Misplaced Pages

User talk:Unbroken Chain

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shimon Yanowitz (talk | contribs) at 17:21, 6 August 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:21, 6 August 2009 by Shimon Yanowitz (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)



Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14


This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
Please do not feed the trolls.

Recent Changes

List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

25 December 2024

New Articles

25 December 2024


Star Trek

Thank you for your comments.

Please Note: I have spcecifically indicated in the text of the article, that THERE ARE TWO VIEPOINTS. Regardless of the fact that I can definitely see why THE CURRENT, SINGLE, DESCTIBED VIEWPOINT, IS NOT ONLY STUPID, BUT RATHER ALSO - ABUSIVE, WITH RESPECT TO ALL THOSE WHO HOLD THE OTHER (UNMENTIONED) VIEPOINT, I specifically took the trouble to mention BOTH, whereas NOBODY ELSE HAS BOTHERED.

I request that all involved shall calm down, out of their own volition, any emotional reflexes of tantrums, and of abuse towards other people's views, provoking war related to an ARTICLE ABOUT A MOVIE (!!!), NOT ABOUT SRVIVAL OF MANKIND.

Thank you.

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is one valid reason that your viewpoint isn't covered. There isn't a reliable source that supports it. The other one does, i included a link to it on the talk page. If you can't find a source as is approved by wp:rs then it is original research and thus not allowed. FYI, asking us to calm down when you SHOUT with caps doesn't help your arguement. Please review the policies before you proceed, it might help avoid blocks and such. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thaks for your disappointing reply. I do not reject the dubious, other viewpoint. Please note that (NOT CITING) AN EPISODE OF "THE NEXT GENERATION" television series, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE a "serious" "reference source" for the single viewpoint that is (mis) represented in the article, whereas, I constantly hear voices who are shouting "foul" about the sense that their (much more sensible, peaceful, non-emotional) interpretation is being abused, and their voices - stiflled by bullies. Please Note that the interpretation of millions of people who have seen this movie, does not qualify as "original research"! Any further stifling, or bullying, shall constitute a reason for a drastic measures. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You really need to stop typing in capital letters (in what can only be perceived as a veiled attempt to instigate something more), and read Misplaced Pages's essays on original research carefully. It doesn't matter whether billions of people agree with you. Without proper documentation that this viewpoint exists in verifiable, reliable sources, it cannot be presented here on Wikpedia. Period. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say you shot your arguement in the fooot with the verbage, "the interpretation of millions of people who have seen this movie" without a backup to say this is true then this is unreliable and original research.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read carefully: Alternate Reality is defined as: "Parallel universe or alternative reality is a self-contained separate reality coexisting with, or replacing, one's own"
Now, there is nothing in that movie, which constitutes either "separeteness", nor "replacement", nor even "coexistence", since the entire unfolding of events is entirely contained in (i.e. consistent with) only ONE reality.
Now, since I don't know who you are, what you age is (I am 50, BTW), nor what your background is (Ph.D, here), I require that you please provide me with sufficient evidence verifying that you are capable of comprehension of the above, as well as your intellectual capability to understand why my approach is NOT "original research". Failure on you part to do so, shall be considered irrational, erratic behavior, on your part, of the type: "Go with it, bro", which you may find to have consequences contradictory to your own good. Thanks. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)