User talk:Takumi4G63

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

re: Author guidelines
There are quite strict rules on authoring style. The most important is to follow a neutral point of view which means to "fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct". Particularly important here WP:NPOV which states "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view".

The next is Consensus; please do not make drastic changes to articles without mentioning them on the talk page first. We've gone through all this before with Dembski's page but sensible suggestions will be taken on board.

You should nevertheless be bold in updating pages and may I suggest that you don't try to run before you can walk: Write about your favourite music group or something else that interests you that isn't a controversial issue just to learn the ropes? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 15:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

upholding NPOV
I can understand your concern for upholding the NPOV policy.

Everyone has a watchlist - your concerns will be noted and if there is any substance to them they will be addressed. It may take a little while for people to respond. Please be patient.

You can request comments from other users at requests for comment if no-one replies.

The suggestion to go and edit something else was well-intended advice. You are not the first to come along and complain of NPOV without properly realising what NPOV means.

Addressing your concerns specifically, please see the article on pseudoscience for the characteristics of pseudoscience. It is generally accepted that we as editors cannot judge whether something is pseudoscience (and there is a demarcation problem) so we have to take a sociological definition. ID has a number of features that make it stand out as a pseudoscience and they are described in the article and do not need to be reiterated here.

Please also stick to one point at a time. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

upholding NPOV
I can understand your concern for upholding the NPOV policy.

Everyone has a watchlist - your concerns will be noted and if there is any substance to them they will be addressed. It may take a little while for people to respond. Please be patient.

You can request comments from other users at requests for comment if no-one replies.

The suggestion to go and edit something else was well-intended advice. You are not the first to come along and complain of NPOV without properly realising what NPOV means.

Addressing your concerns specifically, please see the article on pseudoscience for the characteristics of pseudoscience. It is generally accepted that we as editors cannot judge whether something is pseudoscience (and there is a demarcation problem) so we have to take a sociological definition. ID has a number of features that make it stand out as a pseudoscience and they are described in the article and do not need to be reiterated here.

Please also stick to one point at a time. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)