User talk:Logictj

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Logictj! I am Mysdaao and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Mysdaao ^talk 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your edit to Naturalism (Philosophy)[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Naturalism (Philosophy) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Auntie E. 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made my first edit addition in Wikepedia to the Skepticism pg. It was deleted for not being neutral. It is my understanting that all world views have weakness. Often in Wikepedia some world views have a small criicisim or opposing world views posted. For example the Creation Science view has opposing view and criticism posted. It is a gerenal principal of philosophy to have criticisms. It adds balance to show a small criticism of a philosophy. Am I incorrect? --Logictj (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and take a few breaths. The issue at the present time isn't about whether your edits are true or not. It is about edit warring. You have violated the WP:BRD cycle by restoring the content before discussing it on the talk page and arriving at a consensus version with other editors. Don't do that again or you'll get blocked. You were told to use the talk page, not just once, but twice, but you ignored that advice. Here are several bits of advice to take very seriously:

Don't edit war. If your edits are reverted, go to the talk page and discuss the matter. Do NOT edit the article while doing that, ~~unless it's totally unrelated and truly minor edits (punctuation, etc.).~~ On second thought, that might cause you to violate WP:3RR.

You aren't totally wrong when it comes to balancing articles. NPOV policy requires that opposing POV be included if they are framed and sourced properly, BUT it must be done it cooperation with other editors.

Regardless of what edits you make, they are ALL subject to being reverted and discussed. All controversial content is developed through a process of collaboration between editors who often hold opposing POV. If you can't get a consensus, then you must follow the dispute resolution process.

Don't label your edits as minor unless they truly are: punctuation, formatting, etc.

Remember to log in. Using different accounts, including IPs, may be considered WP:Sock puppetry. You have used at least two different IPs so far without logging in. Don't do that again.

Why did you remove a whole paragraph (about Wilson) in this edit? That was anything but a minor edit. You removed properly sourced content that had already been the target of an editor who got blocked for repeatedly deleting it. Why did you do it?

If I didn't care about your fate here, I wouldn't have taken the time to laboriously write this message. It's not a template. I hope you will learn and become a great editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]