GenGen100
Welcome StebbinsMan!
I'm Suneye1, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Reverted
editHi there! I recently reverted your edit on Nick Land. Describing an individual as a "neo-Nazi" requires strong references, which we do not have in that article for that descriptor. If you find citations supporting that descriptor, please feel free to add it back. Jlevi (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly haven't seen any proper third party encyclopedic evidence of him being a "philosopher" when his main schtick is being a reactionary fascist that classically misinterprets actual philosophers like Nietzsche and Crowley to fit their delusions of grandeur. Perhaps "scientific racist" or "eugenicist" would meet the current citations more semantically properly. StebbinsMan (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- User:Jlevi
- Just saw this--don't think I got a ping. If you'd like to discuss this further, I suggest moving the conversation to the article talk page rather than your own. Jlevi (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Jlevi
The source (The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience) states that Synchronicity fits into definition of pseudoscience. However You have changed this sentence and now it's not exactly what the reference points to. I have questions: Do You think: it's not a credible source? idea of synchronicity is scientific? 37.47.88.145 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's philosophical and doesn't have much to do with science or pseudoscience. Although, I suppose it could fall under science or pseudoscience if it's tested properly and found to apply or not apply in certain situations. StebbinsMan (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Energy (esotericism). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)