User talk:Hackerculture1986

Welcome!

Hello, Hackerculture1986, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —Paleo Neonate – 11:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to IBM Personal Computer has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: IBM Personal Computer was changed by Hackerculture1986 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.876675 on 2018-08-08T05:24:31+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Steven M. Greer‎. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 11:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greer

Hello again. I noticed that you did another edit attempt that was reverted. It wasn't formatted or worded properly but seemed a honest attempt and included citations, thanks for that. Please don't get discouraged: I recommend to find more sources about it if possible and to start a discussion thread at the article's talk page, listing those for other editors to assess and/or help; this way your efforts are not lost (talk pages also have archives). Editing biographies of people is rather difficult, especially in relation to criticism (WP:BLPRS for more information). —Paleo Neonate – 05:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Hackerculture1986, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Kalergi Plan have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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.

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. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

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 Kalergi Plan, you may be blocked from editing. Such major changes require discussion on the talk page first. User:PaleoNeonate you might want to give further advice to this editor. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalergi Plan

Hello again Hackerculture1986. Doug is right about the importance of attribution and avoiding the inclusion of copyright material on Wikipedia: WP:COPYRIGHT details the policy. Citations and short quotes are however possible, as well as editor summaries that avoid close paraphrasing. I cannot see what has been added to the article, since it has since been rev-deleted, but I can see the edit summaries. It's still unclear to me if the text was copied from You Gentiles or from an Amazon review or comment. It would appear that the book is now in the public domain with a copy available at archive.org here.

Since you have been reverted, per WP:BRD it's probably best to open a new thread at the article's talk page to propose your changes and explain why a text from 1924 is relevant in relation to the article (that is about a modern conspiracy theory), why it's due, etc. If my understanding of your assessment of the article is that it promotes racism ("Prior entry was anti-European, anti-white racist"), I personally don't get that impression.

It's also important for Wikipedia to describe topics per what reliable sources say about it (the same as for Greer, even if your impression of him was right, for instance). This list can often be useful but it's also possible to consult the reliable sources noticeboard to assess if a source can be used in a particular context if necessary. —Paleo Neonate – 00:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 blanking

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Eric Weinstein. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eric Weinstein shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]