User talk:Happytech

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Technical analysis, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See generally this discussion and this guideline. THF 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Technical analysis. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. Again, please review the Wikipedia policies WP:NOR, WP:NOT#OR, and WP:V. THF 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyway, would you please give a specific example of where my edits violate the rules? just point out one or two sentances so i know what the help you are so upset about. thanks.

Comment moved from user page

Ted please give help and specific reasons (give an example) of why you deleted my 100% verifiable information under technical analysis section. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happytech (talk • contribs)

Did you review the WP:NOT page, and the other policy pages, like I asked? If you had, you might understand why your edits were reverted. Keep in mind that I agree that technical analysis is on a par with astrology, so censorship isn't an issue here. It's application of the Wikipedia rules, and if you don't adhere to them, you'll be wasting your time. Wikipedia is a place where it's important to read the manual before you jump in and make drastic changes to pages beyond spelling corrections. THF 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT agree that technical analysis is on par with astrology. However I do have a HUGE beef with the lack of a definition free of loopholes. There IS definitional ambiguity, and it has nothing to do with "my research." It is an acknowledged fact. How do I get this into the article?

If it is an acknowledged fact, then you can find a WP:RS that says it, and cite to that information. You don't get to insert your personal opinions and analysis without references. THF 21:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you give me an example of a reliable source. whos opinion would you consider a reliable source? keep in mind, that i gave references. factual, statistically significant references. you did not like them. Happytech 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the WP:RS and WP:SYN policy, like I had asked, you'd know the answer. I'm trying to assume good faith, but you're making it awfully hard. Wikipedia isn't brain surgery, but it's at least as important to read the manual. THF 22:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]