User talk:2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC

August 2023[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Drake equation, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring and read WP:OR. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

wiki policy states that material on the level of common knowledge aka the sky is blue does not need references.

If you believe that some of the material is not on the level of common knowledge for anyone with even a minimal level of knowledge in astronomy, please cite the material.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Drake equation. — Moriwen (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the sky remains blue - cite what you think isn't at that level on the talk page - no citation is needed for material at that level

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue

Unsourced material[edit]

In what way is the content you added "common knowledge"? The burden of proof falls on you to prove that what you wrote is true (tone needs to be fixed as well). See also WP:NOTBLUE. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what way isn't it? To anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the subject it is equivalent to kinder garden!!?

Do you honestly think a random person on the street would know about multi-star systems, "complex chemicals" and etc.? See also WP:NOTHERE. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how common or niche the knowlege is concerning the field, it's important to cite sources for statements which aren't near-universally known. English Wikipedia's readership is composed of people with all levels of education and knowledge and it's important that non-self-evident statements are cited. What is obvious to you may not be so to a casual reader. See WP:CK. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 21:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree! The types of screws available in a hardware store is considered common knowledge yet I doubt that the common man can list any of them. 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard basic biology is till taught in public schools and part of that is that carbon is the basis of earth life because it has 4 chemical bonds allowing it to form complex chemicals. A average person who graduated high school should have taken that course and known this. Did your school never teach basic biology? or do you assume that everyone who took the course forgot it 5 minutes after? In my school system it was actually taught in junior high! Unless you are the kind of blithering idiot who failed their way through high school it is in fact common knowledge.

Please don't assume that all Wikipedia readers went to a high school with a similar curriculum to what you learned (or any high school, for that matter). Trust me, I understand since I once had to spend an entirety of 30 seconds searching for a source that states Archaea and Bacteria reproduce by binary fission and not mitosis. If a statement is obviously true, sourcing it should not be difficult. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 22:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then restore the material and place "citation needed markers" on what you think needs a citation. 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all readers have finished high school (me, for example) or took a biology course. Regardless, basic biology still taught in school should still be cited, and it's best if you provide the sources, with the edit. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! You have not taken biology and did not graduate high school! My condolences either for where you grew up, your life situation, or your misspent youth, BUT did you know that carbon is the basis of earth life?

Have you considered the fact that that some people may still be in high school? Yes, I know that, but other people might not. That's why you need to cite sources. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for your answer on whether you knew carbon is the basis of earth life despite not taking biology or graduating high school. 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above reply. Despite what you may think, high school and biology class isn't the only place to learn new things. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question! 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Bogus attacks - one person admits to material being common knowledge yet still wants citation - see above - wiki policy is that common knowledge does not need citations - and now waiting to see if the other admits that carbon is the basis for life on earth despite not taking biology or graduating high school - be interesting to see what he says - in any case the material I posted is very basic and to anyone with knowledge on the subject it would be the equivalent of kinder garden level also question: What is common knowledge per wikipedia - my understanding is that it is very basic knowledge on a subject - even if the common man does not know it

Decline reason:

Clear and blatant edit warring. You were reverted by at least five separate editors and I see no evidence you obtained consensus for your significant changes. Yamla (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2023 (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 think you should read the notice at the top of WP:BLUESKY: "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." (emphasis mine) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read the title of BLUESKY! Does it or does it not say that common knowledge does not need to be cited?

Does it or does it not say that this is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the material may be correct but simply not appropriate for the article. --Yamla (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to an old comment on the talk page based on my knowledge of astronomy, which amounts to 2 semesters in college and is pretty basic. I dumbed down that level to the equivalent of kinder garden level knowledge of the field. Based on the talk page comment, someone there thinks that an expanded section on the defects of the equation is needed. Just for a start and the most glaring defect, the Drake equation does not differentiate between a star that was just born and one that is 6 billion years old. Based on common knowledge do the planets of one star have a higher chance of developing life that the planets of the other? 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the fact that the info amounts to 2 semesters in college shows that it definitely needs a source. Even if you dumb it down to make it more understandable, the information at the core remains the same and still needs to be cited. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No! It is a KINDER GARDEN LEVEL DUMBED DOWN version of what I learned.

Now answer my question! Did you know that carbon is the basis for life on earth. 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I answered the question above: "Yes, I know that, but other people might not."

Given that arguing with you is a clear waste of time, I will no longer be responding to comments here. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wont answer the question because you know that carbon is in fact the basis of life =on earth despite not graduating high school and not taking a biology course. Frankly you should be banned from editing forever. 1) because you are obviously dealing in bad faith and 2) because you have admitted to being uneducated and uneducated people have no place editing an encyclopedia. 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change that! He did answer and he did know despite not graduating high school!

Now a question: If someone that did not get a high school education (no clue if it was voluntary or involuntary) knows something then why is a citation needed? 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is placing a "citation needed" request on new material a part of wiki policy? Because I see them all the time.

Why did you not do that instead? Per my posts you will notice that I asked for that. 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BURDEN. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't prove anything unless I am told what I need to prove! Try using a "citation needed" request if thing a citation is needed! 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to everyone, but I'm not interested in you proving anything. I'm interested in ensuring you know how to resolve conflicts and obtain consensus for your changes. It's pretty clear you don't yet understand that and I'm considering extending your block until you are able to demonstrate you do understand this and will do so going forward. --Yamla (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if you believe that a citation is needed on new material then you should put a citation needed ta on it. Am I wrong?

If a citation is not provided in a reasonable amount of time then there will be no objection on my part to deleting such new material. 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block to six months. This will give you plenty of time to read WP:NOR, WP:DISPUTE, WP:NPA, and WP:CONSENSUS. Once you can demonstrate you understand these and are willing to commit to no further violations of WP:EW, you are free to contest your block. I very strongly suggest not making an unblock request before you can demonstrate this, though, as I expect any further nonsense here will result in your talk page being revoked. --Yamla (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a person feels a citation is needed then is not the proper course of action to put a "citation needed" tag on the material? .... and was that done?

Please respond! 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have continued using this page to launch personal attacks despite a very clear warning, I have revoked talk page access. I'll warn you, UTRS takes a very dim view of this nonsense, too. --Yamla (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.