User talk:Lisnabreeny

Welcome!

Hello, Lisnabreeny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Thankyou :) Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
When writing an edit summary, please do not place your summary inside a /* */ markup. That markup is reserved for individual section edits (it is automatically inserted when you click the "Edit" button on an individual section of a page as opposed to the "Edit" button on the very top) so that people viewing the history know that only a specific section has been edited. Placing your actual edit summary inside that markup obfuscates your meaning and creates confusion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didnt see this. Sorry and thanks for explaining. I realise my edits have been far to messy, and i have resolved to using preview properly now and learning more markup. Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to nature
Please note that nominating an article at Articles for deletion is a 3-step process. Please follow all three steps listed at WP:AFDHOWTO. Alternatively, you can leave me a message on my talk page explaining why the article should be deleted and I can complete the nomination for you; however, if you do this, I will only complete a nomination if the nomination is remotely policy-based as per the deletion policy. I will not complete a nomination if the rationale amounts to "I don't like it", or is an attempt to settle an editing dispute. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a valid deletion rationale hidden in an edit summary (see again my note on these above) and have completed the nomination for you: Articles for deletion/Appeal to nature. Please add this to your watchlist and/or check it regularly, as I am not commenting one way or the other on the merits of deletion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou very much for your help KuyaBriBri, I failed to complete the process and was going to try again later Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

{subst:ANI-notice}
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Argument
I have expanded the scope of this article from a focus on purely formal logical arguments (deductive & inductive), to include philosophical arguments in general. As well, I have added a section on World disclosing arguments that you may find interesting. It is the only section in the article that is consistently sourced, and I have been revising it and including more information based on feedback. However, Philogos has proposed deleting or moving the section to another article, and in fact just deleted it. Machine Elf has agreed with him that it doesn't belong.

I have restored it based on the fact that no one has responded to my attempts at satisfying others' criticisms.

Care to take a look? The information in it also bears on Appeal to nature, and there is an extensive argument about embodiment and human nature that Charles Taylor makes in his essay on transcendental arguments, that I want to try to work into that article.

Thanks, Walkinxyz (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Appeal to nature, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Artificial and Belladonna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Organic milk
Hi Lisnabreeny, I see you reverted back to your proposed content change at Organic milk. In your edit summary, you mentioned "see talk" but I do not see any Talk page section discussing your proposed content change. I'm expecting that you will be creating one. Also, the normal WP:BRD editing pattern is: you make a change to the article (you added "Research and debate continues on how Organically produced milk might differ..."), the edit gets reverted, and we discuss on the Talk page. The change that gets reverted should not be added back, as you have done, until there is consensus on the Talk page regarding the proposed content change. As your proposed content change has now been reverted by two different editors, it really should come out of the article until the Talk page discussion regarding it comes to a consensus. See you at the article Talk page, thanks... 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you just created a Talk page discussion, great!   15:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explaination Zad. See you there. Lisnabreeny (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to Nature
Hi Lisnabreeny, we've got our 3rd opinion back, I was wondering if you'd care to take a look and comment? One of the suggestions is that we merge the article with naturalistic fallacy. I am in two minds about this, and would like to hear some more views before putting through a merge request. First Prime Of Apophis 124.158.16.35 (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am watching the talk page and have responded (to the complex situation ;) there. Best, regards Lisnabreeny (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)