User talk:Quantuminformation

Welcome!

Hello, Quantuminformation, 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!--Biografer (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm Hulmem. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Normative, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR before continuing to edit Wikipedia. hulmem (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'mnot sure if this is how I respond, or what talk pages are etc. I will source my content. I am a professional philosopher rewriting a number of wikipedia pages on concepts from contemporary anglophone philosophy. These articles are for the most part inaccurate or suboptimal in some other way. I agree that my introduction to normativity was unsourced, but I do not agree that it was off-topic. The exposition of normativity currently on the page is accurate neither to today's use of the word in academia nor to its historical use, while my exposition: (i) provided a description of how to read the word in a variety of contexts, (ii) explained the significance the word has in its field of origin, and (iii) provided an exposition of a common theory of the word that elegantly makes sense of the word's meaning. To confirm, are those appropriate for an introduction? I would think so but wondering. Also is this how I respond? Quantuminformation (talk)Zane