User talk:Prhee0236

Prhee0236, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Prhee0236! 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 experienced editors like Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
107		Oregon Files (talk)	Add sources
15		Deep Six (novel) (talk)	Add sources
239		Neon sign (talk)	Add sources
748		Roanoke, Virginia (talk)	Add sources
10		Black Wind (Cussler novel) (talk)	Add sources
527		Gillette (talk)	Add sources
25		Lost City (talk)	Cleanup
146		Chicken coop (talk)	Cleanup
38		Inca Gold (talk)	Cleanup
99		Woodland Park Zoo (talk)	Expand
197		Broiler industry (talk)	Expand
889		Poultry farming (talk)	Expand
3,425		Salesforce.com (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
24		Al Giordino (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
79		Home business (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6		Western hog-nosed skunk (talk)	Merge
62		Tobacco in the American colonies (talk)	Merge
436		Old Spice (talk)	Merge
278		Dirk Pitt (talk)	Wikify
40		National Biodiversity Network (talk)	Wikify
40		Health in the United Kingdom (talk)	Wikify
3		Menscience Androceuticals (talk)	Orphan
5		Rip's Tavern (talk)	Orphan
40		EOS lip balm (talk)	Orphan
25		The Art of Shaving (talk)	Stub
5		The Mayan Secrets (talk)	Stub
10		Cyclops (novel) (talk)	Stub
5		The Pharaoh's Secret (talk)	Stub
8		Ghost Ship (Cussler novel) (talk)	Stub
10		Fire Ice (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Prhee0236, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Odessa Sea have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and 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 cite the source using an inline citation. 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 the 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 legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tgeorgescu!

First off, thank you for showing me the importance of keeping Wikipedia free of bias towards any ideology. My own private belif system will stay in its place from now on, and I will work to document sources better. As you may have guessed, I am a Christian. Now, before you stop reading this reply and call me a fanatic, I promise I will not discuss religion in this comment. I belive, and correct me if I am wrong, that you undid my edit because you see me as biased towards Christianity, and I am. However, you are also clearly biased against Christianity, so I would appreciate it if you would change the article to a more netral tone that condones no side. To be clear, I have no wish to start an edit war, so if you do nothing, I will take NO action at all. But I would very much appreciate it if you would help make Wikipedia a more fair and unbiased place where everyone can learn information without the fear of being led astray, in ANY direction.

Thank you for taking the time to read my reply,

Prhee0236 Prhee0236 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Wikipedia is very biased for whatever they teach as fact at WP:CHOPSY. It isn't biased for or against Christianity, but it is indeed biased against such WP:FRINGE beliefs as biblical inerrancy, against pseudohistory like searches for Noah's Ark and also against Young Earth Creationism. Using Wikipedia for soapboxing against evolution is one way to get blocked or banned. We don't consider your religion any more or any less true than Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Santeria, Taoism, Shintoism, etc., i.e. we consider its theology as a subjective opinion among many other subjective opinions. We are very biased for mainstream science, mainstream history and mainstream Bible scholarship, i.e. for what Bible scholars from WP:CHOPSY teach for a living. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Sodomy, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications. Wish they told us this when I signed up (maybe they did, not good at reading long pages of rules). I will do my best to stay within excepted practice and away from religious topics, as my personal beliefs are very strong in this area. If my beliefs ever become mainstream I will be the first to thank you for giveing me writen a written go ahead to edit to my hearts content. Thank you for being courteous. Prhee0236 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)