User talk:Nick cool

Welcome!

Hello, Nick cool, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 04:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ from the reversion.

Glæd Gēol, merry Christmas and flavoursome frumenty.

Martin Arnold Nick_cool (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't "neutral" between science and pseudoscience, but decidedly sides with science, see WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you. I yet maintain that the reversion is less pertinent than my suggestion, but regret that I lack the energy to argue my case, so I'll have to let the reversion stand. Cheers, Martin Nick_cool (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I always like how the WP:RULES play out for every article? Not always. But I'm still bound to obey the WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drs,

If the Rules insist that Berlinki's article be written as it stands, then the Rules is an ass.

Cheers,

Martin Nick_cool (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you will find the rules of Conservapedia more suitable for your POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No.

I have not investigated WP:RULES, but I would be surprised and disappointed if they insisted on such a misleading, tendentious and insulting article as the one which presently stands under the name 'David Berlinski'. Nick_cool (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, pseudoscience always gets short shrift. See WP:PSCI.

We can't really treat him the way you want.

"So when the Christian Right tries to tell you that evolutionists instinctively circle the wagons whenever anyone dares question the Darwinian status quo, you should ask yourself why Wright and Kimura got through, but Behe not. The answer is, I think, straightforward: Wright and Kimura knew what they were talking about." H. Allen Orr. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Youth Advocacy Centre

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Youth Advocacy Centre, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]