Jump to content

User talk:Thorstejnn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
InShaneee (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Regarding edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shadow_people&diff=prev&oldid=84239962 this]: Please see [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]]. Basically, you can not add your own opinions or arguments about topics as you have in that edit. Arguments and evidence all need valid sources; you cannot use 'yourself' as a source. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 15:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shadow_people&diff=prev&oldid=84239962 this]: Please see [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]]. Basically, you can not add your own opinions or arguments about topics as you have in that edit. Arguments and evidence all need valid sources; you cannot use 'yourself' as a source. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 15:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:No sources are needed for "the sky is blue"-type statements. Arguments and evidence do need valid sources, but that has nothing to do with the content in question. Having a source for a statement does not excuse logical fallacies like "correlation implies causation", nor the "argument from authority" fallacy you seem to interpret the rules here on Wikipedia as requiring we all commit with every last word we type (I'm forced to wonder how you'll avoid copyright violations). Name one opinion or argument I've put into the body of a page. One. Just one. I dare you to find such an opinion or argument. I've seen the pages you referenced. Saw them years ago. Look at them every week just to make sure nothing's changed. I will continue to revert all your edits for as long as you continue to delete material you percieve as argumentative or damaging to your case. Here's an idea: replace that section with a referenced fact or argument that doesn't fall over like a house of cards the moment it's reiterated with different wording. Write smarter; don't shift blame. --[[User:Thorstejnn|Þorstejnn]] 15:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:42, 28 October 2006

Regarding edits such as this: Please see WP:OR and WP:V. Basically, you can not add your own opinions or arguments about topics as you have in that edit. Arguments and evidence all need valid sources; you cannot use 'yourself' as a source. --InShaneee 15:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sources are needed for "the sky is blue"-type statements. Arguments and evidence do need valid sources, but that has nothing to do with the content in question. Having a source for a statement does not excuse logical fallacies like "correlation implies causation", nor the "argument from authority" fallacy you seem to interpret the rules here on Wikipedia as requiring we all commit with every last word we type (I'm forced to wonder how you'll avoid copyright violations). Name one opinion or argument I've put into the body of a page. One. Just one. I dare you to find such an opinion or argument. I've seen the pages you referenced. Saw them years ago. Look at them every week just to make sure nothing's changed. I will continue to revert all your edits for as long as you continue to delete material you percieve as argumentative or damaging to your case. Here's an idea: replace that section with a referenced fact or argument that doesn't fall over like a house of cards the moment it's reiterated with different wording. Write smarter; don't shift blame. --Þorstejnn 15:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]