2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D

December 2017

Hello, I'm Toddst1. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Tiangong program, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I responded on Toddst1's talk page.

Mainly, it's based on what definition of "common knowledge" is being used. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Outcasts (TV series), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Anchorvale ^T@lk  09:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I did not realize that a program CURRENTLY being shown and listed in programs grids and charts and easily found and verified would not be considered general knowledge.

How would a citation be done with all these places that are easily found and in the public domain?

Out of curiosity, did anyone even check to see if my content change was accurate before it was deleted?

If not. WHY ? 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, calm down. Wikipedia needs citations to be reliable. How about adding the citations yourself?  Anchorvale ^T@lk  10:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm just about to do that. I just hope that it's acceptable since it's get TVs own schedule found at their website.

I'm still curious as to what classifies as "common or general knowledge" that doesn't need a citation.

To me, anything on TV, like the blue sky, that anybody can see is "common or general knowledge" because it's there for them to see whether they want to or not. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends if you watch that show or not, but thanks!  Anchorvale ^T@lk  10:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Hi, thanks for editing! I was wondering if you've considered making an account? It normally gets included in a welcome spiel, but you're definitely past the experience level for "Hello and welcome to wikipedia"! Obviously, it's a personal choice, but whatever is said at WP:IPHUMAN, you'll probably be treated in a more friendly fashion by some editors (to be clear, this is not a reference to the above). It also would allow you to maintain a Watchlist and edit Semi-protected articles. But, at the end of the day, it is up to your preference. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Bellezzasolo! Thank you for inquiying if I'd be interested in opening an account. At this time, I'm leaning towards "Not right now," especially since I'm able to either edit or throw in my two cents' worth of comments/etc. without having to sign in "through" an account.

As for how I've been treated, it's 40-60 (with the "40" being helpful, understanding, &/or supportive). My main pet peeve, based on the "Talk" pages I've been to, is that a majority of long 'debates' is either over, in my opinion, extremely trivial stuff (like when and where to use a comma, especially in a list of items --- I could not believe the length of that "Talk" over ONE KEYSTROKE) or a steadfastness against having an article contain new factual data/info. There are, from my experiences, a lot of people/editors who 'blindly' delete or revert new data/info without even checking its validity beforehand. I know vandalism unfortunately exists, but I think there should be a "verifying step/phase" before just blindly deleting/reverting. In some cases, it seems that there's a feeling of possessiveness that if someone makes any changes other than a particular person/editor or two, those changes are deleted/reverted out-of-hand automatically with their 'comments' carrying the strong implication of "How dare you change anything!".

As one supporter once said, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia!". Unfortunately, most of those who carry on debates ad nauseum (and with some vitriole), either do not understand what an encyclopedia is or fight against the concept.

I apologize for my carrying on. It's unfortunate that the negative experiences are more remembered/recalled than the positive ones. But I will think about making an account. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop using capitals in your contributions, it is considered shouting and is bad form. Also consider registering an account, rather than hiding behind a IP. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you David, you just proved one of my points.

BTW, I use capitals for strong emphasis. Bolding, italicizing, and other font changes don't seem to work. Again, you proved a point. And, of all the responses I've gotten, and there have been hundreds of them, you're only the second person to 'comment' on my use of capitals. Plus, I'm not the only one who capitalizes entire words for emphasis - - - have you said the same thing about the "shouting" to all of those people?

I hope my "BTW" didn't upset your sensibilities.

Did you even notice that I apologized at the end ? ? ?

Also, BTW, I'm not hiding behind behind an IP. If you read my entire comment (possibly proving another point), I basically said that it's quicker and easier to edit/comment this way than to go through the rigmarole of a "log in" process.

Another BTW - - -

"Sometimes you have to shout to be heard above the rabble." (Sorry I don't have a citation for this quote since I don't know who it's first attributed to.) 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

---