User talk:Adamnieri

Welcome!
Hello, Adamnieri, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Paleo Neonate  – 21:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Intelligent design. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Paleo Neonate  – 21:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Sorry about that. I just think the article is providing a subjective perspective for people who might be interested in investigating ID. If someone detemrines (on their own accord) that ID is pseudoscience then that is their prerogative. Please explain and know that I'm not trying to be antagonistic here; just looking for clarity. Adamnieri (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources have established that intelligent design is pseudoscience, not just "someone". Please respect Wikipedia's sourcing policy and stop inserting your own opinions into articles. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't quite answer my question but thank you for the word of advice; I will be sure not to insert my own opinions in articles. Adamnieri (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (Confirming Guettarda's point) Wikipedia has core policies – No original research ties in with verifiability policy – everything must be verifiable from a reliable published source, including any analysis or conclusions drawn from information if they're not explicitly stated in a published source. Also, neutral point of view policy requires that we give due weight to majority views, and show minority or fringe views in that context. Thus we show how the mainstream has received ID ideas, and show ID claims or comments in that context. That's reinforced by the particular requirements for pseudoscience, and reliable mainstream published sources have shown that ID is pseudoscience. As a theological argument it's fine, though debated, but when it's claimed to qualify as science that makes it into pseudoscience. Plenty about that in the article!. All the best, . dave souza, talk 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Dave, thank you for your reply! That was actually very helpful. I would certainly disagree in some regards, but I see what you're saying and it makes sense to me. Thank you, again, for your reply. Adamnieri (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Adamnieri, you're welcome. Wikipedia policies can seem a bit of a maze, but the basic principles are relatively simple and make a lot of sense. . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This applies to all editors, there's room for "be bold", get reverted, discuss with the emphasis on discussion. I'll briefly comment above. . dave souza, talk 21:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.