User talk:Thorstejnn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:30, 30 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]

If you do continuously revert, you will find yourself blocked from editing. As I said, in this edit, you are arguing that the researcher's findings are incorrect. However, no one is allowed to argue anything, including that his findings are correct. The article simply states what he claims to have found (which is what we can provide a source for), nothing more. We don't care if an opinion is correct; simply that someone of some relevance holds it. --InShaneee 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, you're very rude and inconsiderate. 'Theatre' is a perfectly acceptable spelling even in America. Don't believe me, check the damn dictionary before you start attacking people for their grammer. On top of this, your attitude could be dropped. It helps no one. --70.119.50.167 06:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ::If you do continuously revert, you will find yourself blocked from editing. As I said, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shadow_people&diff=prev&oldid=84239962 this] edit, you are arguing that the researcher's findings are incorrect. However, no one is allowed to argue anything, including that his findings are correct. The article simply states what he claims to have found (which is what we can provide a source for), nothing more. We don't care if an opinion is correct; simply that someone of some relevance holds it. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-I have to say, you're very rude and inconsiderare. 'Theatre' is a perfectly acceptable spelling even in America. Don't believe me, check the damn dictionary before you start attacking people for their grammer. On top of this, your attitude could be dropped. It helps no one.
+I have to say, you're very rude and inconsiderate. 'Theatre' is a perfectly acceptable spelling even in America. Don't believe me, check the damn dictionary before you start attacking people for their grammer. On top of this, your attitude could be dropped. It helps no one.
 --[[User:70.119.50.167|70.119.50.167]] 06:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)