User talk:Lightbound/Archive1

Archive 1.

Re: Binghamton Shootings edit

Apologies for reverting your edit correcting the punctuation on this page. It was not intentional on my part. I began editing the page before you made the change, then realising I hadn't logged it copied the page with my edits, pasting it back after logging in. I didn't make any other edits on this page before that time, so I'm not sure why you thought I had reverted your edits multiple times. Regards Muzher (talk • contribs) 14:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Berman

I've reverted your blanking, BLP does not exclude a responsible criticism section. Please respond in the talk page.

Thanks. LSD (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon - but do not warn me as if I were some newbie, especially since you only appear to have been here a few days. I listed my reasonings in my edit summaries, especially since I felt that many of your deletions to be in error. That is all that is required. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being warned for what you've done, period. It does not matter if you are new or not. Being not new only makes your behavior more deplorable. That is not all that is required. It says in the tag to see the talk page. It says in my reasoning in my edit summary to visit the talk page. If you continue to revert my edits, I will contact an administrator. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 23:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since your not new, you might want to consider fixing your signature. When you click on it, it points to a missing link. :) --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 23:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warned for what? Following the rules? Restoring properly sourced statements? I'm sorry if you feel they cast an individual in a bad light, but they do have a place in the article. You should not remove them again without explaining your idea more thoroughly on the talk page. Contact any administrator you want - I'm not the one who deleted whole sections. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my signature is just fine. I had my userpage deleted some time back because of a stalker. I prefer the red link. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These statements are rediculous. The sources are not notable quality. And their arguments are weak; because, there ARE episodes of Star Trek that dealt with homosexuality. What makes it dubious is that it is not really capable of being a balanced statement. How do we balance that? Is there a law saying every TV series must have X number of homosexual scenes or sequences? What about the hundreds of other TV shows that were on in those years? It is pulling a political issue and injecting it into a persons living biography in an attempt to criticize them. And the critique is totally off. If you read the talk page, I have a quote from the Wikipedia itself, that shows that on Star Trek DS9, they aired two females kissing; one of the first televised female to female kissings apparently. So I think you should check things out before you go revising. And by the way, I am officially contacting an administrator to assist with this page and all involved. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that these statements are "rediculous" - that does not make it fact. You cannot argue the fact that people have criticized the man, and you cannot argue that the sources are legitimate. Stop trying to create a controversy when one should not exist. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are very weak. This is a biography that is very weak. It has been filled with criticisms that are tangent to the subject nature of the article, skewing it out of the point of the article. Even in the context of Star Trek they are skewed and with heavy bias. Mr. Berman has worked for a very long time and has had many successes. There are clear established guidelines in the WP:BOLP that state how clear, clean, and notable the sources must be. This is not even really debateable. It is unethical. If that page was feature quality, I doubt that it would have such weak or trivial claims in it. You must keep in mind it is about him and not his performance of Star Trek. If you are going to attack someones character, then you need to support it with some serious neutrality or very solid references. Chat logs, emails, and fan sites are not noteworthy. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have not inserted links to "chat logs, emails, and fan sites" - I restored a link to the Chicago Tribune - I doubt you'll find many people who would claim that as an unreliable source with no editorial oversight. Also, your "dubious" tag was clearly placed in error (and I was right to remove it), because the source stated *exactly* what was claimed. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing

I think we're pretty much on the same page vis-a-vis improving the Rick Berman article. However, please note that Wikis, such as Memory Alpha, do not qualify as reliable sources, even for simple verification. --EEMIV (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then how are we going to keep that sentence in there so that we can keep it neutral. Those criticisms need to be balanced. This is so asinine, there are people adding references to chat logs, and that is somehow noteworthy, but that is not. This is cherry picking, unethical, garbage. These criticisms are being shown there with no neutrality and with a complete disregard for the facts of reality that more than one episode has existed in the archives of Star Trek that not only touched on the issue, but outright put it in our faces. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation (from later in that same article, even) -- but considering it's one source that basically says, "Some people say this, but here are some exceptions," it pretty much looks like a wash and, yeah, we can axe it. --EEMIV (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, excellent. I am glad to see someone is actually giving some support here. I would like to expand the article significantly. I think a good start would be finding an image that is useable. If not, it would be nice to find other information regarding him, such as education and so forth. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 01:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was your talk page

Sorry dude, don't get all riled up. I made a mistake. It would help if you made your user page look less like a talk page.Likebox (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. All I can do is laugh at a statement like this; because, it is so pompous to expect my user page to fit your criterion, that it is beyond silly. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 19:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting anything of the sort! Keep your user page as it is, but don't be surprised if someone else screws up like I did.Likebox (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard

See this report. You may add your own comment there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for the heads up! --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 19:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And see the result... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's true colors always comes out when they are placed in precarious circumstances. Telling administrators to reproduce with themselves is probably not the best way to go about that catharsis. LOL. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 16:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give a person enough rope... And his talk page has now been blocked due to excessive unblock requests. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what will happen when he does return. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 20:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mysticism page

I posted a reply to your request on my talk page. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. Bot, I was filling out an arbitration request and was pasting over a dozen users and missed my signature on one. Thanks for the reminder. ;) --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]