User talk:Theartisticscholar

November 2022
I reverted your edit to anthropocene because it violates a number of fundamental principles of Wikipedia
 * No original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
 * neutral point of view. 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.
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Wikipedia is a popular site, and its articles often appear high in search engine rankings. You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are literally supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. (copied from wp:Righting Great Wrongs)

See also Wikipedia's goals and core content policies.

I am sympathetic to your aims but not your means of achieving them.

Please ask at Teahouse for further advice. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your guidance. I did consider that the discussion needed to be both widened and updated to include relevant analysis. Theartisticscholar (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. If you want to pursue the idea, I suggest that you make a proposal at talk:Anthropocene. The article already has material on those who believe that the concept of an Anthropocene is flawed and unnecessary, but that material is supported by reliably sourced citations. So it should be possible to find space for those who believe it doesn't go far enough – but equally it must be supported by creditable citations. So best you read WP:Reliable sources to see what is needed. Best you collect all the information first so that you can present a solid case. Meanwhile, let me give you a proper welcome that contains some other tips to get started... --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!
  Hello, Theartisticscholar!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Good evening
 * Many thanks for taking the time to explain procedures and practices... I think I should have gained more experience but I really thought I was adding and contributing to the development of that particular section and that was a valid thing to do.
 * I shall take my time and explore further.
 * I have used teh site in my own research and felt it only fair to contribute financially when there have been callouts for support. I appreciate your courtesy and am excited to learn more and contribute... better!
 * Theartisticscholar (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, what you did is what most new users do and there is no lasting damage from the trial and error, because mistakes are so easily undone. I suggest you start by spending some time doing minor corrections, nothing controversial, maybe just improving readability and looking at how the article is constructed. Should you come across something relevant in a wp:reliable source that will fill a gap in an article, have a go at writing it up, citing the source you found. Here endeth the lesson, have fun! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, glad that was a short and sweet lesson, as I am ready for my beauty sleep.
 * Herein endeth my response ! Theartisticscholar (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Herein endeth my response ! Theartisticscholar (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)