" 

 == Onus probandi fallacy == 

 on ""list of informal fallacies"" onus probandi is erroneously in blue, because it is linked to ""philosophical burden of proof"" which is not a fallacy, but the epistemic equivalence of the legal principle. I tried to add the fallacy there but Denisarona reverted it. 
 NOw, either you make a new entry ""onus probandi (fallacy)"" possibly redirecting to the english equivalent ""(shifting the) burden of proof"" or you add a section to previous article adding ""burden of proof"" fallacy. 
 the word philosophical is anyway inappropriate and should be changed.OK? 
 btw I couldn't find a ""leave a message"" button on user talk:Denisarona, can you let her know?   
 — Precedingunsigned comment added by    
 :Hi.. I reviewed my revert of your changes. I reverted on the basis of the phrase ""I am wrong"" because I (incorrectly) viewed it as personal commentary that you included in the article. I apologize for this. I should have reviewed the context more before clicking on the revert button. I've restored your edits as good faith and removed my warning from your talk page. Denisarona's contention, and it is correct, is that you should provide a source for the information that you have added or changed. Thank you for your contributions!    
 :By the way, to leave a message on Denisarona's talk page, all you have to do is to go to the page and click the edit tab at the top. You can then add a new section at the end of the talk page. )    
 Wikipelli, it is useless to write to her, I explained to you what is the problem. I might add a section to the article ""philosophical..."" but I cannot correct the mistake in the title, or make a new entry or a new  redirect, only you can do that. [btw Her contention is wrong, I am surprised you say so, because my source, if you understood the problem, is wikipedia itself. I added the original Latin text and its transaltion because I happen to know Latin, there is no source for that]. So,let's recap: you must copy definition/explanation from ""list of fallacies"" to [philosofical:delete] burden of proof or make a new article ""burden of proof(fallacy)"" copy there the explanation and make a new redirect from ""onus probandi"", later on I can improve the article. If it is not yet clear tell me what is the problem.OK?   
 ::Ok.. I'm trying to sort this out. But a couple of things while I do that: 1) I'd feel better about helping if you didn't tell me that I 'must' do this, rather than ask me to do it. )  and, 2) what is keeping you from making the changes yourself?    
 Keep your shirt on, wikipelli,1) I am a not a native speaker, mother-tongue is Latin, ""you must...later I can"" means ""only you can...after that I am able to"", if you do not like it change it to ""you ought to....if you desire that I..."" OK?  

 2) [Denisarona and wikipelli] ...I am new here, I do not know what I am allowed to do, and how to do it.[you are forgetting a trivial detail: I got two ""warnings"" in 5 minutes] 
 The bottom line is ""I am helping you to make a more decent article, you are just helping me to help you!. Is that correct? 
 I am joking, I imagine you must deal with trolls and vandals all day. Let me know when you are ready. btw: if I want to give not a source but a real ""example"" from web, can I put the link at the explanation or I must put it in a note? the latter would be above my possibilities.Ta. 
 ::Ok... I'll look into it.    
 N