Talk:Structural differential

Why is there no picture of the blasted thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.168.152 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have copyright to this material. - David J. Krus

... and when you put it on Wikipedia, you consent to its being copied and extensively edited. If someone else put it here without your consent, you can request its removal. Michael Hardy 22:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is out of context. I just started to write the article when someone removed it for alleged copyright violation. The above remark was a reply to that editor. As I am concerned, I have no objections to publishing this article on Wikipedia. D.J. Krus

PSimon removed relevant References to this article. What he/she saw offending in referencing the original Korzybski book on the structural differential is beyond rational discussion. Also, the description of the structural differential is next to meaningless without the graph I was going to add. Hovewer, altercation with censors of the PSimon ilk is not worth my time. I request that this entry will be removed from Wikipedia. Principal Author

Structural differential

PSimon removed relevant References to this article. What he/she saw offending in referencing the original Korzybski book on the structural differential is beyond rational discussion. Also, the description of the structural differential is next to meaningless without the graph I was going to add. Hovewer, altercation with censors of the PSimon ilk is not worth my time. I request that this entry will be removed from Wikipedia. Principal Author - Vote for Deletion: Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.86.100 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 01:40:15 UTC

• Keep: I'd like to hear from PSimon why he reverted your changes... but the topic seems to me worthy of wikipedia attention... --Raistlin 10:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  Cruise was mass adding links to his website, and I went through and reverted almost all their edits. Unfortunately, in this case they also added some references that I inadvertently removed. - SimonP 12:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  now that they are back, i'd say Keep even more --Raistlin 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. Examination of history does not support the claim that Cruise was "mass adding" links. As far as I can tell, they added a single link; if it was to their own website, it was improper, but there is no clear reason that the other edits needed to be reverted. This seems to be a content dispute, so Wikipedia:Requests for comment or some other dispute resolution mechanism probably would be more appropriate. I don't feel competent to judge the claim that the article is "meaningless without the graph I was going to add", so I choose not to vote. ManoaChild 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: PSimon, I accept your reversals and rescind my request for deletion. Next time, please say 'sorry,' it goes a long way. ManoaChild, thank you for your comments. I added the graph that you can see for yourself. You are right, it was vendetta, but I hope PSimon and I will get over it. After all, Alfred Korzybski deserves to be remembered.Principal Author 3:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and restore Cruise links and references, SimonP deleted even PRINTED references, not only external links. I have recently read much of Cruise additions and they look serious. Now, either Cruise is a very ingenious prankster or - as he wrote on his own talk page - a retired professor, and so significant himself. I prefer to assume good faith, and not to scare newcomers to Wiki, so unless SimonP or sb else can prove to me Cruise works is fiction/vandalism, I definetly support Cruise and object to SimonP deletetion of useful info. This said, I am off to Cruise talk page to instruct him on wiki-ways and GDFL licences and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the image of the "Structural Differential" from the page because it is not a picture of the structural differential, but someone's version of how they would have done it. E. Crang, 09:02, 27 August 2005.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)