Metaphysicalnaturalist
Greetings... edit
Hello, Metaphysicalnaturalist, and welcome to Wikipedia!
- To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".
- I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!
- Happy editing! Skomorokh 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!
February 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Metaphysical naturalism has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://centerfornaturalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/worldview-naturalism-in-nutshell.html). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Metaphysical naturalism do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://centerfornaturalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/worldview-naturalism-in-nutshell.html). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Various edit
You are obviously passionate about a range of subjects on philosophy. However I do think you need to spend some time reading about how to edit WIkipedia. In particular WP:CRD. If you make a change and another editor reverts then you seek agreement on the talk page first. Just saying something on the talk page is not enough, you have to engage in discussion. Now you have had this pointed out not just by me, but by an admin who you ran to when you wanted to complain. At the moment on two articles you have made changes which have received zero support from other editors. That does not justify you in inserting the material again.
Everyone wants to help other editors (well most do) so please take this in that spirit. Its also not advisable to talk about being angry with other people when all they are doing is following policy. Assume good faith, talk with people, realise that WIkipedia is not a place for your view (papers and essays do that) and the only authority is a good citation. --Snowded TALK 12:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the curteous reply. I do apologize for my tone. As I stated, I was holding no animosity. But I'm wondering how you managed to miss all 4 of the comments/suggestions I made on the Discussion page? Am I still placing them in the wrong place?
- Too, I think I need some clarification as to what constitutes "encyclopedic" material, since the sources and references, some of them encyclopedias themselves, are not enough.
- You are correct about my passion. I do wish to be helpful to editors. I have been reading the comments of others, on the Discussion page, and making my own comments there. And I've been reading the "rules", of which there are many! That's why I think I need clarification as what exactly constitutes what is acceptable. Apparently I have a thick skull, even though I can comprehend difficult material like Husserl, Kant, Ibn Rushd, etc.
- Please accept my apology and my sincere appreciation for helping me understand the criteria for acceptable material. Curtis Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk)
- You are correct about my passion. I do wish to be helpful to editors. I have been reading the comments of others, on the Discussion page, and making my own comments there. And I've been reading the "rules", of which there are many! That's why I think I need clarification as what exactly constitutes what is acceptable. Apparently I have a thick skull, even though I can comprehend difficult material like Husserl, Kant, Ibn Rushd, etc.
- Too, I think I need some clarification as to what constitutes "encyclopedic" material, since the sources and references, some of them encyclopedias themselves, are not enough.