles, 3 times in 24 hours but I did not report you for edit warring, Can you explain that behavior?

"Juliet Mitchell argues that Firestone misreads Freud, and misunderstands the implications of psychoanalytic theory for feminism. She notes that while Firestone, like de Beauvoir, attributes the term "Electra complex" to Freud, it was actually coined by Carl Jung." This is entirely unrelated to the contents of The Dialectic of Sex. The reference to Beauvoir is entirely unnecessary as well. This article has NOTHING to do with Beauvoir, her theories do not rely on Beauvoir, and they are decades apart in time frame. You have copied and pasted this from a blog. Also, she is not called "de Beauvoir" the "de" is commonly dropped, which you would probably know if you had read Mitchell's critique, which you cite with passionate gusto.

Also please explain why you decided to quote Mitchell instead of Germaine Greer, The New Yorker, or Naomi Woolf, who all highly praised the book? The latter 3 are well known sources/scholars who have also critiqued this book. The following:

Firestone's work has been much criticized for its perceived reductionism, biologism, historical inaccuracy, and general crudity, for example, by Mary O'Brien in her 1981 book The Politics of Reproduction.

is OBVIOUS POV. "General crudity?" Please. I need not continue...
 * Hello Beauvy, I think we need to clarify a few things here. First of all, whether the content of your edits was right or wrong, you were still edit-warring: after your initial edit was reverted, you re-added the same material several times . You instead need to go discuss your changes at the section dedicated to them on the talk page and try to reach consensus about the inclusion of that material. If you are unable to find agreement with the other editors involved, you are welcome to pursue dispute resolution (for example, by posting at the neutrality noticeboard), but you cannot edit-war any more. Second, if you really believe that the three different people you were reverting against are the same person, you should file a sockpuppetry report; however, I should warn you that doing that without strong evidence is likely to be rejected, and based on a look at their contribs it's very unlikely all three are the same person anyways. Finally, please be aware that if you begin doing the same edits again without discussing when you are unblocked, as you say you will do, you will end up being blocked for longer. I would urge you to discuss your concerns with the articles on their respective talk pages and possibly solicit others' opinions; that is the best option to move forward here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

you are bullying. i DISCUSSED THE REASONS FOR EVERY EDIT I MADE to that page. and when unblocked, i will add objective edits with citations to that page again, with more reasons. The book is about the genetics of being gay, and is monitored by a group of people who want to promote a single view (very clear, read the history). Despite the group monitoring this, one should be allowed to contribute a critique of the research methods used within that book, especially as the page is artificially filled with only "positive scholarly reception" making it appear entirely credible. I have TRIED To discuss this with the users, but to no avail.

If freeknowledgecreator "undoes" every edit I have ever made, then he is the one warring, not I. PLEASE CHECK my edit histories, and see how he has undone ALMOST EVERY edit I have ever made to wikipedia. Please see "The Dialectic of Sex."

Also, should not the number of reversions that freeknowledgecreator has engaged in in his notorious history (versus I) count in this absurd "wikipedia court proceeding?" i realize you are just some other kid with the same agenda - to bully full time working people off of wikipedia even when they have ivy league PhDs. I do not have time for this filing nonsense reports for hawks with multiple addresses and no jobs who monitor their pages like Hitler. I am being bullied of an "open encyclopedia" being ruled by 87% males, 50% younger than 22? I will not stop editing wikipedia because truth is our only morality. Wikipedia has a severe, biased morality problem at the moment.
 * Hold the phone here. Was I just accused of being a sock puppet of FreeKnowledgeCreator? That is unacceptable. That really needs a retraction or a report for making a false and unfounded accusation. Seriously. I do not take kindly to this sort of crap.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Phone the police- there has been an accusation that you are in collusion with a Wikipedia member!


 * Beauvy, let me reply to some of your comments about The Dialectic of Sex. I have explained why I removed your contributions to that article. I did so not only in edit summaries but also on the talk page. If you cannot find the talk page and have not read what I wrote there, then please admit as much and ask for more help in using Wikipedia. Juliet Mitchell's criticism of The Dialectic of Sex is obviously relevant to an article about that book. How can it be "entirely unrelated to the contents of The Dialectic of Sex" when it is a direct response to the book? It is perfectly normal and appropriate for articles about books to mention scholarly criticism of them. To remove such material does a serious disservice to readers. Your assertion that Firestone's book owes nothing to de Beauvoir is unsupported, and is not made more correct by your use of capital letters. That Firestone's book was written decades after de Beauvoir's obviously does not mean that it was not influenced by her. I did not copy and paste the material from a blog, but from a scholarly book, as anyone can see from simply looking at the article. I have certainly read Mitchell's book, and she does indeed refer to "de Beauvoir." If I haven't quoted from the people you mention, that's simply because no one person can do everything at once. The text which you describe as "OBVIOUS POV" is the quoted opinion of a scholarly source, and as such definitely not "POV". To put the matter simply, everything you said is wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am formally requesting this user be blocked from editing his their talk page for the remaining duration of their block and a possible extension of said block for an additional 24 hours for making disruptive accusations.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not a "HE." Your assumption that I am is possibly why your articles have been biased and why you do not want me contributing to pages on sexuality.

FREEKNOWLEDGECREATOR: "no one person can do everything at once" so post obscure critical opinions rather than relevant scholarly reception? You are lying. Also, I gave you those scholarly receptions, but you deleted them all. Also you are guilty of exactly what you told me I am guilty of on talk page. Accolades to FREUD and JUNG!?! Jung is GROSSLY unrelated here. Criticism of "DE" beauvoir? Painfully objective. And YOU DID NOT address the bias I asked you about above WRT, "biologism, historical inaccuracy, and general crudity." GENERAL CRUDITY? No way - you are fooling no one. My latest edit was a huge improvement over both of our initial postings (yes yours and mine), and remains the least grotesquely biased of all versions. What you have up now is agenda, and we both know this.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 4 (2012) Book Review of Simon LeVay’s Gay, Straight and the Reason Why By Neil E. Whitehead

“…some of the points need significant modification in view of recent literature. The book presents a rather confused picture of whether social/psychological factors have any importance, and its discussion of them is far too superficial. It opts for most SSA being caused by prenatal hormones, a conclusion not consistent with the much replicated results of twin studies, which show all prenatal factors are only a minor influence. That twin studies conclusion is a maximum estimate not likely to change. Prenatal origin for sexual orientation is now not the majority view of researchers, who assign a prime role to postnatal factors. Contrary to the position suggested in the book, the brain is not strongly gendered at birth."


 * Beauvy, I understand you're feeling a bit upset right now, but you really need to take this opportunity to step back from this dispute. Nobody is trying to bully you, but you do need to respect Wikipedia's norms regarding collaboration and consensus, and refrain from making accusations about collusion and such for which you have no hard evidence. Now, regarding discussing your edits: as of right now you have not made any edits to the talk namespace, which is where such discussions should be help. I linked you to an example above: [[Talk:Gay,_Straight,_and_the_Reason_Why. I would encourage you to take the remainder of your block to read WP:TALKPAGE, WP:CONSENSUS, and other Wikipedia rules linked from this help page. Everyone, male or female, educated or not, old or young, is expected to respect these standards when editing here. If you are able to do that, then you can discuss your concerns about these articles when you are unblocked. If not, then I'm afraid resolving these issues will need to be left up to someone more able to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Some points I agree with. However the language you use such as "you really need to do this..." is the type of bullying language that occurred from my very first post to wikipedia, and ultimately fully frustrates anyone trying to deliver information to your site. Unfortunately, we both know this is not a forum open to old, young, male, female, gay, straight. It is well known the users are a bullying group of young white men. You and another user Mike Miller have taken a TREMENDOUS amount of time to comment on my silly talk page, but have never referred to the frustrating histories of reversions by FreeKnowledgeCreator and cronies to The Dialectic of Sex and Gay Straight and the Reason Why. I have been unable to make a SINGLE SENTENCE contribution to because these sites are full of biases and bullies from what we know are young white males. Before you comment again to this talk page, view these websites, not the talk pages. Talk pages call anything biased that a user decides is biased, no citation, no scholarly report, nothing is needed except 2-3 users to gang up. Look at the content of the removal. Nothing of 3,777 characters was unbiased? Please. When you have actually read this, you will understand the utter frustration and infuriation a new contributor feels.

FREEKNOWLEDGEDESTROYER: First, your SOAP BOXING on Freud and Jung is simply appalling. Second, "A Radical Reassessment of Freudian Psychoanalysis" by juliet mitchell published THIRTY YEARS AFTER The dialectic of sex, is not "a direct response to Dialectic of Sex" as you stated. It assimilates vast amounts of information related to Freud and Feminism, and it is NOT itself A CRITIQUE of Firestone's book. It contains nothing about "general crudity," which you quote. PLEASE explain your UNIBASED POV if you are to post on this page again. You have referenced a single book published THIRTY+ years after Dialectic in an attempt to undermine the spirit of unbiased POV. Yours is a LIE by omission, a trick used to indicate that the only perceptions of the book are negative.

See earlier talks if you want real critiques, I'm, truly exhausted by your circularity at this point, which is your goal, to exhaust and to bully. I will be back on both pages tomorrow with a laundry list of well noted critics that you will not in good faith be able to touch with a ten foot poll.

"Firestone's work has been much criticized for its perceived reductionism, biologism, historical inaccuracy, and general crudity." How can you state this, especially the word, "much", when you do NOT HABE A CITATION? Also, all your references are cited wrong and repeated throughout. At least one book's pages are made up. I own only one of those books, Hearn 1999, and it does not line up. You got away with this crap because you had not yet encountered a user who cares about this book. And BTW, every book in existence has been critiqued at least once -when you such apply laser sharp focus to one critique, you destroy the entire spirit of NPOV.


 * Hi Beauvy. I can understand some of your frustration at being reverted, but Nikkimaria gives some good advice above. If someone reverts you, discuss it with that user. I know you tried talking to FKC, but it wasn't done in a civilized manner. Even above, refering to FKC as "FREEKNOWLEDGEDESTROYER" is entirely inappropriate. If you want to positively contribute to the encyclopedia (which it most definitely appears you do), then please change your behaviour.  Ish dar  ian  06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex was first published in 1970. Juliet Mitchell's Psychoanalysis and Feminism was first published in 1974. That makes a gap of four years, not thirty, between the two books. If you read my comments very carefully, you will note that I did not say that Psychoanalysis and Feminism is a direct response to The Dialectic of Sex. What I wrote was that the criticism of The Dialectic of Sex in Psychoanalysis and Feminism is a direct response to The Dialectic of Sex. Surely that should be a simple enough distinction? You say that there is no citation for, "Firestone's work has been much criticized for its perceived reductionism, biologism, historical inaccuracy, and general crudity." There is a citation. If you look at the article again carefully, you may see it. Your complaint about the way references are formatted is not very relevant. It certainly has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ..and I am neither young, nor white. Seems we both made assumptions however, when re-reading this statement:"I am not a "HE." Your assumption that I am is possibly why your articles have been biased and why you do not want me contributing to pages on sexuality.'", it occurred to me that you just actually stated that, by assuming you were male, THAT would be my reason for excluding your contributions? Uhm...that actually makes no sense. I also note that you state that I took a tremendous amount of time writing on your talk page. No, I took the time required to be sure and notify you as our policies and guidelines state. Look, you only did things in the manner to which, many new editors fall into. It is very common. Many of the most intelligent writers I know can't figure out how to edit Wikipedia. In fact, I don't think there is a single editor that knows all of the policies and guidelines by heart. It took me an entire summer of just reading to get enough of a take on our policies, before I was able to contribute within these guidelines. I still make mistakes. Everyone does and they are not held against you if you are willing to collaborate. That is the key to Wikipedia. Collaboration.


 * If you decide to return to Wikipedia and you have questions about a particular policy, guideline or procedure, you may ask on my talk page and I will seek to assist you as I do with anyone who has a question or needs assistance.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Future editing
Beauvy, I'm not going to argue about morality of Wikipedia, the rightness or wrongness of your contributions or bullying. I'm going to be 100% pragmatic. Nikkimaria is an Administrator of Wikipedia, there are about 650 active Admins who try to keep the peace here and act to remove Editors who are viewed as disruptive to the purpose of Wikipedia which is a cooperative enterprise to build a reliable, free online encyclopedia.

The way you behaved, wrong or right, resulted in a temporary block. You state that you will continue with this behavior and Nikkimaria advised you that if you don't find alternative ways of resolving disputes, you will face longer blocks. It doesn't matter if someone else also behaved badly, you must not edit war or be so confrontational (personally attacking other Editors, making assumptions they are unemployed, etc.) or you will be blocked again.

Because so many Editors from around the world are actively working on improving Wikipedia, there are inevitably going to be conflicts and the rules and system has evolved over time to find a way to mediate these conflicts. You may not like the rules (you would not be alone) but your continued participation here depends on whether you can follow the basic guidelines of how consensus is formed and articles edited at Wikipedia. It really is all up to you here...you received both a warning and advice to follow to avoid blocks in the future. If you choose to ignore all of this, well, you can expect your time at Wikipedia to be unfortunately brief. Peace. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You have written nothing substantial as you have not addressed the way the warring party engaged with me. HE engaged by reverting large contributions repeatedly without reason, clearly writing NPOV (he called a book "grossly crude" without citation. His citations do not line up. You cannot arbitrate false content as a high level editor, because you do not have the knowledge of the content. You are not omnipotent, you rely on the public for knowledge. You are arbitrating in the direction of a severely biased small group of people because they use the random terminology, obsessive monitoring, and multiple IP addresses to get their way.

Wikipedia is crumbling because people are acting aggressively and falsely accusing "bias." Editors have been posting on my page, but no one is actually fixing the problem, which is the fact that freeknowledgecreator has engaged in a GROSSLY BIASED, reverting edit war with multiple user names and IPs, with an unknowing participant who wanted to HELP summarize 2 books. He exhibited the exact same behavior as I did but I am the one blocked.

There are many articles about the warlord, aggressive philosophy that is keeping knowledgable people from the website. You do not have to debate it, the state of WPs entries is evidence enough. I have now experienced it first hand, and still you refuse to check on the history of those edits. No editor should post here without reading the history of freeknowledgecreator's reversions of my edits. The editors should not be part of this war by blocking and chastising new users in favor of biased contributions.

PLEASE liz, tell me how to resolve a dispute when between 1-3 people monitor a page (potentially with multiple usernames) to keep an agenda alive? Again, you have to see the content to understand. Without reading the content, your "disciplinary action" is useless. You have the wrong guy.
 * Hello again Beauvy. I can answer some of this, But first, let me be assure you that I am not a sock puppet of any other editor, nor a meat puppet of any other. A sock puppet is an editor with multiple accounts, pretending to be more than a single individual. A meat puppet is someone who is only there to support the other editor's opinion or position. I am none of those things. My user name is my actual name and I have only a single account. I originally had used the username Amadscientist but was always honest about who I am and disclosed my real name from the very beginning. You do not need to do this and should never feel obligated to share your real name.


 * The main reason why you were blocked (and why I reported the edit war) was because, while the other editor was also guilty of edit warring (as you correctly point out) you were the only one doing so with multiple editors. I did notice that you had attempted to report the other editor yourself, but failed to properly fill out the 3RR report and it was never addressed for that reason.


 * There are many ways that you can resolve a dispute, even when many editors are "watching" (The star at the top right of every page can be clicked and will then list the article on your own "watch page") the article. There are a number of noticeboards that you can ask for assistance with questions regarding sources, original research, conflict of interest etc. (see WP:Dispute resolution for a full list of notice boards and other DR venues) But, the main location for such disputes is the Dipsute Resolution Noticeboard. However...the DR/N requires one thing....a lengthy discussion on the talk page of the article.


 * I actually understand how you feel right now. I have been blocked several times and disagree with the reasoning of most of them (not all of them). It is frustrating. On the talk page of the article is where editors discuss the issues they have with the article. WP:BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle best explains how the process works at Wikipedia and has become "best practice" for the more controversial articles, while still not actually being a policy or guideline itself. One of the problems right now is your lack of (I know this is more criticism of you, and I apologize) AGF. Assuming Good Faith. It is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. It is, in fact #4 of our five pillars. Clearly you are a very intelligent editor and your contributions will surely be a net plus to the project when you begin to understand how Wikipedia works. I encourage you to read as much of our policies and guidelines as possible and feel welcome to be bold and edit any article you find of interest within these policies.


 * One other thing I want you to know. This is your talk page. If you do not want any particular editor to post here any further (even me) you may make that clear and they must comply. Failure to respect your request to stay off your page can also result in an editor being sanctioned. But I suggest caution when doing this, only because doing so to editors that are clearly trying to assist you may be seen as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, just as anyone who ignores a legitimate request to stay away would. Many editors end post with a phrase that they generally truly mean. I offer it here now. Happy editing. --Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you mark miller, i did not use the correct talk page because i am new and was unknowledgeable. my primary interest in editing wikipedia at this moment is that i am extremely concerned with the disruptive state of some articles presenting feminist work. at the moment, i am concerned about The Dialectic of Sex. it is wrought with inaccuracy and entirely disrupted but a single user FreeKnowledgeCreator is claiming ownership of that page by deleting all of my edits. I have revised edits of mine that presented POV, but he would not consider those. I did not know how to report him. As the article stands, it needs to be reported to Wikipedia for disruption because it is grossly inaccurate.

Reference
Is not properly formatted but I was unable to fix it as I don't know what the reference refers to. Could you drop the full reference info at the talk page under a new header. Also, I altered the contribution a tad to conform with our neutral heading guideline. Any questions you may have can be placed on my talk page or the article talk page. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Duh...I see it.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The above is an automated notice when you don't sign your posts. Oddly enough it seems to pick and choose when to post this warning.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru  (talk)  22:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have resumed your edit warring on multiple articles, including a 3RR violation at The Dialectic of Sex, I have re-applied the block to this account. Please read the very sober advice given to you in the messages above, especially that from Ms. Liz. Kuru   (talk)  22:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please reconsider. I promise that I did not revert edits 3 times - if you see history, you will see that i did not revert. I did edit to new forms, - if you read the content you will see that I added/removed/altered grammar, and in addition kept many changes from the previous editor. No third party has weighed in on dialectic, so he is claiming ownership. also, note that i was not previously reported for dialectic. i was reported earlier for using the wrong talk page (learning the ropes) on a different site.

please reconsider as freeknowledgecreator has been engaging in severe battle and removing all my hard worked citations in dialectic. i am working hard and asking him to make this article "right" with me.

please also note that he typically reverts back to his version, with different reasons every time. i have not reverted to my version, but also included his edits, and new details. my references are quite solid. again, please reconsider, and consider blocking him on this particular page. the page is disrupted and focuses on sex, which is truly, an incorrect interpretation. please see my kind appeals to him on the talk page to remove these misleading issues.


 * Beauvy, you did breach 3RR on The Dialectic of Sex:
 * First revert
 * Second revert
 * Third revert
 * Fourth revert
 * In addition, you were battling on the Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why article with Tom Morris and MrX. I've looked through your contributions to the articles in question and the talk pages and you seem to lack understanding of some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm not going to spill the entirity of the alphabet soup, but take a look at WP:BRD. While it is just an essay, it provides great advice for keeping yourself from getting embedded into an edit war. Rather than constantly reverting, hash it out on the talk page. Consensus takes time to form; posting your reasoning and then immediately reverting to your prefered version isn't appropriate.
 * I still believe you can contribute positively to the encyclopedia. I'd like to propose a mentorship offer to you to help you get more aquainted with Wikipedia's policies. I'm not the most prolific editor, but I believe I may be able to help you out.  Ish dar  ian  23:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is very generous of  Ish dar  ian , to offer to mentor you, Beauvy, and I hope consider taking him/her up on the offer. On Wikipedia, it always helps to have friends willing to take the time to show you how the system works. We're all still learning.  Liz  Read! Talk! 00:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ISHDARIAN,

1. my behavior on these two pages was equivalent to the others. The above reversions, were reverted 4 times by the other guy. so please explain why is it fine that a single editor reverted mine about 20 times without "hashing out" and coming to consensus with me, on the dialectic of sex talk page? why is he not blocked and why are his edits maintained? That would be "very generous" of you to explain. your condescending attitudes are evident.

2. HOW ON EARTH is the following "original research?" It appears in every single summary of the book, all quotes are taken from my well documented citations, and all of this is evident from the first chapter. How are quotes from the book original research? Can you please show this to another editor and ask if it "original research?" If not, please revert back. Freeknowledgecreator is disrupting this page. Please see how he wrote "she worships incest." please help me to report this disruption.

The premise of the book is that the class division described by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is not based on economics, but is based upon the earliest oppressive economic relationship which is a result of biological differences between man and woman. Firestone's purpose book was to build a new dialectical materialism based upon sex as Marx and Engels did for economics, who as per Firestone, failed to include in their analysis the basic economic unit of society - what is commonly called in feminist theory, the patriarchal family structure. In her book, Firestone states that other oppressions, including the tradition of nuclear family and extended childhood, stem from this earliest oppression, which she claimed was ignored in the theories of Marx and Engels. The book attempts a reinterpretation Marx, Engels, and Freud to make a case that a “sexual class system” runs deeper than any other social or economic divide. Firestone argued that the traditional family structure was at the core of women’s oppression. “Unless revolution uproots the basic social organization, the biological family—the vinculum through which the psychology of power can always be smuggled—the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated,” Firestone wrote.

3. In response to your reversion of my edit, Michael Ruse is only on WP because of the collusive nature about what is important. For ex, his page is edited and maintained by the same people who edit and maintain the Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why article, in large part so that he can serve as a reference for that book. Numerous entries are collusive in nature like this, and allow no additional viewpoints because a few "monitors" have decided that is how the page will read. The same few people are editing many pages to advance a single agenda - the genetics of sexual behavior - interestingly they believe that advancing this theory actually requires that feminist theory, much of which is based on social conditioning and not genetics, be "wrong." In fact, these theories are not in opposition to one another but that is another story. But in promoting the genetics of sexual behavior (seen by the absurdly effusive positive reception on above mentioned book) they feel they must simultaneously criticize all behavioral/social theories of radical feminists, rather than appropriately summarize their works. For example, The Dialectic of Sex is simply incorrect and lists too many criticisms without adequately explaining the work. It states she "worships incest" as mentioned above.You have reverted my edits that are NOT original research.

In sum, it is not coincidence that the contributions of freeknowledgecreator and others, to these three listed WP pages all promote a single theory. This is a major problem with wikipedia, where all viewpoints need to be represented. I am the only person on here attempting to correctly represent all viewpoints. All other contributors have been scared away. I ask the "high level editors" to acknowledge the blatantly obvious agenda pushing and collusive nature of these articles.


 * "This is a major problem with wikipedia, where all viewpoints need to be represented." No, it isn't and no, it doesn't. Promotional editing is a very serious thing to Wikipedia editors. Advocacy of any kind is actively discouraged, but we are aware that it takes place on many levels. This is a content dispute where editors have formed a consensus you are simply unable to accept because Wikipedia does not allow "all viewpoints". That is simply what this comes down to. You have not been able to supply a valid reliable source to defend the argument you are attempting. Talk pages mean that discussion is vital on Wikipedia. It just is. It is how a collaboration forms a consensus of editors. Consensus is not vote of 3 against 1, but the stronger arguments of the other three against yours. But all you are doing is filibustering - a single person who has flailed to make a valid point, continuing to disrupt to attempt to make a further point. It gets you nowhere.


 * I strongly urge you to take a mentor. Many editors have done it. I did.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, give me a break - all you 3 have done is "promotional editing" and "advocacy" on that page. your chosen quotes from one academic are "superb" and "clear and comprehensive, looking at the widest range of research, and very balanced.". The criticism and book review I added was an attempt at balance in a clearly biased article, bc many believe the book is not any of the above. 3 against one means nothing - you only outlasted the other editors who disagreed with you in prior talks, due to obsessiveness and agenda.

You also did not answer any of my questions above. The dialectic page is one editor against one editor. please advise on how to come to consensus? That situation is not "3 to 1" this is 1:1 so why does one editor "win?" all of my material is cited, even though you keep indicating it is not.
 * You just don't accept that you actually lack a strong argument. And...I have yet to quote an academic in any discussion with you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * HI Beauvy. In response
 * 1. FKC only reverted three times (1, 2, and 3.) He stopped reverting you because he would have broken 3RR. He has tried addressing the reversion on the talk page, starting on 27 October 2013. You hadn't started addressing issues on the talk page until yesterday, which is a step in the right direction. The opus isn't on him to show why the new material should be removed; it's on you to show why it should stay.


 * 2. That specific section was not OR, but it was a copyright violation from the New Yorker article. The OR portions were the theories, social context, and interpreation sections.


 * 3. Your third point is incorrect. Michael Ruse has an article on Wikipedia because he meets WP:GNG. In addition, the Ruse article has been editted twice by FKC and once by Jim1138, so I would hardly state that the page is maintained by them.


 * While I understand why you may think so, my comments above are not meant to be condescending. You are a new editor who is still learning the ways of Wikipedia and I don't want to see you get caught in a vicious cycle like this simply because you don't know the rules. My offer for mentorship still stands.  Ish dar  ian  02:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ru serious? 4 lies above.


 * Beauvy's comments include a number of untruths. For example: "No third party has weighed in on dialectic." That is incorrect. Two other editors besides myself commented on the talk page of The Dialectic of Sex, and although neither was 100% in agreement with me, there was agreement that Beauvy's edits were problematic. One other editor besides myself reverted Beauvy at that article: Jim1138. The edit is here (Beauvy falsely accused him of being my sock-puppet in response to that edit). I have not reverted with "different reasons each time": my reasons have been essentially the same throughout, though I might have used slightly different edit summaries. The text "she worships incest" has never appeared in any version of The Dialectic of Sex that I have edited. Regarding the Michael Ruse article, Beauvy claims that it is, "only on WP because of the collusive nature about what is important. For ex, his page is edited and maintained by the same people who edit and maintain the Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why article, in large part so that he can serve as a reference for that book." That is nonsense. I did not create the Michael Ruse article, and have never made more than minor edits to it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ishwarian removed my edits citing "original research" which he now calls "copyright infringement?" there is a level of circularity here that is mindboggling. how is a person who has been consistently violating "origial research" be also guilty of copyright infringement in the same paragraph? this is entirely made up.

nobody altered content to dialectic except freeknowledgecreator. other "high level" editors came in response to him, to say he was right, but giving no reasoning except that he has been here longer than i, and bc they are in collusion with the contents of the edits. the only academic discussion and multiple viewpoints have been from me.

has anyone viewed the "incest worship" portion of the dialectic article yet from the above user? can we get a comment on the objectivity of that? is that "original research"? if you leave a message here ishwarian, be sure to comment on this.

where is this quote from "arguing that incest should be welcomed"? Please.


 * It's Ishdarian, thank you. My reasoning for removing the info is not made up. The majority of sections I removed were OR, while, on reevaluation, the summary you provided was a copyvio. Also, I see nothing regarding incest worship in the article. The part of the article arguing that incest should be welcomed is sourced to the book by Mitchell. Sadly, I do not presently have access to that book and cannot comment further on its merits, but you are welcome to challenge that material on the talk page when you are unblocked.  Ish dar  ian  02:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

clearly circular and unreasonable. no reference of the sort on "arguing that incest should be welcomed," exists. ok, im out. good luck with your encyclopedia pages.


 * Beauvy, when you are blocked you are still allowed to contribute to your Talk page specifically in order to request a review or shortening of your block, not so you can simply continue the content dispute. If you dispute the original edits here, you risk having access to your Talk page blocked as well. Agricolae (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Several people have disputed content with me on my talk page and I am responding to them. I have actually been told by wiki editors via email that I should talk this out on the talk page.


 * When you are disputing content, you should work out the dispute on the relevant Talk page, but not when you are blocked. The whole purpose of a block it to give you a 'time out', a cooling off period in during which you step away and reconsider what actions on your part landed you in that situation to begin with.  It is not the intent to just have you shift the argument somewhere else and continue it. Agricolae (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Mitchell does not appear to state that Firestone' "argues that incest should be welcomed." Mitchell wrote an article that included Firestone's dialectic, printed on the below website, and her statements in that article are in direct conflict to disruptive content on the Wiki page that she "argues that incest should be welcomed." There is no mention of incest in a work I have seen by Mitchell yet. If there is reference to that content, which is plausible, BURDEN OF PROOF is on FreeKnowledgeCreator and the quote leading to this deduction must absolutely be produced, preferably the whole paragraph.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/mitchell-juliet/longest-revolution.htm

In the above, Mitchell's opening paragraph about Dialectic states, "Shulamith Firestone’s invigorating book, The Dialectic of Sex is the fullest development of the theory to date. Radical feminism finds that the inadequacies within Marxist analyses of a comprehension of women’s oppression, are due not to its chronic underdevelopment in this sphere (as Marxist women believe) but to the limitations of the theory itself. The failure is not failure of attention, but limitation of scope."

Since this is Mitchell's published viewpoint on Dialectic, in easy reach of viewing, it should be included on the WP page if Mitchell's viewpoint is included. One cannot subjectively interpret Mitchell's opinion of Firestone as negative, when she has published blatantly positive reception that is even available online. The only reason to omit her glowing opening statement in favor of criticism is to promote his nonneutral point of view, by omission. Further, it difficult to believe Mitchell would go on to state the preposterous things promoted by FreeKnowledgeCreator after stating this. Again, burden of proof is on him.

My PRIMARY concern is that "incest welcoming" might be slanderous to Mitchell who is a living academic, not to mention Firestone who is dead. If FreeKnowledgeCreator does not either produce the precise paragraph from the book or remove the material, one could contact Mitchell's University office to see if they will adjudicate the potential misquote on the Wikipedia page.

From the quote above, I have PROVED that FreeKnowledgeCreator has demonstrated a non neutral point of view by omission. At worst, he may be slandering two people. Because of this, the entire page that he has solely written and claimed by him, must called into question. I think the page should be labeled as disrupted until other members of the community can weigh in. And I mean CONTENT editors, not high level editors with blocking power and no knowledge of the subject area.


 * Beauvy comments that, "There is no mention of incest in a work I have seen by Mitchell yet." This suggests that she has not bothered to actually read Psychoanalysis and Feminism. There are numerous mentions of incest in that book, as one can see from the index. Mitchell comments on page 353 of the 2000 Penguin edition, "Firestone would dismantle the Oedipus complex in favour of actual incest (which she would welcome, not ban), Millett would substitute real rape for phantasied castration." See also the section specifically on Firestone, from pages 346 to 350. Mitchell notes that Firestone would abolish the incest taboo on page 349. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1. AS I SAID, Miller writes "Shulamith Firestone’s invigorating book, The Dialectic of Sex is the fullest development of the theory to date. Radical feminism finds that the inadequacies within Marxist analyses of a comprehension of women’s oppression, are due not to its chronic underdevelopment in this sphere (as Marxist women believe) but to the limitations of the theory itself. The failure is not failure of attention, but limitation of scope." So please tell me why Miller's view of Dialectic not included on the Dialectic page? Miller's early REVIEW OF Dialectic is actually EFFUSIVE AND POSITIVE. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THIS if you decide to write back.

2. You need to finally realize that the page in discussion is not 1. Psychoanalysis and Feminism or 2. Firestone. The WP page is Dialectic. The line you cite is PARENTHETICAL, pertaining to Firestone, and truly has nothing to do with the "Dialectic of sex." I do not care if Firestone had sex with her entire extended family, and when she was finished, handed out fliers about how much she loved it. "Alleged facts" about what Firestone personally believed, still have absolutely nothing to do with the WP entry "Dialectic of Sex" unless the Dialectic of Sex "promotes incest" which it does not.

3. Because you are agenda'd you cannot "see" that this (possible) PARENTHETICAL is an off-handed comment about Firestone AND Millett unrelated to The Dialectic of Sex, from an author that thoroughly praised Dialectic of Sex. You have taken a (possible) PARENTHETICAL statement and made it appear 1. the book is about this parenthetical statement that appears in an unrelated book many years later, and 2. Miller had nothing positive to say about DIALECTIC (again, the WP page we are referring to).

4. Apparently you need to talk about incest as it pertains to DIALECTIC (and I will not speculate why you need to do so) so do it correctly. Across many edits I have quoted Dialectic on this favorite salient topic of yours. The quotes clearly imply that "exchanging the nuclear family for an extended family" of not-necessarily related or "unrelated individuals" will "naturally abolish the incest taboo," which is "a cultural tool of male power." Quotes are from Dialectic (again the book we are discussing!).Her notion is that incest is artificially propagated by hegemony of patriarchal family structure, and when this is broken down, so will be the incest taboo. It simply won't be needed anymore. This theory is not "welcoming incest-" only you are. I've quoted these statements umpteen times in my revisions and on the Dialectic talk page. I'm totally exhausted.

5. As it is written, the WP The Dialectic of Sex welcomes incest within the current patriarchal family structure, and that is incorrect. Even if Firestone publishes a new book praising benefits of incest tomorrow, the Dialectic still does not promote incest. You are the one promoting incest, coatrack material.


 * You refer to "Miller's" discussion of Firestone. I presume you mean Mitchell's discussion of Firestone. It does tend to interfere with rational discussion if you can't even get people's names right. Your question as to why Mitchell's early comments on Firestone's work in Woman's Estate are not mentioned in the The Dialectic of Sex article is a naive one and reflects a lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Quite simply, they aren't there because I wasn't aware of them. I had known of Mitchell's discussion of Firestone in Psychoanalysis and Feminism, but not of her earlier comments. It's unfortunately typical of your approach to Wikipedia that you would assume that I must have a sinister reason for not mentioning a given source, and ignore simpler alternative explanations. Your claim that Mitchell's remarks about Firestone's views on incest in Psychoanalysis and Feminism don't concern The Dialectic of Sex is wrong, and shows a failure to understand that work (not surprising, as you evidently have not read it). Mitchell is concerned with Firestone's views only in and as expressed in The Dialectic of Sex, so they certainly concern that book. The rest of your comments, including the stuff about how you think I'm in favor of incest, consist of gratuitous, baseless and deeply insulting personal attacks. Again, see WP:NPA and be aware that you could be blocked for longer if you keep this up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You mention nothing of substance here and address none of my comments including your continued exclusion of Mitchell's praise of the book now that you are fully aware of it. You are currently aware of it, so add it. I was also "not aware" of parenthetical statements made by Mitchell about an unrelated topic. However you chastised me for not being aware of that for approx. 20 times now.

Your public insistence on focusing on incest when I have just pointed out that it is parenthetical, and excluding all other information I recently provided, is what should be concerning you. e.g., as you have written

"In Firestone's view, while young boys may desire their mothers, they cannot desire to sexually penetrate them, since they probably cannot imagine how such an act would be performed. Firestone quotes Freud's views on fetishism ("The object is the substitute for the mother's phallus which the little boy believed in and does not wish to forego"), and calls them embarrassing, arguing that boys are not likely to have ever seen their mothers naked or to have observed the differences between male and female genitals. Firestone finds what she calls Freud's "literalism" to be absurd. She proposes to abolish the incest taboo, arguing that incest should be welcomed."

BTW, the definition of wikipedia is: "a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free Internet encyclopedia." It is not defined as "a single person twisting a person's philosophy into a sexual sideshow and call it encyclopedic." I can see that you have not read The Dialectic of Sex. You are writing summaries from other people without realizing what you are summarizing.


 * Sorry, were you under the impression that I have to add material to an article if you tell me to add it? Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It's plain rude of you to think that you can tell me that I have to add anything to any article (and the suggestion I haven't read the book is another uninformed piece of presumption on your part). I'll add something from Woman's Estate to the article on The Dialectic of Sex when and if I am so inclined. You make no apology for falsely accusing me of promoting incest. I don't see why I ought to cooperate with someone who makes bizarre false accusations, and I doubt such co-operation is even possible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I also observed that you are adding "fringe" parenthetical sources about naziism (in the same way you have added fringe, out of context, claims of incest to dialectic). On your talk page, contributors are discussing with you a citation that has been resolved years ago, which you claim should be reopened. Apparently you believe fringe sources are notable, but you simultaneously believe the famous Susan Faludi is non-notable for writing a 9 page New Yorker article on Firestone (in favor of out-of-context parentheses from a relative non notable). The Faludi content was finally restored by a (very begrudging editor) all of whom are forced to take your side because you know the game. I am following and documenting a consistent agenda from you with the purpose of sending all information I gather to the wikipedia "authorities."


 * Feel free to engage in whatever time-wasting activities you wish when your block expires. I doubt the wikipedia "authorities" will be specially interested in whatever you have to say, as they're all too familiar with editors who pursue petty personal vendettas. I doubt you would care anything about Johann Gottlieb Fichte if you weren't already involved in a dispute with me. (Incidentally, "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that you don't understand; try actually reading WP:NOTE). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to note that the user has technically engaged in an edit war with me as well, more than once. This fact has been noted by Mark Miller on the user's page, so other higher level editors do see what is going on. However, he is much more savvy than I am with the rules, but I have definitely been learning.

I will heed Mark Miller's advice, make edits slowly, and talk everything out in the most non-contentious way possible.

Thanks for your consideration.}} Fixed the unblock request.  Ish dar  ian  04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That unblock request is an offensive piece of nonsense. The user is implying that I blocked her. I am not an administrator, and I do not have the power to block anyone. If Beauvy actually believes that the administrator who blocked her - Kuru - is my sockpuppet, then let her make that accusation openly and let her provide evidence for it. This is Beauvy's second unblock request, and the second unblock request which she has filled with irrelevant complaints about me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Some notes from someone older than 22
One, it is normal procedure on Wikipedia talk and discussion pages to sign one's posts. You can do this very simply by typing four ~ things (tildes) at the end of your post, or click the little writing implement which has just made an f on the pale blue line above the edit window. You were asked by SineBot above to do this, but you haven't done. I'm not a bot. Please take notice of me. Two, there are no 'higher level' editors. There are new editors, and experienced editors. There are valued editors, and damn nuisances (or vandals). There are editors who listen, and editors who don't. And all degrees in between in each of those groups. I'm a fairly experienced editor, and an administrator (like Kuru is, the one who blocked you). Being an admin isn't a higher level. We just have a few more buttons we can use. Three, FreeKnowledgeCreator did not block you. He is not an admin, and I have no evidence of him/her using multiple accounts either. If you do, please tell us, or withdraw the accusation. Four, I accept that you are acting in good faith. But you must accept that Wikipedia has rules and procedures that may be different from those in Ivy League places. If a person who is recognised in the field of cats has said that all cats report daily to control, it is all right to mention this, briefly quote this - and give a reference to this for verifiability. Another person also recognised as a worker in the field of cats may say that they only report weekly. This can also be brought in. We are not here to decide which is right. A third source may say that cats don't report to control at all. If this is a recognised source, that can go in too. We record the differing viewpoints. We don't record our own viewpoints. If we happen to be a source, we don't list it ourselves, but can cite someone else who cites us as their source. We don't cite unrecognised sources such as our own (or anyone else's) unpublished research, Shawn Aloysius Jones's blog or such. This may differ from academic procedure. I'm not going into the actual content dispute here. It's a few years since I read de Beauvoir (which is how I've always known her referred to), Sartre, Schopenhauer and other philosophers. (I gave up on psychonalytical stuff and Theosophy as being unverifiable and/or incomprehensible.) My advice is calm down, and unlike me, keep things brief. Peridon (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Beauvy should be encouraged to revise her unblock request. The request as stated, with its false suggestion that I blocked her, shows that she doesn't really understand the position she is in. Maybe this just reflects inexperience and lack of knowledge of Wikipedia. Yet it could also be understood as an accusation against Kuru, and that's surely not acceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to do... I think the accusations are down to not understanding how we work, and I don't think they cross the border into PA (personal attacks - not allowed on Wikipedia) yet. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's up to Beauvy to explain what she meant. If an accusation was being made, against me and/or Kuru, it should be withdrawn. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with Mr. Peridon. The unblock request is likely attributable to confusion rather than malice.  Even if it wasn't, I have thicker skin than most. There is no need to spin up over perceived insults; focus on resolving the issues which are in evidence.  Kuru   (talk)  19:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even leaving everything else to one side, I'm not sure how Beauvy's unblock request resolves "the issues which are in evidence." But of course it will be up to whichever admin reviews her request to decide that. To me, it's revealing that Beauvy, despite having had ample opportunity to revise her unblock request, has not done so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please don't make personal attacks in edit summaries, as you did recently here. They are unacceptable, per WP:NPA, and could get you blocked. Additionally, I think you will find that nothing is gained by accusing me of edit warring when you have edit warred yourself, as anyone can see from your edit history. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, FKC, while that may be uncivil it doesn't come close to being a blockable personal attack. I would encourage both of you to try to work together civilly and without edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You may not consider it a personal attack, but it most certainly is offensive and unwelcome. As far as I'm concerned, it's unacceptable. You should not be implying that comments of that kind are a normal or desirable part of editing here. If Beauvy persists in making such comments in edit summaries, I will have to seek redress. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am attempting to help create a factual page. The fact that you engaged in edit warring was noted by a higher level editor and is not a "personal attack." It is a truism (more than 3 deletions within 24 hours). You cannot "redress" everyone who alters a page. Instead, you should consider redirecting unfounded anger toward creating a great page.


 * You apparently don't understand how Wikipedia operates. There are policies here that govern editor behavior. One of them is civility: WP:CIVIL. Making personal comments about editors in edit summaries is uncivil and as such unacceptable, whether it technically counts as a personal attack or not. If you keep on doing it, rest assured I will keep on making an issue of it. Editors can be and have been blocked for persistently making uncivil comments in edit summaries. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You are very hard to work with because you view all editorial changes as personal attack. I did not personally attack you in edit summaries. I will put the dispute title on top of the page until a 3rd party weighs in since you refuse to collaborate.


 * You are very hard to work with because you totally disregard the views of all editors you disagree with you, and make the same changes over and over, despite disagreement. Your comments about me might not have been personal attacks, but they were obviously uncivil. Continue making uncivil comments about me in edit summaries, and I will continue to make an issue of it. You will find that such behavior won't work to your advantage. Creating a "long term abuse" page to attack me because you happen to have an ongoing content dispute with me is, I think you will find, a serious mistake. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, amounting to long-term feuding with FreeKnowledgeCreator, and edit warring on various articles over a long period, including recent reverts at The Dialectic of Sex. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A word of advice in case you choose to request an unblock. If, like many editors, you think that edit warring doesn't count as edit warring unless you break the "3 revert rule", then I suggest you read the edit warring policy, where you will see that that is not the case. Editors have been blocked for very slow long-term edit wars over a period of years, where they have never made more than one edit in a month. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship
Hi Beauvy. FreeKnowledgeCreator notified me that you had returned and reminded me that I had offered to mentor you back in November. I'd like to extend that offer again. You seem to have some great input to provide to the project and I don't want to see you get wrapped up in any more of these situations that end up with you being blocked. If you want, I can help get you familiarized with some of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and accepted practices. I honestly believe you have a lot to contribute and I don't want to see you get burned out so quickly. Just leave me a response here if you'd be okay with me working with you.  Ish dar  ian  03:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)