User talk:Defiant

Archive Start a new discussion

"Melora" comments

Just wanted to say thanks for the comments you made in the "Melora" nomination. Much appreciated. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 11:52, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I had a good time reading the article! :) --Defiant 12:02, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

StarTrek.com links

When putting reference links to the site in articles, can you please use the {{st.com}} template? It allows us to find links there more easily and readily, especially when they decide to do their bi-annual reorganization. Thanks. -- sulfur 12:06, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Not a problem. Thanks for letting me know what it's called; my previous lack of that knowledge was the only reason I didn't add the template! --Defiant 13:34, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

No worries. When I created it, I didn't really make a big deal of it, as it took 2-3 iterations to get it right and doing what it can do now. To be honest, its existence came completely out of their latest re-org, and the need to go through all of our ST.com links and either fix them or convert them to use the {{brokenlink}} template. And let me tell you, that was a right pain! :) -- sulfur 13:46, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can imagine it would be! The ST.com template makes sense to me, sulfur; it's a good one, IMO. :) --Defiant 13:54, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Starlog #213

This January you added two citations (first, second) from Starlog magazine issue #213 to the article Tuvix (episode). However, Starlog issue #213 was published April 1995, 13 months before "Tuvix" aired, and pages 50–51 which you cited have two two-page spreads on Earth 2 and Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future.

Could you double-check those citations? — THOR ^=/\= 03:55, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Good catch; my bad. It should actually be #231. --Defiant 15:31, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Deleted scenes and "would"

Hi there Defiant. Just a reminder that you should cite your sources when adding entries to the deleted scene page. That page is no different from any other. :-) Thanks.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 11:11, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is any different from any other, I think it should be, Cleanse. My opinion counts for something too, you know?! In this case, I'll assume that the matter has already been settled by community consensus, but I thought your tone could have been a little more accommodating! --Defiant 13:32, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Defiant, I'm not sure what kind of issues you appear to be having with Cleanse here, but he was simply noting that your recent additions to the deleted scenes page in the Voyager section did not have citations listed. There is no need to take offense at what was a calm comment and reminder that you forgot to add citations. It happens to us all, and you do not need to be defensive about the situation. -- sulfur 13:44, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

I agree; I've no need to take offense or be defensive about Cleanse's post, which is why I'm doing neither. --Defiant 13:59, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

In response to both Cleanse and sulfur, the post that started this thread was not a "reminder" (though clearly meant in that way), as I didn't forget – not including citations with my additions to the deleted scenes page was a conscious decision, on my part, made in accordance with the guideline to make "bold" edits. As I said, I think that particular page should be treated differently from other articles. --Defiant 14:11, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, any sort of citation for the scene that was removed from "Eye of the Needle" and added to "Cathexis" (which the latest of those additions by myself pertains to) would automatically have to include "original research," which I was under the impression we're trying to avoid. The book A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager consistently talks about the scene as a part of "Eye of the Needle", and I've been unable to find any sources that specifically make the connection, saying outrightly that it was incorporated into "Cathexis". So, what are we to do, in that case?! I am (and have been) perplexed! --Defiant 14:24, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

So, the scene (according to the book) was part of "Eye of the Needle"? And then showed up in "Cathexis"? In that case, cite the book, as it notes that it was part of "Needle", and perhaps rework the sentence slightly to put the citation at the relevant point, as the citation that it is in the teaser is... er... the episode itself. -- sulfur 14:55, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that, sulfur. Just to clarify, the book does discuss the scene's deletion from "Eye of the Needle", just not any info about its obvious presence in "Cathexis". I'll assume from your last post that we're not as dead-set against original research as I originally thought we were (maybe I've been thinking of wikipedia!) I've now added a citation to the bit about this scene. I'll look for citable page number(s) soon, but I'm currently busy trying to search for page numbers for the "Heroes and Demons" article. Once I've done that, I'll concentrate on the deleted scenes section about VOY. --Defiant 15:14, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that specific example original research myself. Original research is when you go through 30 episodes showing that Sisko is a anarchist (for example) based on his behaviour. It isn't pointing out the obvious (such as "scene X was deleted from episode Y, but used in episode Z"). Anything that can be readily verified by visiting a source (whether reference book, interview, or the episode itself) is not original research. -- sulfur 15:21, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I'll try to remember that, now. I always thought it meant own/personal research, therefore drawing a conclusion where something is not outrightly stated but implied would be included (e.g. the presence of the deleted scene in "Cathexis"). Something else that I don't understand but pertains to this site (there's quite a few such things!) is the quibble that some people have over the word "would," saying it's grammatically incorrect. I've always thought, "Surely context plays a part in that issue, too!" Do you know what I mean? --Defiant 15:37, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

The issue with the word "would" is all about context. It's not grammatically incorrect, but it can be grammatically awkward. Used such as "X would be used in Y" is awkward language and better phrased as "X was used in Y". Any time the "past imperfect" is used, it is (by necessity) rather awkward. As we strive to be an encyclopedia, we try to avoid the use of imperfect tenses wherever possible. State simple facts "X was used" not "X would be used." The biggest issue is when a sentence is written in one tense, then changes to another when the "would" is introduced. That's what we're trying to avoid. -- sulfur 15:52, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah; that's the example of context I was considering bringing up, as it does seem grammatically awkward. But the word "would" is used on other occasions, too (such as quotes, etc). Are we saying that those sort of cases are acceptable? --Defiant 15:59, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

A related issue is whether we employ our other decisions, re: words, in quotes, such as "Human" and "The Doctor" having caps. --Defiant 16:12, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

If the quote is from a book, written interview, etc, then the quote should be verbatim. If from an episode, video or audio interview, etc, then our styling. -- sulfur 17:39, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Cool – that is how I've been doing them (for the most part, anyways). Thanks for all your advice, sulfur. :) --Defiant 17:51, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

In response to the claims advanced somewhat further above, you'll note that MA:CYS is a policy that applies to all pages. That policy has community consensus, and it is unnecessary to rediscuss on each page. MA:BOLD does not mean redefine policies on each page.

I'm still not entirely sure why you thought that one individual page shouldn't have citations, but if it's because of your issue regarding one episode's citation, your concerns could have been brought up on Talk: Deleted scene. The logic to not cite anything because of problems with one citation escapes me.

I also called it a reminder because as an administrator, I was assuming that you had a general understanding of policies and had just forgotten to cite a couple of edits. This seemed more likely than you deliberately deciding policies didn't apply to single pages. Obviously I was mistaken.

You can hopefully tell that I am not happy. I left one friendly reminder to help out, with a smiley indicating good faith. Without any further comments from my part this led to accusations of having an unaccomodating tone and attempting to stifle opinions. This is very trying.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 22:06, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "stifling opinions" but I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of having an unaccommodating tone and, IMHO, that's something quite different from suggesting that you could have a more accommodating one. Just as I took no offense to you, I didn't mean to cause you any offense, either; I'm sorry if I have. I'm not quite sure what your problem is, though. --Defiant 23:03, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

After some further reading, I've realized that you've kinda been out of line with MA guidelines, Cleanse. MA:BOLD states, "It's always better to have some content (as long as it's on-topic and not patent nonsense) rather than no content at all [....] It's perfectly all right to dive right in and add your own ideas to make the article better." Therefore, not only should you just have been happy that I added info about the deleted scenes (rather than me continuing to let there be no info about those scenes, on the deleted scenes page) but, as far as I can see, there was nothing stopping you from adding however many citations you felt appropriate, yourself! I appreciate that you did this for the one about "The Defector", but I think you'll just have to come to terms with the fact that not everyone shares your opinions; I'm sorry you have a problem with it, but that's just how the world works. --Defiant 23:25, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

With your last comment on the MA:BOLD bit, that suggests that our text on that policy is out of date. It should note that citations are required. I'll try to remember to update that tomorrow. Citations are important, information with no basis makes us no better than IMDb. -- sulfur 02:20, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

1. In the future, if you don't want to accuse me of things, then don't make it sound like it. I wrote my initial comment in a polite manner. I would suggest that if you don't want people to think you are accusing them, then don't dash off replies with exclamation marks and personal complaints. Okay? :-)
2. I welcome Sulfur's idea to update MA:BOLD. However, it should be obvious already that it does not permit experienced users to violate policies and then expect others to clean it up for them. As an administrator, you are meant to uphold the policies and the general practices of the wiki. Other administrators leaving a reminder/heads up is not intended as an attack, but just to ensure that everyone is on the same page.
3. It's not my "opinion" that pages should have citations, it's the policy created by consensus. You are not above policies. In fact, I am confused by your sudden resistance because you have participated in discussions about the format of citations (so have contributed to making the policy), have added citations and "citation needed" tags to existing information etc. Clearly you know the policy on citations and why this is important in an encyclopedia. As I said above, if you are concerned with how to cite something, or that it may be original research, just bring it up on the talk page.

–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 05:13, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

1. It's a text-only website, so it's impossible to make any posts "sound like" anything; I'm not entirely responsible for the way you read (as in "red") my post and it seems a bit laughable that you'd find an exclamation mark offensive (or any other type of frequently-used punctuation, for that matter). I made no "personal complaints" – it was a suggestion, just like you wrote "I would suggest...."

2. Okay, for the most part... though I didn't interpret your "heads up" as "an attack" – as I've stated multiple times now, it did not offend me. I also believe that the purpose was not to be offensive.

3. It's clearly both your opinion and general consensus that all pages should have citations; otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing for it so strongly. The need for citations is not, actually, in dispute. It's clearly just been assumed that that is what I do have a problem with, as at no point have I been asked why I think the deleted scenes page should be an exception, which smacks of arrogant presumption on your part; you're evidently not interested in what I have to say, so why ask? Your conclusion, this time, was far better; thank you! :) I agree that I am not "above policies," but as both a member of the community and an admin, my voice/opinion is just important as yours. That's the way it should be, anyway. --Defiant 09:07, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

So...you were suggesting that my tone should be more accommodating, but posts don't actually "sound like" anything? Huh? %-)

Anyway, I am glad you have decided to follow policies again. Cite your sources OR make your case to not do so on the talk page first, and the wiki will run smoothly.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 09:08, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

If you don't be a nitpicker, the site will run smoothly, too! --Defiant 09:47, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gang

As much as I am appreciative of an apology, I don't think I particularly took your initial response any other way then I could have taken it. You didn't feel the need to respond on content nor did you just let my response be. You started by pointing out why my opinion was of lesser value. And then by going on to do it off as "what the people in general feel". Unless its the MA policy to deter people from joining, I would very much appreciate being treated with slightly more respect without below the belt comments, unless you believe I did something to not earn that respect. -- OvBacon^(Talk) 14:26, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't take my initial comment to you in the way it was meant and I would have said something along the same lines to anyone else with as few edits or evidence of uncertainty regarding the English language. But I certainly didn't mean it as a personal attack. As far as I can see, you're doing very well with editing so often and I believe that, if you keep it up, you have the potential to become an admin. I simply recommend that you might want to wait til then to add your insights to discussions about admin-related issues, such as merges. --Defiant 17:44, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

A merge is not an admin-related issue. Anyone can speak to merges (and pretty much anything else) here on MA. -- sulfur 17:52, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

The actual merge should be done by an admin, because of the deletion required to merge the page histories, but merge discussions are open to whoever wants to post. - Archduk3 18:31, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. That's definitely news to me, but alright. Sorry, OvBacon; my error! :( --Defiant 18:59, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please remove my admin status, then? In light of this misunderstanding, I clearly don't even have as much knowledge about what constitutes admin-related issues as I thought I did! --Defiant 19:13, July 14, 2011 (UTC)