Daedelus79

Welcome!

Hello, Daedelus79! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Randykitty (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Resubmission of content

Hi, your edit here was reverted because another editor felt it comprised synthesis. Rather than resubmit the content with no explanation, as you did here, a better approach would have been to open a discussion on the article's talk page to argue for the inclusion of the content. Biographies of living persons must be written so as to avoid any potentially libelous content, and must adhere to a neutral point of view. The references used must also be from reliable sources, which blogs typically are not. Please do not resubmit the content without first achieving consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed the material that was deemed problematic by the other editor and removed other content that might be deemed synthesis. Can my revisions be reevaluated? Or do I have to do them again?--Daedelus79 (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I didn't notice that you had removed some of the content. My edit summary should have been less commanding. I think your best bet is to post to the talk page, or possibly to float a question at WikiProject Philosophy. I would probably challenge the inclusion of this content on the basis that it seems to introduce gossipy axe-grinding from fringe sources, rather than presenting objective content from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. It is not Wikipedia's aim to give undue weight to the opinions of detractors, and at a quick glance, I don't know that these bloggers' opinions are noteworthy, that they should be included in a global encyclopedia. And, since we are trying to achieve a neutral point of view, I notice also that there's nothing to balance the "controversy". Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, none of what I added is gossip and my sources are not unreliable. I did not add gossip because none of what I posted is disputed. In fact, it is relevant because his blog is discussed. Right now, in academic philosophy, there is a pretty important conversation about the sort of tone and criticisms that people like Brian Leiter lob at other academics. This isn't just in other blogs, but there was even an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (an important academic publication) recently that featured an interview with Leiter where he defends himself against such criticisms. As for my sources, while they are blogs they are not just part of a rumor mill. Many of the sources are blogs that Brian Leiter actually runs and therefore it's his post and his words I am referencing or blogs in which Leiter comments on in the comments section and are again his words I am using. I am relying on blogs because the subject is Leiter's blogs and the actions are all done on blogs. --Daedelus79 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like there are other eyes on the article now, and it looks like people smarter than I approve of some of the content you've added, so I won't stand in the way unless there is a reason to. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Daedelus79, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Daedelus79! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)