User talk:PedramRs

Welcome!


Hello, PedramRs, 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:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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! We're so glad you're here! Sadads (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Work on Richard Ellmann
Thanks for these great edits on the Richard Ellmann article! We need more editors willing to dive into the treatment of the humanities on Wikipedia, especially the academic work around it! Keep it up! If you need help, or have questions, I have left some useful links and tutorials above, Sadads (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello, I'm McSly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McSly (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Hi, PedramRs. I've noticed you have attempted to insert content without reliable sources (please click on that link) concerning intelligent design into the articles Intelligent design and Michael Behe. Please don't edit war to try to force your preferred content into the articles; instead use the talkpages (Talk:Intelligent design and Talk:Michael Behe) to discuss and attempt to get consensus for your changes. (Do please click on the link consensus as well, as Wikipedia's definition of consensus is a little different from the usual sense of the word.) These changes should not be re-added unless you do get consensus for them. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC).


 * Hi there, it is actually the article in its current form that contains baseless, woefully biased misinformation. The changes I made weren’t the “opposite” of what was previously stated in the articles, they just made the biased sentences that were written there to objectively neutral sentences that gave information without passing any unnecessary judgement (neither negative nor positive!) on that information. Unfortunately other people with very poor judgement and very little understanding of science overruled it. Anyway, I’ll try to explain all this in the “talk” section as you recommended, if I find the time. Thanks. PedramRs (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Wikipedia's content needs to be neutral per the policy Neutral point of view. This is one of our core principles, and means that we need to first analyze and understand reliable sources, and then attempt to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. (Our own opinions should not shine through.) Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. I'm quoting the Neutral Point of View policy, but you should preferably read the whole of it. It's longish, but pretty clear and simple, and I think you will find it helpful. Especially the section on "Due and undue weight", which says "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view... Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Also, do please read the section "Fringe theories and pseudoscience". A problematic example from your editing: here, you changed the first sentence of Intelligent design from "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God", to "Intelligent design (ID) has been labelled as a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God". That change amounts to giving too much prominence to the views of ID adherents. "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Of course it is contested that ID is pseudoscience, but not by reliable sources. It's all about the sources. PS, discussions on this site are easier to follow if you indent each reply one step in relation to the post before it, using colons. I have done that with your response as well as mine, to show you how it's done. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC).