User talk:Hwahl90

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hwahl90, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Hwahl90! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content. You may want to read [[WP:V\\ and WP:NOR. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Living dinosaur shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Hwahl90, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Living dinosaur has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Living dinosaurs[edit]

Besides the copyright violation, the unencyclopedic tone, and the fact that your source fails WP:RS for any claim that dinosaurs lived with men, Wikipedia relies basically on mainstream sources for its articles. It represents significant minority views as per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE but it will never assert as fact that dinosaurs lived with men. If you can't accept that perhaps you should be editing elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not re-post copyrighted material in its articles, even with permission. Mainstream science regards evolution as a theory in the same way that gravity is "just a theory." In science, a theory is an idea that has enough evidence that there's not really any other plausible explanation. Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Non-evolutionary creationism is a poorly evidenced hypothesis (not a theory), really just an ideological rejection of mainstream science and pretense that religion and science are opposed when they aren't. As such, non-evolutionary creationism is treated as fringe and we do not give it equal validity with evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is just a theory not a fact it's a religion just as creationism so to have a neutral point of view both should be allowed. Also evolution does not have a enough evidence to prove it's true creationism has as much prove as Evolution if not more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwahl90 (talk • contribs)

Whatever you want to believe, that's simply not what mainstream science has concluded based on experimentation and observation (such as the E. coli long-term evolution experiment, Peppered moth evolution, and fossil records). Wikipedia regards "creation science" and "intelligent design" as fringe ideas, following mainstream science. Believe whatever you want, but know that Wikipedia will not support you in attempting to promote those beliefs, and is opposed to giving equal validity and equal weight to ideas rejected by mainstream science. All of those blue words? Those are links to the site policies that represent the collective will of the community, and proof that you will be quickly blocked for trying to promote any sort of belief system. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disgree. But we live in a free country where theres not just one theory and Wikipedia is a neutral place and so they both should be allowed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwahl90 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not the United States government. It is a private entity. It is no more required to allow you to host your beliefs than you are required to host equal weight for evolution in your home. See Wikipedia:Free speech.

Also, the idea we should treat both ideas as equally valid is not how science works. Science gives validity according to evidence, and Wikipedia follows suit. If you want to change Wikipedia, read up on evolution (not watered down straw-man arguments made up by creationists) so you know what you're arguing against, get a bunch of real scientific evidence for creationism that isn't misrepresented, misinterpreted, or outright faked; present it in scientific journals with proof that the evidence doesn't support evolution, and change mainstream science.

The idea that Wikipedia, schools, or whatever, should present both creationism and evolution as equally true equally insults scientific knowledge and religious belief. It treats both as a matter of opinion, meaning that neither matters and we might as well believe whatever we want. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Living dinosaur has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Young earth creationist pov-pusher repeatedly violating copyright. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for inserting copyright violations into the encyclopedia after repeated warnings. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hwahl90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I though it was ok to use short Quotation but if it not I'll stop it I'm sorry I made some one so mad. thanks Hwahl90 (talk) 4:45 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I don't see any evidence that you understand why your actions violated copyright, nor why this would be an issue on Wikipedia. Until you can convince an administrator that you have read and understood the copyrights policy (and this will take more than simply saying "I have read and understood the copyrights policy"), you will not be unblocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You never attributed nor indicated that you were quoting. You just copied and pasted the text in a way that could lead others to believe it was your writing, which is plagiarism, which is nothing short of stealing someone else's writings. You also were told at four different points not to add any material from other sites, but didn't listen. Whether it's refusal to cooperate or sheer incompetence, we don't need it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought after you mentioned that I put Quotations sorry if I did not. I was just trying put more info on wikipedia to make it better. also could you post the place where it says even if you have permission you can't post it from another website thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwahl90 (talk • contribs)

You did not provide any indication of quotation. Not knowing that does not help your case.

The legal implications of CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL means that giving permission to the cite would be tantamount to revoking one's own copyright claims. By allowing material from their site to be reproduced here, they would effectively be donating their copyright to us.

Also, just copying-and-pasting instead of summarizing is just lazy and low-quality. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I offer a word of advice? I'd hope you can get yourself fairly easily unblocked from your current block by showing that you understand Wikipedia's copyright policy and by promising not to copy material from other sites. But once you have achieved that, you need to start listening to the explanations you have been given about Wikipedia's approach to unbiased balance - Wikipedia presents a balance of what reliable sources (as defined at WP:RS) say; it does not simply report all existing opinions with equal weight. Once you understand that, you need to stop pushing creationism - if you continue, you're pretty much certain to get a block for that very quickly. Your beliefs that there is no evidence for evolution, that creationism is more scientifically plausible, and that evolution is a religion? Well, I think that's deluded nonsense, but I happily support your right to hold those opinions and to express them - just not in Wikipedia articles. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alan, for the input I just though that putting stories and legend of living dinosaur and that both point of view should be included.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hwahl90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked and I won't do it again I pasted and coped some info from another website ThanksHwahl90 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're still not following either WP:GAB or the plethora of wise advice above. You need to show that a) you understand copyright, b) you understand the dangers it presents, and c) explain a CLEAR way forward ("I won't do it again" is not an explanation of what you will do instead) the panda ₯’ 09:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.