User talk:PhilOSophocle/archive001

"Common knowledge"

Greetings, PhilOSophocle. Here on Wikipedia, assertions must be verifiable and supported with citations from reliable sources. "Common knowledge" doesn't get the job done, for it's often factually lacking. Your removal of the citation-needed tag from an assertion in Plymouth Barracuda has been reverted. I am sure you had the best intentions, but please keep in mind that removing a tag or template without properly addressing the problem it indicates is not okay. You may want to give this a read-over. Thanks for being a coöperative Wikipedia contributor. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 totally unnecessary citations. This is common knowledge among people who typically would be visiting this page anyway. To dispute this is just being a pain/anal, nothing more, as this wasn't even a major statement worth citing. You could ask for citations for every little comment, but it's pointless and clutters up the article. The article addresses this anyway further down.PhilOSophocle (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Links to car ads posted on the internet are not citations. Please read the links I gave you above to get up to speed on the relevant policies and protocols. In the meantime, please stop making this edit to the Barracuda article; your behaviour is verging on vandalism. Many kinds of assertions without citation can be challenged and tagged as being in need of citation. The tags are removed when the citation is applied in accord with the way we do it — again, read the links. It's done this way for any example of any kind of questionable assertion; we do not apply to you or any other particular editor for a finding of "common knowledge". We also do not base our practice in this regard on who you or any other particular editor thinks is the average reader of any particular article. That's just not the way we do it. Also, please remember to keep your remarks civil, even on your own talk page. That's just manners. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in a manner that's not consistent with your own agenda isn't "vandalism". It's funny how the bullies on this site love to create antagonistic POV euphemisms when they aren't happy with someone else's opinion. I'll go out there get a non-ad citation for it, but I'm sure it still won't please you.PhilOSophocle (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 3 citations, so take your pick. In the meantime, let's continue this debate on the article's talk page so others can comment as needed. Now go round up your admin friends to back you up or use your other sockpuppet accounts --- I know how this works on WP.PhilOSophocle (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Plymouth Barracuda, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. You may do as you wish with comments left on your own talk page, but removing or editing others' comments on article or other-user talk pages is not okay; it is considered vandalism. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]