User talk:Anthroxous
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Anthroxous, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Mimic Octopus. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
re: Warning???[edit]
Hi, was working too fast and clicked on the wrong user name there in the history at Unilever. There was another user that was posting uncited material. That was my concern and is also why I removed my message here. Sorry for the confusion :)
Dawnseeker2000 21:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 20:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
April 2023[edit]
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Flood geology without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your edit summary made no sense, geology is used all the time to study geological events in the past. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Geology is used all the time, yes, but my edit was regarding the term "pseudoscience," which refers to science that should conform to the scientific method, but does not. Geology, forensics, and history cannot conform to the scientific method, for the scientific method cannot be used with past events. Nevertheless, these disciplines are never referred to as pseudoscience. Hence, my edit. Anthroxous (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t know what you mean by saying geology can’t be used for past events. Did you read the article? But if you have reliably published sources defending your view, take them to the talk page. Note talk pages aren’t for discussion of the subject of the article. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think you aren't following what I'm saying.
- Geology is good for past events.
- The scientific method cannot be used for past events.
- Perhaps, I should add significantly to the article with references to my own peer-reviewed, reliably published works,but I tend to prefer writing books over editing Wikipedia.
- Maybe I was wrong to try to bring truth to this place, but I couldn't resist removing an inflammatory word left by one who doesn't know.
- Maybe I'll wait and try again later. Anthroxous (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- So we can’t determine when a star went nova? Doug Weller talk 20:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's not difficult at all, but we don't use the scientific method to do it. Anthroxous (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- So we can’t determine when a star went nova? Doug Weller talk 20:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t know what you mean by saying geology can’t be used for past events. Did you read the article? But if you have reliably published sources defending your view, take them to the talk page. Note talk pages aren’t for discussion of the subject of the article. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)