User talk:Monster34563

This is Monster34563's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Origin of Life (May 18)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Origin of Life, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Origin of Life and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Origin of Life, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monster34563! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Origin of Life has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Origin of Life. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected on a multitude of guidelines, so it certainly cannot replace the entire Abiogenesis article. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Monster34563, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! McSly (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are biased[edit]

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around [alternative medicine] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2][3][4]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Abiogenesis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ark Encounter. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Ark Encounter, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Ark Encounter. Bennv3771 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Ark Encounter. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2019 (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).

Monster34563 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did this as part of a report for class. I have no desire to mess around like this again on Wikipedia. I also believe that everyone deserves a second chance. So please unblock me Monster34563 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you had spray-painted someone's house multiple times, would you consider "I did this as part of a report for a class" a suitable explanation and defense? Why would you think it's a suitable explanation and defense for copy-pasting Creationwiki stuff into Wikipedia articles? Huon (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2019 (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.

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).

Monster34563 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did this because for this class I was writing about how evolution had worked its way into our culture, and how it is accepted as fact most places. I did this to show how if I tried to input info from a different theory, that it would be dismissed. This is part of a paper I am working on for a class. I understand the rules about material, and will not edit these types of pages anymore. I will edit pages about different cities transit systems instead, which is a much less controversial topic. In paticular, I want to write about a transit system near me.Monster34563 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I would concur that you have shown thus far that you are WP:NOTHERE; however, I will provide you an avenue to show that you can make a constructive contribution. Once you do, you may make another unblock request. This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
  - do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2019 (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.

So you were deliberately adding content that you knew in advance was inappropriate and would need to be removed again, wasting other editors' time. In short, you're not here to improve the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to edit articles on other topics that are actually constructive and helpful to other people. I have another article that I want to write. Please unblock me so I can do this. Can we please come to a comprimise. I want to write the article on another transit system by me that does not have one right now, although yes, I did do this for a school project, and I am willing to upload proof of it

At a closer look, your edits do not agree with the tale you tell here. I oppose an unblock. Trying to blank the Creation Museum article is hardly "trying to input info from a different theory". Huon (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by blanking articles? I thought a blank article meant one with no content. I was trying to replace it with something else, which in my mind, is not blanking articles At the end, I was trying to fix the articles, and at the time, I thought that the creation museum article was too objective of it

Indeed you were trying to replace the article with something that we already have a better version of, namely the creationist museum page (and there is a note at the top of the Creation Museum article pointing to that other page, too). If you had succeeded, we wouldn't have had an article on the Creation Museum any more. In my mind, that's blanking - would you prefer "hijacking"? Either way, that's not covered by your supposed school project of "trying to input info from a different theory". Getting rid of the article isn't "fixing" it either.

Of course there are also copyright issues; the content you pasted onto Wikipedia is (at least in part) freely licensed, but you violated that free license by not providing the required attribution. Huon (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that you are free to request unblock without using the avenue I have given you; that is simply what I would want to see before considering unblocking you. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State/Lake (CTA station)[edit]

History[edit]

State/Lake station opened on September 22, 1895, as part on the Lake Street Elevated Railroad's extension into the Chicago Loop that later became the north side of the Union Loop. State/Lake is the last station on this section of the Loop to retain many of its original features. It was the first L station to ever get an escalator for passenger convinience in 1966. It also once received special turnstiles that issued transfers to the Washington/Lake subway station, however, that stopped with the introduction of the AFC equipment in 1997. It has always been a major transfer point between the Red Line, and the lines above in the Loop elevated

[5]

One of a series of videos "shot on iPhone 6" to feature in a 2015 Apple advertising campaign ^[1] features the short journey between Randolph/Wabash and State/Lake shot in time lapse.

References

^ Cocu L - Shot on iPhone 6 "Shot on iPhone 6 by Cocu L"

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).

Monster34563 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made the changes that I was asked to do by 331dot Monster34563 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A comparison of the text before and after your edits shows that all you did was add the words "CTA station" to the header and activate the {{reflist-talk}} template. That's not even close to the "significant and well researched improvements" you were asked to provide. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:57, 20 May 2019 (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.

I had to make changes twice because I needed to fix the link to the State/Lake article. Please compare it to the original article. Monster34563 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2019 (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).

Monster34563 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The last 3 sentences there about the escalator and the special turnstiles O added.Monster34563 (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Either you are trolling or lack sufficient competence to follow the directions you've been given. You have completely failed to follow the instructions you were given above. I think it best you find another project. Yamla (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2019 (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.

[1] Cocu L - Shot on iPhone 6 "Shot on iPhone 6 by Cocu L"

[1]