User talk:68.234.100.66

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Weapon

Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Pianoman320. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Exit poll, 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. Pianoman320 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Facial recognition system. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Artificial intelligence. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Artificial intelligence. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:31, 13 November 2016 (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.

≥==Recent edits to Sweet corn== Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sweet corn, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed 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! Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Black Death in England, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Black Death in England. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Suzerainty, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Suzerainty. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 09:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 12:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sheet metal have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Combat shotgun are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Additionally: you were commenting on an 11-year-old discussion that had already been resolved. Wikipedia talk pages are not a place to share your personal views on gun ownership. Thank you. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

And the age of an article or edit doesn't not make it irrelevant or make it uneditable. If that talk page is not the place for my "opinions" and "views" about guns, my talk page isn't the place for your opinions and views about my opinions and views. I didn't notice any opposition to or criticism of the discussion between at least two editors that included personal views on setting up and equipping military units, weapons choices, tactics, doctrine, etc. If an 11-year-old article is irrelevant, then I hardly see why you should be concerned about the content of the talk page now when no one was many years ago.

Otherwise, thanks for your input. Unfortunately, since its opinion and POV and does lack a citation of a reliable source, so I can't consider it reliable or legitimate.

I forgot to ask if you have any meaningful or useful or practical suggestions regarding the content of my talk page addition pointing out the factual errors in the article and the difficulties anyone would have editing that article when the false statements are supported by a citation of a "reliable source" that would also have to be successfully and publicly edited and amended to correct the errors within it before Wikipedia "policies" and "practices" would allow it to be "de-cited" if that's even possible. Hold on, because I'm going to lay some opinion on you.

If you're attempting to create an "encyclopedia", and encyclopedias are generally considered to be reference works themselves, then using a less-than-encyclopedic and clearly incorrect book written by a single person with no "peer review" is a little problematic. As is the idea that the world needs and only "encyclopedia" that consists entirely of the "edited" articles authored and approved by those who had opinions and views acceptable enough to a handful of interested parties to achieve a "consensus" that they're "encyclopedic". Basically what I'm saying is that since everything in Wikipedia exists online whether Wikipedia or any editor of it supports or opposes it or not, the ridiculous effort and time and money and resources that go into what is basically an internet encyclopedia of the content of the internet is maybe...wasted?

If I'm not mistaken, the internet was created so people could access ALL information ANYONE felt should be there and as such the internet is its own "encyclopedia". And as for Wikipedia itself being "encyclopedic, are the other "traditional" encyclopedias including information that has to be extensively cited and in many cases is more like social studies class "current events" content than "history" worthy of being included in an "encyclopedia"? How many movies are in the most recent written "respected" encyclopedias? If I can Google the name of a movie can get 11,000,000 hits including the websites of the movie itself, the studio, IMDB, etc etc etc is Wikipedia providing a great service to mankind by providing a n "article" that's pretty much a series of hyperlinks to those other "official" sources?

One other thing I notice as I cruise the talk pages or articles and prolific, long-time and "respected" and "accomplished" editors and administrators is that they get lots and lots of communications from Wikipedia itself, other editors, bots and the Wikipedia "community" in general that they never bother responding to or are "too busy for" or aren't "really into" or aren't "interested in participating in". And there are apparently LONG lists and a lot of them of articles and topics and proposals and all sorts of the kinds of day to day publishing tasks that actual editors of professional publications have to deal with or THEIR publications don't get published. But they have apparently endless hours of time to spend on long, detailed and exhaustive analyses of things that really don't matter like whether or not that person was violating such and such "policy" or what should be done about the "disruptive" edits of THAT guy or if they oppose or support someone becoming an administrator or not and if not why they don't and if they do why they do and blah blah blah.

And let someone who really wants to do all that ADMINISTRATIVE WORK they ignore so they can do more "edits" and police articles "nobody" owns and whine and moan and bitch about this editor or that editor and what should be done about their edits to articles that would get ZERO VIEWS if it wasn't for them checking them putting them on their "watch list" where for months and months they'll let the same "disruptive" editor make simple mistakes and "call him out" every time but never EXPLAIN WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AND HELP FIX IT. They don't have TIME for that. Go read THIS Wikipedia article to learn THIS and go look at THAT discussion to see how you do THAT and QUIT F$CKING UP MY LITTLE WIKIPEDIA UNIVERSE WITH YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS I JUST HAVE TO DELETE BECAUSE I CAN'T MAKE MY OWN.

That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. I think the proper folk saying is "Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians". And no, I don't have a citation for that. But I"m pretty sure it isn't copyrighted.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.