Jump to content

User talk:Hwahl90: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Ian.thomson (talk | contribs)
Hwahl90 (talk | contribs)
Line 63: Line 63:
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.{{unsigned|Hwahl90}}
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.{{unsigned|Hwahl90}}
: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). [[WP:Wikipedia:Fringe#Examples|Wikipedia regards "creation science" and "intelligent design" as fringe ideas]], following mainstream science. Believe whatever you want, but know that [[WP:NOTSOAPBOX|Wikipedia will not support you in attempting to promote those beliefs]], and [[WP:GEVAL|is opposed to giving equal validity]] and [[WP:UNDUE|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. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
: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). [[WP:Wikipedia:Fringe#Examples|Wikipedia regards "creation science" and "intelligent design" as fringe ideas]], following mainstream science. Believe whatever you want, but know that [[WP:NOTSOAPBOX|Wikipedia will not support you in attempting to promote those beliefs]], and [[WP:GEVAL|is opposed to giving equal validity]] and [[WP:UNDUE|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. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

Revision as of 19:38, 20 July 2014

Welcome!

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

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!

Teahouse logo

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)

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

Stop icon

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]

Warning icon 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

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 (talkcontribs)

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.