Hello, Fictio-cedit-veritati! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being " adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Jess· Δ♥ 03:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Getting Started
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
Policies and Guidelines
|
|
|
The Community
|
|
|
Things to do
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
A few helpful tips:
- Abortion-related articles are under general sanctions that, among other things, prohibit making more than one reversion per article per day. Keep this in mind in case another user reverts your addition. Try to get what you want through consensus-building, not through warring.
- Your understanding of WP:BRD is somewhat incorrect. If someone reverts your bold edit, you don't war it back in and demand that anyone who wants to take it out bring it to the talk page first - you bring it to the talk page and wait for consensus to re-implement it.
- Since you've made changes to a number of articles based on this Catholic Answers source, it would be better if you'd take it to WP:RSN, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, rather than obliging a separate discussion of its merit on every page where you've tried to use it. I recommend that you open a thread there and present your arguments for the reliability of the source.
-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll be sure to keep this in mind in the future. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take care not to delete referenced information, as you did in Criticism of religion, even if you you don't particularly like the cited source; you have to edit from a neutral and detached point of view. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the source I simply offered an example an example of a medical study countering your source. My point is that I don't think we should call something a fact if two reputable sources disagree. I think we should say it is contested.
--Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the distinction in my page history summary: what's reported in the article is that criticism exists ("A major criticism of many religions is..."), not that the criticism is necessarily true—do you see the difference? The real point, of course, is that cited information from a reliable source shouldn't be deleted arbitrarily. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I watchlist that article and saw the edits. I can suggest that a possible solution is to add the new source as a possible rebuttal, which would be much better than deleting the existing one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, Monnraker. The issue I take with the statement is with regard to the following: "prayer has a beneficial effect on others has been tested and disproved." I feel like that is a statement of supposed fact inside a criticism. While the criticism is simply 'existent' the statement about prayer is being presented as factual, when in fact, it is contested by numerous scientific studies. Would it not make more sense to say that some studies indicated that prayer has no effect while others indicate that it does?
--Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My brief search of sources found separate authorities giving one result or the other, but not one that specifically describes the balance you suggest. If you could find one (and I didn't look for very long) that would forestall any suggestion of synthesis, which isn't allowed on WP. Certainly that would fix any taint of unbalance in the article, which would be useful.
- I see that the topic isn't covered in the Prayer in Christianity piece and the results of detailed studies may rest better there, perhaps with a WP:SS link from here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This issue has been settled. I made an error and editing a page once too often within a 24 hour window. Once the error was realized I immediately reverted my edit. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...will not help you look like a neutral and productive editor. Please read WP:CANVASS and don't do it again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the reference, having read it, I have not been guilty of it. There is a difference between canvassing and seeking the help of other editors so as to further the discussion; I have done the latter. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You sought out editors that you thought would agree with you and that you knew had disputed with me personally in the past, and posted a non-neutral message to their user talk pages. There are multiple reasons why that's canvassing. Nice try, but just don't do it in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, please adopt a more polite tone in talking to me as per WP:EQ and WP:CIV. Comments like 'nice try' are uncivil and do nothing to promote beneficial dialog. The two editors that I sought out were contacted because they seemed to know about Christianity. As we were talking about Christianity, it would seem fitting that I seek somebody out who seemed to know about it. When I contacted them I was not aware that they had disputed with you in the past. I believe I found them on one of the pages that we both have edited on so while that is certainly possible they were not sought out for that reason. My messages were not non-neutral. I stated a fact that I believed to be common knowledge among Christian scholars. That is no violation of neutrality, that is me asking for help for somebody I think might understand what I'm talking about. There is an important difference between seeking help of somebody you believe is knowledgeable in the subject matter and seeking out people you think will agree with you. The editor that I sought out was located because of his knowledge in Christianity. The fact that he agreed with me is not relevant; by the logic of saying that it is, you could always accuse somebody of non-neutrality who looked for help and the helper agreed with help seeker. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever. Don't say I didn't warn you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Duly noted, you believe me to have engaged in Canvassing. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recently got into a debate on WP:RSN. I ultimately lost the debate, but what gave me concern were other users' complete lack of respect of basic logical discourse. I would offer conclusions that were supported be premises, however, instead of any form of logical attack, my conclusions were simply declared to be false and I was told that things were 'blindingly obvious'. Sometimes in hopes of supporting their illogical dismissal of my conclusion they would offer facts that I was highly skeptical of and they refused to substantiate. Clearly, I didn't think they were obvious if I was taking the time to write about them, and the idea that you can refute an argument by saying you don't agree with the conclusion is a logical fallacy. All and all, I found the ordeal very discouraging as it painted a picture of Wikipedia overrun with highly opinionated people who either choose not to, or don't know, logical discourse; and 'win' debates by simply getting a few others to agree with them. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
