70.27.20.68

Flibirigit -

Sir,

Please be so kind as to advise where every single word of changes / updates / corrections / additions were removed - ??? -

Seems most unlikely, whether you actually knew Bill Hewitt / Foster Hewitt / W.A. Hewitt as we did and for most of his much too short life and have known and been in business with the nephew of Foster Hewitt for now 60+ years where every single change is totally accurate and one hundred percent correct.

GUARANTEED !!!

Seems too many of you unknowing Wikipedia editors understand almost nothing at all about much of the subject matter reverted as you have done in appearing to be more than rather ignorant and beyond unfamiliar with straight facts.

Therefore, a full and detailed explanation of each major change would be most appreciated and expected with respect to above with most items returned back to the new changes / updates / corrections / additions -

You must know this many years after the facts there is no possible way now to guarantee some things, many things, actually.

However as entered by a person familiar with the facts / figures should not just be arbitrarily removed as you have done without a conversation back and forth.

Thank you -

70.27.20.68 - 70.27.20.68 (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Two things. First off, this is mostly a page for users to get in touch with you. If you want to get Flibirigit's attention, you need to post at User talk:Flibirigit.

Second, when you put things on Wikipedia, you need to provide a source for them. It tells readers where you got the information, demonstrates the reliability of that information, and lets others verify it for themselves if they need/want to. Any personal experience you have that relates to the article unfortunately cannot be used as a source because there is no way to verify it. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

AntiDionysius -

Sir,

There is nowhere we could find to respond to Flibirgit so entered what was done as noted.

Usually there is a spot but try to find his - ??? -

With respect to sources, you must be fully aware a great deal of major / important moments in time cannot now, after this many decades, be verified so where exactly would you go in this instance to verify facts - ??? -

If Wikipedia sticks with this way beyond sillyass situation of not allowing entries from known / sensible people then they and the rest of the Wikipedia world of readers are the real losers - !!! -

You must know at least 70 % of what is on Wikipedia to-date has no background reference after it / with it - !!! -

All of these too many reverts are questionable and we are much too busy doing " real work " on television / radio / print media daily to waste more time with you people so that is the end of this particular subject for now however you people really must become smarter and realize just because you represent Wikipedia you have to know something about the topic(s) being discussed.

Thank you - 70.27.70.28 - 20:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) - 70.27.20.68 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If things cannot be verified with reliable sources, they do not belong on Wikipedia. This website is not designed to be a compendium of all information in the world; it is meant to reflect what is available in reliable, verifiable sources. Because your personal experience is not verifiable, we cannot accept it; if we started accepting personal experiences as sources as a rule, there would be nothing to stop people simply making things up.

If, as you say, "at least 70 % of what is on Wikipedia to-date has no background reference after it", I would 1. Be interested to know where such fascinating data came from and, 2. Invite you to stay here and help us improve. We always need more volunteers. But certainly the answer to existing unsourced content is not the addition of more unsourced content. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

---