User talk:D.Jay.Canfield.1

Welcome!

Hello, D.Jay.Canfield.1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type   on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edits
Hi - responding to your post at my talk page. First, can I say that it is inappropriate to write "your editors" as there is no 'your', you are an editor just as much as I am, you're simply a new one and I'm a much more experienced editor. The same goes for "your readers", it's "our readers". You write "The article included opposing positions, because they are common and documented views, but no solution nor conclusions." That's appropriate because we present all significant points of view made by reliable sources. You'll have to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to understand what sorts of sources we consider reliable. And WP:NPOV to understand why our articles such as this one don't reach a solution or conclusion. We don't take sides over such disputed. There's a lot to read there but you are likely to be continually reverted if you don't follow our policies and guidelines. It's hard for a lot of new editors to understand how different we are from other styles of writing such as essays or journal articles. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)