User talk:2601:18C:CA00:8FDF:61DD:58BA:9713:A730

August 2018
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Pseudoscience. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Pseudoscience shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Paleo Neonate  – 23:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The policy which you quoted in your edit summary doesn't mean what you think it means. Please read up on due and undue weighting. In a nutshell, however, Wikipedia is--by design--a content aggregator of reliable, secondary, mainstream sources. The "Articles must not take sides" policy means that articles should summarize these sources impartially, giving weight to each viewpoint in proportion to its weight in the sources.


 * Many people are dissatisfied with this policy. Whether you agree with it or not, however, it is policy, and as a matter of empirical fact is likely to remain so. If you think the article content should be changed, your best course of action is therefore to open up a discussion on its talk page in which you provide very high-quality sources that say something like "Creation science is not pseudoscience". You may wish to search the reliable-sources noticeboard, or even open a discussion there, to make sure that your sources are as strong as possible. I advise you not to argue that Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes a reliable source is too narrow; that trick never works.


 * I'm not saying that this will work (or even that it should work). I'm just saying that this is, observationally and practically, the one thing that might work. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)