Talk:The Taming of Chance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Logic / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Logic
	Contemporary philosophy

"The Taming of Chance" was nominated for the Modern Library's top 100 best non-fiction books - it clearly meets the threshold for a work important enough to have on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.81.129.193 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for pointing that out, but a link to verify the information would also have been helpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Insulting edit summaries

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Bueller 007. Would you please not gratuitously insult me in edit summaries, as you did here? Your comment "you are completely clueless" is unacceptable. Such insults are contrary to Wikipedia's rules, can potentially lead to you being blocked, and they certainly are not going to change my mind. I reverted your recent edits because they unconstructively and inappropriately removed EBSCO attribution. I added EBSCO attribution for a reason, which is that I am supposed to add it per rules under which I gained EBSCO access in the first place. I do not agree to its removal. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Stop using all caps and taking ownership of articles. You have duly been reported for your rude edit warring. Regards. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

So you insult me gratuitously ("you are completely clueless") in a way that violates Wikipedia's rules and then you complain that I am being rude? Really? Can you please stop such nonsense and actually discuss the article instead? I will be quite happy to change the citation style of the article; I'm sure we can reach agreement on that (but note that per WP:CITE, "If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it" and per WP:CITEVAR, "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor"; the first "major contributor" in this case is me). I do not agree to removal of EBSCO attribution for content added from EBSCO. For you to remove it was inappropriate and unconstructive. Please don't repeat that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic