OK, what exactly needs to be cited? Roundeyesamurai 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- The whole thing. There is no reference to what episodes or movies any of this was from or seen in. --OuroborosCobra 01:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I am asking the person who has now twice put up a pna-cite on the article. That person is not you.
Also- who says ALL information has to come from episodes? It's information on a foodstuff. That doesn't have to come directly from an episode any more than the definiton of a electron has to come directly from an episode. Roundeyesamurai 03:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- All of the articles on MA at least say what episode something comes from. We may also include some generic information, like in the article I made on rain, but we still cite where the subject as a whole came from in an episode. That is because everything here has to have something to do with Star Trek. We are not wikipedia, wedo not create articles on everything. I am restoring the PNA. Others, admins if I am not mistaken, have put it back there. I would not keep removing it if I were you. To bad I'm not you. --OuroborosCobra 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it was not an admin who put it there. This is now the third instance where you have "contributed" to a talk page and cited "the admins" doing something which they didn't do.
You have a very bad habit of acting as though you speak and act for the administration of this site, when you've been here for an extremely short period of time.
You also have a very bad habit of speaking to members who have been here longer than you (for example, me) as though you are "the authority" on how this site is "supposed to be run".
Rather than pretend to be an administrator, why don't you add the material you believe needs to be added? Some of us can't site in front of the computer for hours on end and make additions, because we have jobs and lives. It would be extremely helpful if those who can (such as yourself) would make contributions of material rather than merely critique the material of others.
Also, it should be said that this "discussion" is now twice the length of the actual article, which I made just as a blurb because of the several existing references to cheesecake on the site. Can we say "making a mountain out of a molehill?
Roundeyesamurai 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- How can you possibly have an edit war over cheesecake?--184.108.40.206 04:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
See, now this is the sort of thing I am talking about- one person may start an article, and another comes in and adds to it: Carnegie_style_cheesecake
I also have to agree with 220.127.116.11- Making a mountain out of a molehill about something as simple as cheesecake is ridiculous. See my above comments.
Shran- OK, it needs to be added to. How about removing the "protection from editing" so it can be fixed, then? Adding that is counterproductive to making it fit the form you're describing. Roundeyesamurai 05:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just so that I can't be accused of not responding, *I* put the pna-cite on the page originally, and also the second time. The reason that I didn't respond initially is that Cobra said everything that needed to be said about the subject; I had nothing more to add, and he said everything I would have said had I responded first. He knew why I added the pna, and I'm sure he (or someone else) would have done the same had I not done it first. As I'm sure you know, we work as a team here. Please understand that the pna was not a direct criticism of you or your work; I understood that it was just the beginning of an article, and that in all likelyhood there was a reference to cheesecake in one or more episode. But, as Shran pointed out, all articles need to have at least one citation of an episode or movie. The pna-cite was just a reminder for someone to add a citation. 'Nuff said. -- Renegade54 13:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
From Talk:Carnegie style cheesecakeEdit
- Merged. --From Andoria with Love 11:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, should we merge the New York cheesecake, the Carnegi cheesecake, and "Cheesecake"? They all seem to be in this, lovetriangle of info anyway. - AJ Halliwell 05:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)