Talk:Safety Not Guaranteed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I was under the impression that the image only became attached to the article afterwards. The investigation ytmnd shows the original ad has having no image attached to it. Luggage 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was under that impression too. GeneralDoli 10:54, 05 February 2006

Yep, I remember the old image on rotten. 67.174.160.100

Yes, its on many other pages without the "mullet man" image in way better quality and with older timestamps (using archive.org). --Ollj 15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

22:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I'd just like to throw my .02$ in and say this shouldn't be deleted. It's a fine entry, and if nothing else, it'll let us end the vandalism on the Time Travel page by just linking an entry here under fiction.

Please don't delete this article. I think its reasonable enough to let it stay --63.229.223.242 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded.

After all, they've done this more than once before. :P

I vote to keep! --68.83.243.92 01:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Maybe merge with Time Travel. I kinda like how all YTMND related articles get no consens for deletion untill Jimmy Wales locks them. You don't have to fear much vandalism coming from this articles fad because it became rather unpopular because it evolved into "paralel universes". The list of YTMND fads article grows beyond overview. There*s also an Safety alternative (fads.wikicities.com/wiki) that can stand POV, NOR, unencyclopedic content and quick changes. --Ollj 15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup.

Let this article stay so the vandalism will end. Otherwise it'll spread to other historical articles :P I don't really want to read about how Julius Caesar pushed it to the limit, or how Marty McFly forgot to bring his own weapons (and wasn't paid when he got back).

- Why on earth wouldn't you want to read about that? You must have only done this once before.

Could someone please put the ORIGINAL image on this page so people could see it in case they look it up after being confused about a reference to it? SnowflakePillow 01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion votes

Deletion votes go on the AfD page for this article, not here. The page is linked from the AfD notice.

Editors who have recently arrived to Wikipedia can't vote, but if you strongly feel that the article should stay, a polite comment (labelled with "Comment:") giving convincing reasons might sway voters to your views. Impolite comments or more rants like the ones posted on Time Travel's talk page, on the other hand, will just encourage deletion.--Christopher Thomas 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think the argument about keeping this up in order to keep the vandalism from other YTMNDs is a good idea. The article for safety got vandalised a lot. To demonstrate how bad this can get, check out the edit history for O RLY?. --220.236.48.49 15:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Original research

WP:NOR prohibits original research. As such, I have reverted to the version by Amcbride, which does not include the "Invesitgation" material. -Colin Kimbrell 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the investigation directly related to the article? Yes. Thus, not original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralDoli (talk • contribs) on 04:29, 16 February 2006

That doesn't quite tie in with what WP:NOR says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) on 04:38, 16 February 2006

To spell things out: Wikipedia is a "secondary source". It can't be the point of first publication for material - it can only collect and rephrase what other sources ("primary sources") have already published. Furthermore, the primary source has to be reliable and verifiable. Web pages don't count. Personal anecdotes, even if perfectly true, don't count. It has to be something that can be checked and whose own sources and references can be checked. This is explained at Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If there's information you want to add to Wikipedia's article about "safety not guaranteed", the first thing you should do is track down external sources for it that meet the verifiability criteria. Then add these to the references section when making your edit. --Christopher Thomas 07:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The above misuses the terms primary source and secondary source and should not be relied on. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ad found

http://buyit.miami.com/findit/search/details.jsp?catId=krd_miamiherald1af95e&nodeId=1af95e&itemId=O2d03a4d&id=O28b5a0b --CountCrazy007 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If only the title wasn't "Safety Not Guaraneteed"... --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 11:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Untitled 2

I don'T understand what "safety not guaranteed" has to do with that website. I was looking for the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.183.215 (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the ad actually coherent with the plot of the movie?

This is probably some time travelling joke speeding above my head, but the ad does mention "I've only done this once before", while, during the movie, the guy clearly acts as if this was his first attempt. Has somebody seen this addressed by the filmmakers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.164.60 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to consider that we know by the end of the movie that Kenneth is a reliable narrator after all. So we can reasonably conclude that the first time Kenneth went back (having screwed up the calculations, about which he is a later overly defensive about) he crashes a car (possibly the first model of the time machine) into Belinda's boyfriend's house, thus altering the timeline enough (she decided he's a crazy stalker) that he and Belinda never dated and, as a tenuous butterfly effect, she doesn't get killed by someone driving a car into her living room. Back in the present, Kenneth just never figured out that the first attempt has been (sort of) a success; he even presumes when Darius first tells him Belinda is alive that it must be a sign that the second mission will have been a success. But it is hinted that he figures this out on his way to the time machine, hence (although it works on several levels) he says at the end on the boat to Darius: "The mission has been updated. I'm going back for you now." -- 146.115.187.103 (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)