User talk:Thorstejnn

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)

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)

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)

"If you do continue to revert, you will find yourself blocked from editing." If this is true, then this means it's against Wikipedia's policy to revert acts of vandalism as defined by Wikipedia policy as anything that undermines the integrity of Wikipedia's academic aspirations. Logical fallacies such ss "correlation implies causation" and arguments from authority are considered logical fallacies for a reason, and a failure to point out that an argument from authority, fallacious in its own right, also commits the fallacy of "correlation implies causation" must at least be called attention to; reverting an edit that merely reiterates the original wording in such a way as to expose the fallacious nature of said original wording is neither original research nor an opinion on my part, and is well within Wikipedia's guidelines. To say that you don't care if an opinion is correct, simply that someone of relevance holds it, seriously undermines Wikipedia's intellectual integrity (or, more to the point, lack thereof); when an edit has merely repeated the opinion using different wording to expose its fallacious nature, reverting such an edit is an intentional act of vandalism; hence, such reverts must themselves be reverted in order to maintain what little intellectual integrity exists. I should not have to find myself always wishing that Wikipedia will fail one of its fundraising attempts and be shut down due to the rampant use of logical fallacies included merely because "someone of some relevance" comitted the fallacy, as this is a fallacy in itself, the aforementioned argument from authority, and makes Wikipedia little more than a disinformation mill. Being able to provide a source for a logical fallacy without pointing out its fallacious nature is intellectually dishonest and completely unacceptable.

Again, I have not argued that the researcher's findings were incorrect. I reiterated a statement using alternate wording to show it's fallacious nature. There was no argument involved. To accuse me of having made such an argument is, again, intellectually dishonest and completely unacceptable. My purpous here on Wikipedia is to do as much "damage control" as possible and to try and maintain as much of what little intellectual integrity the site has until such a time as Wikipedia is at long last taken off the web completely so as to no longer threaten the intellectually honest spread of information by overpowering it with intentional disinformation backed up by logical fallacies, hiding behind its new mission statement of giving out "sourced, cited" propoganda. Wikipedia's original mission statement was to be a repository of all human knowledge, not to be a disinformation mill bent on supressing any knowledge that can't be backed up by logical fallacies such as the argument from authority fallacy now required by Wikipedia's new and intellectually dishonest guidelines. The older guidelines were more honest and far more useful in the effort of informing the public. These new guidelines seem to be intended to keep the public as ignorant as possible, and must be fought by all those who care about collecting honest and useful information while weeding out the dishonest and fallacious material that undermines the very concepts of intellectual integrity and honesty. If you disagree, you and those responsible for the recent changes in Wikipedia policy should invent your own Propogandapedia to suite your needs better. --Þorstejnn (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

If you find my wording rude and inconsiderate, I apologize. This is not my intent. I may be very emphatic when I feel strongly about something, granted, but never was it in my intention to be rude, and despite how you may have taken my emphatic tone, I was being considerate, even if I failed to express this consideration in an obvious manner. Being inconsiderate is simply not in my nature, and if this is how my emphatic tone was taken, than I am truly very sorry that I did not express myself better. I also have a tendency to use insults in a jocular manner to try and lighten the mood, which doesn't always have the intended effect in text. I apologize this was taken the wrong way, as I could have been more obvious that any "attacks" or "insults" on my part are intended in much the same way that one might lightheartedly refer to a close friend as a "bitch" or a "pig-fucker" in an ironical sense, as nearly terms of affection, rather than as cold-hearted insults or attacks. Please understand that I did not intend my passion for grammar or my liberal use of jocular insults to injur anyone. I simply would never do that, unless perhaps as retaliation for what I percieved as an attack or insult directed at myself. There was no "attitude" on my part, and I deeply regret that my behavior was thus recieved. --Þorstejnn (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Special-T (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Special-T (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cease your threats immediately, stop reverting my edits to the talk page. My edits are not "inappropriate discussion" but are exactly in line with the very reason Wikipedia exists -- to provide information. Requesting information that can improve an article is not "inappropriate discussion" and you are obviously trolling for flames. Stop vandalizing Wikipedia pages and stop posting to my talk page. I have no desire to continue communication with vandalous trolls whose only purpose on Wikipedia is to prevent people from getting information. Wikipedia is NOT a disinformation mill and making edits to prevent people from getting information is CLEARLY an act of vandalism. Stop immediately! --Þorstejnn (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like it could be an alto flute, but please Special-T is right - article talk pages are for discussing improving the article, not as a venue for asking referential questions for your own interest. WilliamH (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you thought of taking your question to the Reference Desk? Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Warning Special-T is correct, in that article talk pages are for discussing the editing of the article and not the subject of the article, and that your responses in warning them for disruption and requiring them not to edit "your" talkpage is inappropriate. Further, a review of your contributions and the reaction of most editors indicate that your understanding of the purpose of the project and the manner in which editors are expected to contribute indicates that you are very much mistaken in your beliefs in the matter. I strongly suggest that you assume that the other parties are correct and review your behaviours, or it will be you whose ability to edit may be removed. Please regard this as an official warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Antikythera mechanism

It is still listed in the OOPArts article. As an aside, it would have been better to start a new section at the bottom rather than reply to something written in 2007, as it would have received more notice. Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)