User talk:Paulbraveheart

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. HrafnTalkStalk 05:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

August 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Recapitulation theory. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

July 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Doug Weller talk 07:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Doug,
 * Please unblock at your earliest convenience if this was a simple mistake. If there was a larger issue you'd like to discuss, please let me know (specifically) what the issue was. Thank you! Paulbraveheart (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although you have only 40 edits you have a long history of being reverted, and your first warning was 14 years ago. Your last edit was at Creation myth, which is an article about, of course, creation myths, yet you decided on your own, without discussing it on the talk page or looking at the sources or I presume even how the article defines creation myth, to change "TThe myth that God created the world out of nothing – ex nihilo – is central today to Judaism, Christianity and Islam," to "The belief" making nonsense out of the article. You also, with no justification, removed the word tenet despite its being in the source.
 * The one before, in a paragraph discussing some studies that showed negative mental health outcomes from abortion, you removed the sourced statement " more rigorous research would be needed to show this conclusively." \
 * Before that you removed source material saying it was "silly" and removed "falsely" from Hunter Biden laptop controversy. You didn't even explain that (and I'm not going to argue about the controversy.
 * Before that you changed "which the Examiner deemed "discredited")" to " which experts have largely discredited" which was totally unsourced.
 * I've already spent too long on this out of courtesy to you. I see no reason to unblock you. I'm out of this now, leaving it to you to appeal your block and see if another Admin disagrees. Please give me the courtesy of not contacting me again. Doug Weller  talk 08:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't spend near enough time, apparently; you aren't being courteous by defending your position. It wasn't a request. You also expose your sincere and utter lack of professional editorial experience (I assume you've never actually worked somewhere, that is paying you, to provide edits?). This was underscored in your first paragraph, by you saying I made "nonsense out of the article." If one can make "nonsense" out of an article by changing the word "myth" --- which is, by logic, something that cannot be proven or disproven --- into "belief," that is because the article itself has faulty logic. The correct word here --- and any editor would be able to tell you this --- is "belief."
 * Sincerely, a real editor. Paulbraveheart (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you were wondering:
 * "Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them. . . ."
 * I wasn't asking, it wasn't an option for you, and there was nothing the slight bit courteous, logical, or scholarly about your response. Paulbraveheart (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)