User talk:נחי

Welcome!

 * Nachi (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Graphics Lab request

 * Nachi (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Help
reversed my edits on the article future studies with no any explanation. My edits contained good references from scientific sources, and I can't see any justification to such action. I'll appriciate your help. Nachi (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am not an administrator but I believe I can help. This is largely because your request does not need an administrator's assistance.  Administrators on Wikipedia are not responsible for solving issues over which content is included in any particular article.  Administrators are instead granted certain technical abilities that apply when editors abuse their editing privileges, which  has certainly not done here.  The normal editing cycle for a Wikipedia article almost always involves situations exactly like what you've described.  You made a change, Editor2020 reverted it, it is now time for you to use the article talk page to discuss what you are trying to add and whether the larger community of editors thinks it should be included.  I can tell you that I also would have reverted your change because "...and many scientists considere it even as mainly pseudoscience"  is both ungrammatical in English and has errors.  Some editors would also consider your proposed text to not comply with the No Original Research policy because it synthesizes two different pieces to say something that neither source says on its own.  I hope this helps.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This came to my attention because I track changes to the pseudoscience category. I would just like to support Eggishorn's excellent description of Wikipedia's editing process.  Please start/pursue discussion at the article's talk page if you believe that your new material is important for the article.  Thanks for your contributions, — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the clear explanation. I certainely didn't mean abused the rules, although I think he or she should have supplied an explanation. If my question for help implied it - I appologize.
 * Considering the grammer I used, it's indeed a reason to revert in extreme cases, but not in this case, as far as I understand it.
 * Finally, the best place to discuss the considerations you mentioned about the analysis of the sources is the talk page and I'll do that soon. Nachi (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , thak you (again) for the discussion you started in the talk page. I'll write there soon. Nachi (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , not a problem. You ae new, and new people require guidance when joining a community.  For example, reversion is not something used only in "extreme" cases - its really quite routine.  Everyone gets reverted, up to and including the founder of Wikipedia, .  This is why the "Bold-Revert-Discuss" cycles I linked to above is also called the normal editing process.  Giving a reason why one has reverted another editor is preferred, just as it is preferred to give a summary of every edit, but it is not a requirement and not leaving one does not indicate that the reverted edit was violating any rules.
 * Finally, I'm going to guess by your username and your use of English that Hebrew is your first language and English your second. There is also a Hebrew-language Wikipedia that could really use some help, having only about 220,000 articles at this time.  Many new users think that the English-language  project is the "main" or "most important" or "central" one and somehow runs the others and they are just translations of the English one.  They are, instead, separate projects and often need much more assistance.  Your grasp of English and your replies here tell me, for example, that you would probably be very well-suited to moving articles from this project to that one. Or maybe you could add to the pseudoscience article there.  It's up to you how you contribute. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to add: as a member of the WP:SKEPTIC WikiProject I appreciate the importance of our WP:PSCI policy and I thank you for your contributions in relation to pseudoscience. An important related noticeboard we have (for cases where article talk pages discussions are not fruitful) is WP:FTN, the fringe-theories noticeboard.  Thanks again, — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)