User talk:Tom baldwin

Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)
Hello, Tom baldwin. You need to discuss your edits at Walter Kaufmann (philosopher) at the article's talk page, which can be found here. Since you suggested the existence of a copyright violation, I suggest that you review WP:CFAQ, which states that, "Quotations are a very well known and widely used form of fair use and fair dealing and are explicitly allowed under the Berne convention." I would also note that accusing me of bad faith accomplishes nothing. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Your continued removal of a quote from Walter Kaufmann (philosopher) claiming it's a copyright violation is legally and factually baseless. If you continue to edit war to remove the sourced content without demonstrating how exactly the excerpt violates specific Wikipedia policy, you will be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Walter Kaufmann (philosopher) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&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.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Walter Kaufmann (philosopher) has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me explain why I left the message above. In this edit, you used the edit summary, "Undid revision 863151638 for same reasons as before. Readers review freeknowledgecreator history to understand that "contributor's" real motivating agenda". Making unfounded accusations against other editors in edit summaries is unwelcome and inappropriate. It is not acceptable in itself and it is not a substitute for appropriate talk page discussion. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)