User talk:Mhnova

Welcome!

Hello, Mhnova, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello Mhnova and welcome to Wikipedia. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 11:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. This is the only account I own and use on Wikipedia, and I edit independently. Can you elaborate on the pattern you are referring to, and which user's pattern you find mine similar to? MHNova (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your account was created just 2 days ago and is acting as a single purpose account to pile in on an existing contentious talk page discussion begun by Kazemita1. The suspicion I have is that you are either co-ordinating with User:Kazemita1 in an off-wiki forum or are a sock account of that user or User:Estedlal. Genuine new users usually display a learning curve as they slowly come to encounter wiki policies and culture for the first time. For now I will act on WP:AGF unless continued abnomalies arise. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

First let me clearly emphasize again that your suspicion, while understandable, is wrong. Regarding the learning curve, I don't think I need to defend myself for performing too well, but since I do understand your concern, I am offering some explanation. While new to editting Wikipedia, as a scientist, I am a long-time user, and I am not new to the concept and the software; I do use the wiki platform on a daily basis for sharing information. I also have several academic publications, so I am not new to writing.

What triggered my interest in this particular article is one-sidedness of the article and the unusual resistance of certain editors against representing critical views even to a minimal degree. To oppose criticism, irrelevant arguments like due weight, coherence, and consensus, are used rather than an objective discussion of the material and references. And what makes it ironic is that this is an article about a character who is considered by many to be a champion of reason.

Due weight and consensus are not irrelevant, they are policy. If you don't like them you won't like wikipedia very much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on, you know what I mean. What I call irrelevant is their use in this specific circumstance and not in general. I refer you to my comments regarding due weight on the talk page of that article, as I don't have time to repeat them here. I respectfully invite you to try harder to adhere to the spirit of the Wikipedia concept and to engage in an objective and substantive dialog around real issues. MHNova (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)