Forum:Abusing admin privileges?

Archive: 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024

RE:Memory Alpha Wiki

Most wiki's use their actual sitename as their mainpage, in this case "Memory Alpha Wiki". Having a redirect from that page to the mainpage would mean better SEO. Mark (talk) 14:21, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

United Earth Mirror Universe Logo On Talk page

Just wanted to let you know that your logo isn't always centered on your talk page and causes problems if you want to view diffs...not a big deal just thought you should know — Morder (talk) 16:26, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, wikia sucks. - Archduk 3 03:23, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Appearances of regulars

Moved to Talk:Wesley Crusher

Block appeals

Dear sir,

We might not be Wikipedia, but would you kindly explain how then anyone would be able to appeal a block on Memory Alpha without a block appeal template? --70.179.178.5 08:42, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Their own talk page. Excepting spam bots, blocks placed on users allow them to edit their own talk page in most cases, unless there is some reason that they shouldn't be able to. Also, blocking someone at MA doesn't block them at wikia central, so even if they're block from editing their talk page by accident, a request to be unblock could be placed there and brought to the attention of an admin here. - Archduk 3 09:07, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Edit

Thanks for putting my photos in a gallery. Neophyte, I couldn't figure out to edit them in and ignored the thumbnail button thinking it meant tiny. Appreciated. --Joseph Steven

That was actually sulfur, I just changed the file extension to the jpg one from the pdf, and fixed the category. Also, images in a gallery don't use the "thumb" markup, since the size of gallery images are controlled by our corporate overloads. :) - Archduk 3 02:33, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Scroll boxes and mobile Safari/iOS/Webkit

Archduk3,

Cool page. Just an FYI: mobile Safari (and hence iOS devices, such as the iPod touch and iPhone) can't scroll on the scroll boxes. The one of your article creations/overhauls is a good example. I can only see the first several. The collapsable list thing works, though.

Just thought I'd let you know, for you seem to be an advanced Web ML/code guy. I'm the only registered user forced to use an iPod chiefly, so it probably doesn't concern you. Still, thought it'd interest you that I'm "locked out" from seeing them – on many pages, not just yours!

— Cepstrum ^(talk) 12:53, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried this? - Archduk 3 13:15, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

That's for the iPad, but I'll try it with the iPod. (The iPod uses a mini Safari.) But thanks for the help!

BTW, you're a great admin, IMHO. :)

— Cepstrum ^(talk) 18:27, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

This might work. Beyond that, all I can say is apple products lead to the dark side. - Archduk 3 23:05, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, no Flash support, which is the worst. They won't even try. (It's all I have, though – a gift for my prolonged recovery.) But thanks for the link!

— Cepstrum ^(talk) 21:17, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly, there are a few apps that will get flash content to work on the dark side, but I'm not sure if any of them would work in this case, as they seem to be mostly for watching videos. Smokescreen sounds promising, but without trying it I wouldn't know. - Archduk 3 21:33, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Man, thanks! I've not hooked my iPod to a computer/iTunes yet (health issues+dead motherboard, though strangely, the router running off it is still putting out WiFi....)

Anyway, I asked this question on Sulfur's page then realized I probably should've asked you: he's so busy fixing errors, and you know a lot about the tech/MediaWiki/MA logistics. Could you take a look, if/when you've the chance? Thanks.

Oh, and I'm really excited about the possibility of getting Flash; not having it locks me out of many sites. :-/

— Cepstrum ^(talk) 19:01, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Archduk3, just wanted to say thanks for being a polite and understanding admin. Whenever I have had the pleasure of talking to you on talk pages or what not you have always phrased your words very constructively and never ridicule and for that I thank you. Keep up the great work. :) -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 17:32, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

"Jonathan Archer" no longer in use!

Just to let you know, I've finished what I was doing on Jonathan Archer for the time being. I'll work on some more sections tomorrow or the day after. -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 03:09, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Possession

Will do. Thanks for the heads-up. QuiGonJinn^Talk 16:42, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Bringing this to your attention

Hey

TrekFan and I decided to split the astrophysics article, placing some of its content on the new astrophysicist article (formerly a redirect). What I tried to do was separate "events related to astrophysics" (keeping them on the original page) while taking the list of astrophysicists (which was intermingled with the former) onto the astrophysicist page. I'm now not sure if I did it correctly (it was my first time). I'm vaguely aware of "merging" articles to preserve edit history. Should've that been done here? ie, merging the content from the original onto the new (duplicating it), and then edit? Now it looks like I created all content on the new page, when really I merely selected portions from the a-physics article, and did some editing+formatting.

Sorry if I caused a mess!

— Cepstrum ^(talk) 21:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

There isn't really any way to "split" a page history, so the rule of thumb is to mention where the info is from in the edit summary when splitting a page, so someone who is interested in the history knows were to look. The main thing you should look at now is the incoming links at the old page, to make sure links that should be pointing to the new one are, well, pointing there. - Archduk 3 22:00, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Oops: I already did it, so I can't change the edit summary. Should I do a minor "pseudo-edit" just to leave a note in the edit summary? Or do you think the edit summaries I left in the Astrophysics (here) and Astrophysicist (here) articles are sufficient?

And about the second thing: do I just click on "what links here", check all the pages, and examine the links, fixing as necessary? I'm just trying to ensure I understand! (You actually did a good job explaining – it's just my opacity.) Thanks. — Cepstrum ^(talk) 16:52, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Since it's already done, don't worry about it, what's there is already enough to figure out what happened if anyone is interested. As for the links, yes, it is just going through the what links here page and correcting as necessary. - Archduk 3 17:17, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I checked every link and corrected as necessary. I also added a note on the Talk:Astrophysicist page letting people know the list of them needs to be completed by checking the "what links here" page. I found more astrophysicists during my link updating but can't add the rest now. Is that an ok think to post on a talk page? — Cepstrum ^(talk) 17:25, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

You can post almost anything on a talk page, so long as it has do do with improving an article. - Archduk 3 17:29, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked that because of this, which said I really messed up on this; it's made me cautious/nervous about article talk pages! (check it out) I'll leave you alone now. Job well done, Archduk3! :) — Cepstrum ^(talk) 17:54, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

PS Though it would be nice to get your take on the above; was I way out of line on the Freiberger article? It seemed like a personal attack, but no one said anything about it, so I figured oh well....it'd be nice if some admin could have stepped in to help/advise me on that one. :-/

You are suppose to explain why a pna was added to an article, just maybe not in so many words. You tend to use a far more formal writing style, which takes up more space than a the standard, less formal one. To be honest, I haven't seen anything that would be "out of line," but DC has been told repeatedly not to keep reiterating points with lengthy paragraphs on talk pages, and based on her recent activity I wouldn't be surprised if her posts had more to do with that than anything you did. That said, "concise" is always better than "rambling". - Archduk 3 18:14, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

--KTHNXBY!

(Trying to be concise) ;-)

Any chance I could get some help if that arises again? I don't want to, as she preemptively accused me of, go "whining" to people. Still, I could've used some support/advice on how to deal with my brevity problem as well as the hurtful (though helpful, as I replied), out-of-the-blue comments. It was a highly unpleasant experience. Also: I hate to think I've been cluttering MA with my "ramblings" on article talk pages. I want to help, not harm. It's difficult for me to judge properly what/how much to write. Have you any idea how I might know whether my posts are rambling without bothering an admin? (as I'm doing now – sorry for taxing your patience!) — Cepstrum ^(talk) 17:41, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Can a bot fix this ST.com link problem?

Time to bother you again. ;-)

I keep finding external links to startrek.com articles that don't work. I think this is a result of their significant – and recent – overhaul: now the site redirects all the old links to the generic "database" page. I try to fix them when I can (using {{brokenlink}} and the WBM), but it's a tedious process. Moreover, I don't think I (and a few others) have been able to do this to more than a tiny portion of the links, which means readers who are unaware of the WBM won't get to see the linked content. It seems a like a task for a bot. Yes?

I'm guessing the answer is "no", for I'd have thought someone other than I would have suggested this long ago. Or maybe no one has noticed/cared....Should I just keep correcting them, or can your bot (or another's) crawl through MA and do this automatically?

Thanks. (It's a shame ST.com ruined everyone's incoming links – not just MA's!) — Cepstrum ^(talk) 12:36, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. There are three types of ST.com links really:

Those that "work" and just need to be updated
Those that definitely don't work and need to be pointed at the WBM with link text
Those that definitely don't work and need to be pointed at the WBM, but are used as references

The first pass really has to be done by hand, and while doing that, the other things can be slowly cleaned up at the same time. It's all more than a bit messy. -- sulfur 14:07, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Sulfur. I think I now see why a bot can't do this....but

I don't quite follow #1. Does that mean searching manually (either using their search or google to search the domain) for that same article on the "new" ST.com site, and if it's there, changing the link to the new address?
#3 confuses me. How's it different from #2?
Anyway, bottom line: should I stop using the broken link template unless I can't find the article on the site? (Up to now, I've been using it whenever a link to ST.com redirects me to the generic database page.)

Oh, and one more question: I've noticed that some links to ST.com on MA point directly to the WBM. When I "fix" them by converting them to the template, the WBM link displays the usual page wherein you must select the date/version of the archived page. This adds an extra step for the reader, for otherwise one could just link to the desired WBM's archived page and not make the him/her figure out which one to select. (I'm thinking those unfamiliar with the WBM may get confused if a link takes them to the date selection page.) Is there a way to bypass that and have the template link to a particular WBM archived page, obviating the need to make readers choose a page/date? — Cepstrum ^(talk) 18:52, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

1 would be links to pages that still exist, but have moved. 2 are inline links, as in a link like this one, to pages that don't exist anymore, and 3 are links used as reference link to pages that no longer exist.

As to your question about having a template link to a version of the page directly at the WBM, there's no neat way to do that. Right now, you can just use the link already on the page to use {{brokenlink}}. Having it link directly to a version of the page would required a different link entirely, and the purpose of the template is only to show that a reference did exist at one time, not actually point to that reference, since there may be pages that the WBM doesn't have archived. - Archduk 3 19:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Better to link to the archive as a whole, since some of the pages have different versions. If someone is confused by the ability to select by date and see when the page was archived, that person has more issues than just that. :)

The different between #2 and #3 is a link that is used as a reference (and shows up as a number, such as [2]) and a link that is over a string of text.

I've been fixing #1 by clicking on the link, and if it finds it, using that link to replace the one we have, and if possible, using the {{Startrek.com}} template. And you're using the brokenlink template correctly. Use it when the link goes to the generic page or says "not found". I'm going to be putting together a new template that can be used for inline references or links, but that's going to be on pass #2. -- sulfur 19:29, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Short term: I'm working through them all right now. So, give me some time on that. Once the pass is done, then we can start figuring out what we've missed. -- sulfur 19:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, guys. Very helpful! (And I loved your line about people not understanding how to use the WBM. hehe) — Cepstrum ^(talk) 20:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

All of the ST.com links have now been cleaned up and use either the {{startrek.com}} or {{st.com}} templates. -- sulfur 19:40, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Kudos on splitting up the display graphics cat

The way all that different stuff just went indiscriminatly into one category has been bugging me for ages, to the point that I've spent quite some time trying to come up with a way of splitting it. But I was always to skittish to actually start a discussion. It's a huge improvement now, thanks! -- Capricorn 22:39, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wesley Crusher Quote

I laughed when I saw the quote you added to Wesley Crusher. I don't know if that Guinan one or the "Shut up, Wesley!" from Picard is better though! :) -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 06:43, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Guinan is far more level-headed than Picard, so Guinan > Picard. - Archduk 3 06:46, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I guess you're right. -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 06:51, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

New Category

I have suggested creating a category called "Planetary classifications" on the Memory Alpha:Category suggestions page. Being an admin, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the matter? -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 23:41, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look at this when I'm done with the Starfleet personnel subcats, as I'm not sure right now what classifications we have in canon and how much this would help. It sounds like a good idea in general, but I need to take a further look at what we have first. - Archduk 3 23:44, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

OK, sure. Thanks. -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 23:45, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion

Please undelete the file. It is a different product, which will be made apparent when I finish the page--Darth Duranium 07:01, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

It's the exact same image, excepting the background color, so why would we need two images? - Archduk 3 07:20, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Federation Starfleet

Why are we adding "Federation Starfleet" to sidebars? Wasn't it decided a long time ago that Starfleet is Starfleet, and there is no differentiation between "Earth Starfleet" and "Federation Starfleet?" -Angry Future Romulan 19:18, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am kind of wondering this too (sorry to chime in here), because I had (albeit slowly and not very often) going around and editing the sidebars to say "Starfleet" as a result of this. --Terran Officer 19:33, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Me too. -Angry Future Romulan 19:40, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Monkey see, monkey do.

To be honest, I completely forgot about that, and have just been adding them without thinking further on it since I've been trying to change all "Earth" Starfleet references to "United Earth" Starfleet.

So, my bad. - Archduk 3 03:23, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

So do we want to just change all of those sorts back, as the community at large considers Starfleet to be one thing, or are we going to do something different on this? In a way, this is why I have come to consider that family and career information should be found within the article's content and the sidebar for the stats about the person... somewhat less confusing. But anyhoo, however you want to do it works for me. --Terran Officer 05:19, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, yes, we should change it to simply "Starfleet" anytime we see it listed as something else. -Angry Future Romulan 15:23, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Online

You have sent numerous messages etc to me about Star Trek Online not being cannon. However you are in error on that fact. Star Trek Online is considered official cannon by CBS Corp. the parent company of the Star Trek Franchise. The STO development team must have everything they do in the game cannon checked by CBS prior to implementing it in game. This has been discussed on the game forums and videos by the Executive Producer of the game D. Stahl on the game homepage. If the game is considered cannon by the parent corporation then it is cannon. There is also a discussion there about the changes to Earth Spacedock where the game designers admitted to mistakenly making the game spacedock look similar to the 2009 movie spacedock, because they were considering the changes made to the timeline by Nero's temporal incursion. Which they admitted were in error. They were also required by CBS to change this and because of player outcry against it. This took awhile to implement due to the cannon check process and design time. The point is whether people want it to be or not, Star Trek Online is considered to be an official part of the Star Trek Franchise. Unlike prior Star Trek Games, STO has to have each change made to it go through a rigorous cannon check by CBS. Something games like Bridge Commander, Star Trek Legacy and Star Trek Armada did not have to go through, because they were not ever evolving like Star Trek Online is. If you don't believe me go to ww.startrekonline.com and visit the developmental forums and watch the videos by the developmental team. They will explain the process they are required to go through by CBS to ensure the game follows cannon. Mikeofborg 12:08, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Just because the game developers are required to keep their story consistent with established Star Trek continuity, does not make it canon. The novels published by Pocket Books are required to be put up to a similar process of approval, but that does not make them canon. -Angry Future Romulan 23:28, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again Angry soon to be Romulan. The developers have specifically stated in videos, interviews, and forum posts that CBS has plans for a future series/movie involving the 25th Century and the stories put forth inside Star Trek Online. Hence why the developers have to keep up with past, current and future cannon. Just because this is a game does not mean it cannot have certain elements that are cannon to the franchise. I submit World of Warcraft as an example, the entire cannon of that series is based on the RTS games that came before it, and future plans for a movie and the current books have to conform to the game cannon. Just like Star Trek Online has to conform to past and current Star Trek Cannon, but is building on future cannon and cannon created in the 2009 film. With your flawed logic we have to throw out the 2009 film and anything not TOS/TNG series and spin offs as cannon as they do not fit into the established story that came before it. STO is not just another game like the Bridge Commander, Legacy, Armada, and etc. Those previous games had scopes that were limited and many were not required to conform to the standards of storyline that STO is required to conform to. (Really, we all know there was no Elite Force Hazard Team on Voyager) That should tell you something about STO and the plans CBS has for the future of Star Trek. In reality it is smart business, they are allowing a game to use their name, create stories for them to use to further the franchise, and make some royalty money to boot with little to no cost. Every story made by the development team is the intellectual property of CBS Corp. Prior games it was only the game name and ships/characters that were considered intellectual property, with STO it is also the actual stories that are; which should tell you something. I am really starting to hate Memory Alpha due to all the cannon Nazis here that get their panties in bunch anytime they fell a post doesn't fit into their vision of Star Trek cannon. Guess what, most of did not work for Paramount and most of us don't work for CBS so in reality many of us do not know what they consider cannon. I am sure Gene Roddenberry would be applauding the direction Star Trek Online is taking his creation, because it is introducing his masterpiece to a whole new generation of people that might not otherwise see it. Mikeofborg 16:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

It's "canon", not "cannon". Just because the developers of the game made it to fit within canon doesn't mean it is canon. If such a future series ever comes about, then that series would be canon- but not the game. As it is now games are not canon- only the series' and movies.--31dot 16:33, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, feel free to leave with your panties in a bunch if you're going to keep accusing people of being Nazis. The project neither wants nor needs people like that, so consider that your only warning. Second, if you want to go on a diatribe about MA's policies, you can do so in the appropriate place instead of my talk page, since right now you're only wasting our time. - Archduk 3 16:55, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting little read. FYI. -- sulfur 03:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Mahklouf

That's been a persistent problem with both that article and that talk page- either Mr. Mahklouf or a representative keeps removing the content from both, saying they don't wish to have the exposure. I suspect that was the case this time. I had already permanently protected the article- obviously it would be hard to do that with a talk page, though.--31dot 16:07, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if it keeps coming from the same IP address it would be easy to just block it, but since they don't use the same one, it's not worth it to block an address for long, and I left it so the anon talk page can still be used, JIC. - Archduk 3 16:24, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Scottie's second death

Just a note for the Starfleet casualties (23rd_century)...

Didn't Apollo kill Montgomery Scott with a lightning bolt and later revived him in the "Who mourns for Adonis?" episode???

Thanx for all your Hard Work...

ConcreteDragon --64.139.253.205 01:37, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

He might have, I would need to watch it again though, since it's been awhile since I watched that episode. - Archduk 3 01:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

My bad... It looks like he was just knocked back 10 meters and was only "mostly dead"...

--ConcreteDragon 22:10, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Good thing too, I didn't want to watch Kirk go through his clothes looking for loose change. - Archduk 3 22:22, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Whoops

I did not realize that George Samuel had been restored in George Kirks sidebar (honestly, I remember having already removed that months ago). Sorry about that, thanks for catching it and editing it. --Terran Officer 19:33, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

CSS changes

Please test them and finalize them on your own personal CSS before putting them into the site CSS and being forced to make 2-3 fixes. -- sulfur 21:33, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Block

Your block of 71.202.114.128 seemed a bit severe, Archduk3. He/she wasn't necessarily trying to vandalize the site; maybe they just didn't know how to contribute but were still well-intentioned. It wasn't like the sole contribution you let them make was particularly offensive! --Defiant 09:54, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

"It done got broke and we done fixed it." seems less like a test edit and more like a vandal pointlessly inserting text in the middle of the night, but if you want to lower the block, go ahead. - Archduk 3 10:08, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

No, it's alright; 3 days doesn't seem like a very long time. If they were committed to editing here, I'm sure they'll return and, if there's damage to be had, it will have already been caused. I'd ask, though, that you don't block users in the future on suspicion of vandalism but on actually doing it. --Defiant 10:59, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

After rereading the policy about this, I realized your block was technically in violation of the blocking policy; the blocked party made only 1 edit and, as far as I can see, there was no attempt to give them a warning. I've therefore removed the block. --Defiant 11:27, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Template Idea

I wasn't entirely sure where to go, but I had an idea for a template due in part to the new format onto the various sidebars for starships, space stations and soon people. Basically, it would be like using the "Federation" redirect with one exception (thus, I feel for it's important use here), the link will display (and read) "United Federation of Planets" (without the quotes, of course). Why do we need this, you may be asking me, well... as I understand it, templates are used when the same block of text (no matter how small) may be used over and over and over. The only reason I don't use the "Federation" redirect, is because I feel the sidebar text should read "United Federation of Planets" looks more formal that way. The tooltip of the redirect reads "Federation" (otherwise I'd consider it's use), I'm not exactly sure what it could be named, the template, maybe {{Federation}} or {{UFP}} I thought I'd mention it to someone, because I know when it comes to templates and redirects, it's best to bring it up first. My reasoning is also for the large, repetitive use of this format, both in sidebars and in general articles, although mostly sidebars. I'm sure this sounds... well, lazy, and perhaps it is. I guess I was trying to think of a greater good when coming up with the idea and proposing it. --Terran Officer 07:07, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone else would go for this, as our small templates generally add formatting, like {{EnterpriseNX}}. My suggestion would be to make it, put it on a few pages, and see what people say. - Archduk 3 19:51, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Humanoid Figure

It was capitalized in the script. If the consensus is to not use 'Future Guy' and to use the script spelling, the it gets capitalized. -- sulfur 13:00, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

navbox template

Looking at it, it should likely vertically align things to the top. Otherwise, they look a bit odd, especially when put onto the same line. -- sulfur 14:41, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm going to center it as well. - Archduk 3 14:44, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Occupation field in sidebar

I noticed that you changed the "occupation" field in the Demora Sulu sidebar to helmsman instead of Starfleet officer. But wouldn't helmsman actually be a posting, or assignment, instead of an occupation? -Angry Future Romulan 20:24, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Her posting is her job, and that information is far more helpful for readers than just Starfleet officer. - Archduk 3 20:34, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel it would be appropriate to add a "posting" field to the sidebar, so we could have both bits of information. Is that do-able? -Angry Future Romulan 20:46, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

It might help if you think of Starfleet as a company, and Starfleet officers as executives. Officer is a title, not a job, as officers do something other then just stand around all day being officers. Also, I know for a fact that if you asked members of the military what their job was, you wouldn't get officer or enlisted man as an answer, but rather what they do, which is their posting. Having a posting and occupation call in the sidebar is redundant then. - Archduk 3 21:05, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Re Recent edit

Could you look at the recent changes to Odo? What do you think?--31dot 20:44, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

I would put most of that down as a subjective essay, but there are bit in there that are worth keeping, assuming they aren't already in the article. At the very least that new section needs to be moved much further down the page. - Archduk 3 20:54, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

RDM's AOL chat archive

Archduk3:

Thanks for compiling/editing the AOL RDM chats – I love reading them. Often I come across useful info that'd be helpful in articles but can't recall which chat number (xxx.txt) it's in. I also have a hard time finding which number corresponds to which date and thus must resort to a (roughly) simple Binary search. Do you know of any way

I could search for keywords in the chats, and
whether we/someone/MA could either put date metadata in the filenames or put date ranges next to the numbered text file links?

It seems like a bot could look for any dates in the text (they're usually if not always in the same format) and output a beginning and – if applicable – end date somewhere? It'd make finding him talking about a particular season (or time during one) much easier. This is a separate issue from searching them though, which I assume may already be possible using the MA search engine. ?

Anyway, thanks for getting them up there! — Cepstrum ^(talk) 12:52, March 16, 2011 (UTC) (if it's not too much trouble, could you respond on my talk page, so I can see when/if you write back? Thanks.)

We actually just archived them exactly as-is from the original Geocities archive of them. We did not make any changes on them beyond adding in the navigation bars. I'd prefer not to touch or change the files in any way at all. The other oddity is that the dates do not really have anything to do with the name of each file. -- sulfur 13:01, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, ArchDuk3 and Sulfur. When/if I'm able, I'll look into it. I was hoping there would be an easy way. And I definitely didn't mean to imply altering the file names themselves – only creating a meta-data list that would connect the file names with the dates.

I suppose if/when I'm healed (long way out), I could write a script that grabs the .txt files, examines the dates, and creates just such a list for my own use (perhaps even put it on my userpage for others), as well as creating a combined .txt file for easy searching (within the file). — Cepstrum ^(talk) 15:45, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Navigation template bug?

A-Duk3

As always, I'm grateful to you and the other good folks at MA for making the RDM chats so accessible and easy to read.

I think I may have come across a bug, though: in chat 97 (or 98 – I can't go back to check w/out starting this message over), the "next chat" link at the bottom leads to 67/68. (Again: sorry for lack of precision).

I don't know whether the bug is on my end, but I've tried many things and keep skipping back thirty .txt files each time. (Even the link tells me it's going to go to the wrong place.)

Maybe it's a one-time thing. Still, I thought you/Sulfur might like to know in case there's an error in the navigation template, the .txt indexing, MediaWiki, or Wikia. Meanwhile, I'll manually skip to the next one. — Cepstrum ^(talk) 09:51, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

It was just a typo in the navbar. It was on Ron 97 and is now fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 09:58, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cleanse!

But this puzzles me: did Archduk3 (or someone) actually manually put together the nav bar? If so, that's a lot of work....I'd have thought a bot would do that sort (no pun, heh) of thing. ? Irrespective, you admins/MA "gatekeepers" (a suitable name escapes me – devotées, perhaps?) are invaluable! — Cepstrum ^(talk) 12:46, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Morder was the guy who manually added the nav bars to the chats, all I did was some touch ups after they were moved for the last time. - Archduk 3 12:58, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Mirror image

Thanks for flipping this image back. I must have accidently flipped it when I was editing it. The silly thing is, I even looked at it when I had uploaded it and thought something wasn't quite right, though I couldn't put my finger on it! --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 11:10, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Screwed up text

What are you trying to "unbreak" with this: the'' ''{{USS|Kelvin}}'', ''was? -- sulfur 20:18, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Is it the link being split into two? That's occurring because the italics at the start of "Kelvin" are closing the italics at the start of the sentence. Then the italics after Kelvin are opening the ones to the end of the sentence. The proper "fix" for this is not to introduce double italics garbage around it, but rather to find a new formatting method for the entire section. -- sulfur 20:20, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I also know why it's doing that, and I agree that a better solution needs to be found, but until that happens that "garbage" is maintaining the link behavior one would expect, in firefox at least. It seems that IE doesn't have that problem, but a decent number of users and readers are on Modzilla browsers. I was going to use a template to keep track of locations where this problem occurs, so they can be fixed quickly when a better solution is found. - Archduk 3 20:30, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't know if a template is worth it, since we'll have to remove the template after the fact anyhow. And we have that construct used all over the place due to stupidity with the RTE previously when it was enabled here. -- sulfur 20:37, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

And tbh, I'd be tempted to not worry about it, but still look for a proper workaround fix for the situation (such as a note similar to the bg notes we already do). After all, we have such ship links in italics all over the place on MA, so why fix 6-7 of them and leave the rest broken? -- sulfur 20:41, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I guess I have to not worry about it, since you're done a bot run to remove them all. - Archduk 3 13:03, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Step one toward reworking things. There were only about 20 instances where we used it, and a quick glance at the data suggests at least 200 places where it occurs. Grand scheme of things, the fact that the link appears broken is not a huge disaster, since it only occurs on Mozilla based browsers. -- sulfur 13:25, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Mozilla based browsers make up a substantial amount of the user and reader base, so while it isn't a huge disaster, it is certainly something we shouldn't leave as is. I was wondering if there was something that could be added to the template to clear all formatting, or if a js fix could be implemented to stop the extra <a title> from being added. - Archduk 3 15:13, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

I've played around with the formatting on a test wiki, and I've not found any way around it (other than to not use italics at all). The biggest issue is the way that the mediawiki software actually handles the italics calls. That's all happening well before we even get to the point of being able to toy with stuff in JS. Now, that creates a double link because that's correct and proper HTML. That's why Mozilla and WebKit based browsers show it as a double link. The IE browser does a "clever" and merges the two separate links into one link, since it sees that they point to the same place. According to the HTML spec, both types of behaviour are actually correct (it's a very loose and poorly written spec). So, our choices really seem to be as follows (since I can't find any way of telling mediawiki not to break the link up):

Add in fake-out italics into all of our templates before and after anywhere that might include italics.
Suck it up until we can figure out a CSS/JS way around it

I really dislike option #1, since the template code is already awkward enough, and does also introduce the possibility of accidental bolds and incorrect italics in there. -- sulfur 15:25, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

If there's no way to clear formatting before the template, I guess we should put the list of known problems locations somewhere on a talk page or forum, and then report this to bugzilla. Removing the requirement that alternate text be italicized should solve a good number of these without some complex back end solution. - Archduk 3 15:40, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most seem to be found in bg notes or quotes rather than alternate timeline notes. At least, as far as I can tell from my cursory glance. -- sulfur 15:50, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Links to episode pages

All links to episode pages should use the eplk templates. We should not be doing things like [[The Best of Both Worlds, Part II (episode)|2366]]. One of the big points for the episode linking templates was the ability to move all episodes easily if need be. Putting in piped links like that breaks the logic behind the design. -- sulfur 15:29, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Then the {{e}} template should be changed to add an option to force some different text to appear. - Archduk 3 15:40, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

That was discussed when the template was being designed (though I cannot find the discussion for the life of me), and the feeling by all involved at the time was that hiding episode links in other text was undesired. If we are to link to an episode, we are doing it by citing it appropriately.

That's the other issue with the link noted above, specifically that the expected link is to the year, not to an episode. -- sulfur 15:50, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing more than a few bg notes that have awkward wording to facilitate the "need" to use the episode title, so this is hardly just a problem with citing opening quotes. Also, the amount of episodes linked for those quotes hardly constitute a large enough number for it to be a major problem if the episode pages get moved again, which seems very unlikely. - Archduk 3 16:00, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Under what circumstances to we add "NOTOC" to an article? -Angry Future Romulan 20:29, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

I generally add it if all the headings are "outside" of the article proper, in the appendices. - Archduk 3 20:33, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

The other reason is when the article is very disjoint with the table of contents because of the layout. Layout is a big issue, especially with the new layout that anon users see. -- sulfur 20:39, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of file

I'm not sure why you've deleted this (File:Buoy-Valiant-off.jpg) file 5 min after I've put it up. I believe having both images, of the light on top on and off, gives a good idea of that the top part is indeed a light.-- OvBacon^(Talk) 04:00, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how someone could miss the light with the image that's already here, and having two images to show something as unnecessary to the article as that light is overkill. - Archduk 3 04:46, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I guess we have a very different opinion here. I can bet you that there are many people that will miss it. I find it interesting that I find many images that are very similar and do not seem to have any distinct reason for existing here are still here, but you are willing to delete a image 5 min after upload without even asking me why I put it up. I would have preferred a little more courtesy.-- OvBacon^(Talk) 14:47, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Getting to this now since I've been busy offline.

Similar images are used for a variaty of reasons, including:

To show the process of something happening on the page about that process.
To avoid having all pages, or most pages, about a subject use the same image.
Croping a section of another image to highlight a object/person/etc.
Because a change to something is importaint to the plot or the article, and the images just happen to be similar.

Showing the difference between a light being on and a light being off in this case didn't fall under any of those, so the second image was just a duplicate. In the future though, I will make a point to list these images for deletion first, since at least you do find a purpose for them. :) - Archduk3 ^talk (on an unsecure connection) 03:26, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, just a quick question...how do you get your name to be a different colour? :3 XNERZHULx 18:13, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

By using two subpages: User:Archduk3/Sig/nature has the formatting on it, while User:Archduk3/Sig is what my signature is in the preferences menu, so I don't dump a ton of HTML coding onto every page I sign. - Archduk 3 18:20, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

AMT Kit left out of the mix...

There is a 1966 Klingon "Alien Battle Cruiser" as it says on the box that has been left out. The large box kit is numbered S952-250 and has what appears to be a planet with rings on the lower right and the box is dated 1966 Desilou Corp. The 1968 version, which has it's box on Memory-Alpa page has different wording and has only the S952 stk# and no planet with rings. Can somone verify for me. I saw this kit on Ebay for sale and it's an open bob kit and i asked the seller to give me dates he could find but all he says he found was the 1966 Desilou Corp. on the box and the stk# The ebay item # is 320681455696. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.42.103.

I'm not very familiar with the model kits, so I couldn't tell you if the '66 version is legit, or if it's just the '68 version with an early copyright. - Archduk 3 06:09, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Vulcan salute

Hey Archduk3. You added a PNA-pov to Vulcan salute, but the point of view on the page looks fine to me. Since the template refers users to the talk page, it might be a good idea to leave a note there :-) –Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 10:49, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see Sulfur fixed the problem. Regarding pna-pov more generally, I was wondering if you could have a quick glance at Memory Alpha: Pages needing attention. I did a small write-up regarding when pna-pov should be used, but seeing its brand new and you created it, I wanted to make sure I accurately reflected what kind of situations the template should cover. –Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 02:09, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

That was pretty much what I had in mind. Good thing you remembered to do it, cause I've been so busy it completely slipped my mind. Thanks. :) - Archduk 3 02:26, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Good work for creating the template and cat in the first place; it's something that we should have had years ago. I'm pretty busy myself with real life, and probably should be studying rather than debating the finer points of templates. ;-) Anyway, keep up the good work. –Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 02:39, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Double image upload

I Upload a new version of the File Neutronic storm approaching Enterprise.jpg before realizing that you had just done the same. I did not refresh the page before uploading hence the not noticing of your upload just minutes ahead of me. I apologize for that oversight.-- OvBacon^(Talk) 20:01, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

No big deal, it happens. - Archduk 3 23:39, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Errors

Greetings,

Sorry for the spelling errors on the articles (ENT: "The Catwalk" and ENT: "Future Tense") that I wrote. I didn't realize the text was so "atrocious" as you said, haha. I had some "cautions" when I was writting, I used the orthography correction from Microsoft Word and watched the episodes with english subtitles, but it seems that I wasn't able to make up for the fact that I am not native english speaker. I guess that the differences in the semantics and sytanx between english and portuguese (my native language) are too big that I can't get over them (portuguese semantics) to write in "full engilsh".

But I really did not think that was soo bad... really is it so awful? haha Do you think that I should stop to write?

As Enterprise is my favorite series I was thinking to write some episode articles that are very little, but if my english is that bad... haha

Thanks, and I apologize again.

Commodore Palma 19:45, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Bot work

Doing all of those minor changes as a bot would make things faster and far less obtrusive to those people who watch the RecentChanges you know. Please take that into consideration next time you want to make 2-300 changes in an hour or two. -- sulfur 10:42, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to let a bot finish if your willing to do the run. I need to explain the changes anyway. - Archduk 3 10:44, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Let me know, and it'll happen. -- sulfur 11:05, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Now is as good a time as any. - Archduk 3 11:20, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Split-off of Miranda class studio model

For your consideration: I think that the Template:ShipClass studio model section has become sufficiently large to warrant a split-off akin to those previously done...Kind regards--Sennim 11:20, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

SATCOM 5 cite

sorry for forgetting that, such a rookie mistake. It's indeed from Paradise Lost. -- Capricorn 07:21, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I do that at least once a month. ;) - Archduk 3 17:28, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Move section

I was wondering if it is not more proper to place the Galor class studio model section in the TNG studio model page. The model has been used to represent two classes of vessels and the format used is that in that case they are posted in the "Studio model" pages. Yet I'm a bit hesitant to propose it considering the size of the section. What's your take on this ?--Sennim 08:22, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

I say move it to the studio models page. I don't see any reason to change how we deal with models that get reused. - Archduk 3 17:28, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Memo update

Thanks for updating the memo, I put a note in the summary but for some reason it didn't take. — Morder (talk) 02:36, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It wouldn't surprise me that there are still issues with the uploads. - Archduk 3 04:07, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Just a small thing...

But I would recommend against blocking anyone with whom you are having trouble with. Always have another admin do it otherwise it looks bad. Also, you should have probably warned him and left a message on his talk page first. :) For the record your move was correct - the article contains a lot more information than that which pertains to the conflicts with the Federation... — Morder (talk) 06:15, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct, but the zero tolerance part doesn't require a warning as I see it, since this is a cooling off period only, and I wasn't sure if anyone else was online. I'll block myself for the same period if it helps. ;) You should also read the TrekBBS forum, since the rational for his move wasn't even what he claimed, and he all but admits to trolling us anyway. - Archduk 3 06:43, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with your decision and I think you kept your dignity very well. I do believe it might have been better if another admin had preformed the actual block of DeSoto (it might just throw more oil on his fire). But I wanted to let you know that you have my support. -- OvBacon^(Talk) 17:45, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

'a' not 'e' :) -- sulfur 00:38, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Blarg! It's been a long day. ;) - Archduk 3 00:40, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...

Sorry for for all the ?##%% load of work I've caused in stirring up the MSD stuff--Sennim 04:11, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I most likely wouldn't have gotten around to standardizing the image names if you hadn't, and that was a pet project of mine anyway. - Archduk 3 04:19, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

I again feel the need to apologize for the extra work I've caused you with the VCD stuff. I'd wished I'd could have done it right in the first go. Thanks by the way for being so close on my case, the blu-ray nav template was something I was really looking for...Methinks between the two of us we pretty much updated the DVD/Blu-ray sections quite nicely...On a side note I'm pretty much impressed with what you've done with the LaserDisc sections. I used to be one of the collectors and I was preparing myself to do some editing on that, yet you beat me to the punch and did a marvelous job too boot, KUDOS!!!. On a second sidenote, how did you get rid of the background of this File:TOS - The Collector's Edition.png? Esthetically, it is extremely pleasing, and I have several instances were it could be applied...Kind regards--Sennim 18:35, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I would have hit this format back when I did the other if I knew it existed. I've found info on several more VCD releases, but "official" info is hard to come by, like the product numbers, release dates, etc. If you have any more info on the Laserdiscs, it would be appreciated. I don't even want to talk about some of the places I had to go to get those Voyager covers. As for cropping out the background on images, I tend to use this when I'm not on my computer with photoshop. It works pretty well, but I would check to make sure it looks good on a #222222 background before saving, since getting that to look good is harder then you might think. It helps if the file you started with was of a better quality then the converted gif used in the VCD logo. - Archduk 3 18:50, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, bro...I'll be sure to look into that! I've to admit, I admire your guts to look into the other "region" VCDs. One of the reasons the format didn't take hold in the US and Europe was that there were no copyrights protections embedded on the discs (region coding and such). I choose to leave that out of the main text because it could have been construed as being contentious. But we all know piracy or bootlegging is a big problem over there (for which the format lends itself perfectly), making it so much more problematic to distinguish between "official" and "non-official"" releases...And as far as the Laserdiscs are concerned, you've covered pretty much I knew (I abandoned the format at the beginning of VOY)--Sennim 19:12, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Most reputable sites will list the distributor information, and images will contain copyright info if you're lucky, so I try to go by that. I've found plenty of VCDs from Deltamac in Hong Kong, but it's very hard to find any info about them from a reputable third party source, so I haven't add that stuff yet. - Archduk 3 19:29, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Again, nothing but my admiration, sincerely...but your entry Star Trek: First Contact (VCD), might this not have been a South-American edition? Again, this is meant to enlighten the problems that exist with this format.--Sennim 19:47, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

It could be. The quote on the back was from a newspaper in Spain, so I went with that. Hopefully some more information will fall out of the Google egg if I keep hitting it. - Archduk 3 00:43, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm of a generation which actually had to physically go to a library...Google {or rather Wikipedia} rocks !!!--Sennim 02:04, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

asking permission

is it ok to rename a page?

Efas45 17:38, June 29, 2011 (UTC)efas45Efas45 17:38, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Depends what page and why. -- sulfur 18:16, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

New wiki

come check out http://startrekroleplay.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_Role_Play_Wiki --Efas45 16:10, June 30, 2011 (UTC)efas45--Efas45 16:10, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Request

I was wondering if you would be willing to offer your opinion(regardless of what it is) on this discussion?--31dot 21:46, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

stuff added

i added some pics of a defiant class brig i have 5 immages im not sure which one you guys want you can keep which one you want and delete the others also i have found a window in the defiant class ready room not sure which i will add it too so again its up to you guys. glad i could help. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trekguy1 (talk • contribs).

I would suggest uploading them all to the same file name, we can just choose which one is the best then. This can be done by clicking the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the image description page. - Archduk 3 23:17, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Archduk3, when I want to do some more extensive editing of a page, should I put in the "{{inuse}}" message template? (its on a very low traffic page). -- OvBacon^(Talk) 01:09, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Not to step on Archduk's toes, but it is largely up to you- it is meant to deter others from editing the page while you are working on it, but if you don't think that will happen, I could understand not using it. If it was me, I might just in case- but if you don't use it, it is not a problem. :) --31dot 01:20, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 31dot. -- OvBacon^(Talk) 01:26, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much what 31dot said. I would still mention in the summary that the page is in use if you plan on making more then one edit, if only to stop someone like me or sulfur from making a minor format change between your edits. - Archduk 3 04:09, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. Is it ok if the "{{inuse}}" is on the page for a day? -- OvBacon^(Talk) 14:58, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

As long as you remember to remove it when you're done, there shouldn't be a problem. - Archduk 3 18:48, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Menage a Troi

Do you have any problems viewing the "Ménage à Troi" page? When I try to view it a blank white page comes up. That page seems to be the only one I can't view.--31dot 20:53, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

When logged in as myself, I can view it, but I get an error when trying to edit it, and a permission error when trying to roll it back (due to nitpick and poor linking). Using this account says the main datacenter is down when I try to edit the page, or it doesn't load at all, which is what you're seeing. I figure there's something wrong with the server my area uses, since there seem to be edits still happening. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 21:14, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

But it seems I can edit this page. - Archduk 3 21:16, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be OK for me now. Some temporary glitch maybe.--31dot 22:10, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Works fine for me. --Defiant 22:21, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like it was just another bug in the system. - Archduk 3 22:23, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Re:Canon

Sorry, I didn't know, I don't know much about this wikis policies, since I don't really visit often, mostly because I have Administrator and Bureaucrate duties on other wikis. --AnyGuy 06:07, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

No big deal, it happens. In the future though, it's never a good idea to just keep reverting an edit without explanation, for any reason. If there's a dispute over the content, it should either be brought up on the article's talk page before any further changes are made; or in this case, on the user's talk page because it involved a policy issue. - Archduk 3 06:14, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'll do that. --AnyGuy 06:25, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Re:Images

Good grief, there is a lot of stuff that goes wrong here that I don't know about. And I only added the photo because I don't like seeing unused photos. --24.131.70.47 04:09, July 15, 2011 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in. --AnyGuy 04:11, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Input requested

Would you be willing to give your input here? -- OvBacon^(Talk) 20:34, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Bond

The anon user who posted the long, flaming post has now removed it. I didn't restore it since it didn't have to do with changing the article; but I didn't know if you wanted to restore it since you responded to it. I put a placeholder note on the page where the comment was for now.--31dot 09:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I restored it since apparently there was a point, though I'm not sure what it was suppose to be. I wouldn't be opposed to dumping it all on the anon's talk page so Google doesn't associate it with Chelsea Bond, but we should try to stick to the "don't delete talk page posts" rule if we can. - Archduk 3 18:47, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Boy satyr

Thanks a lot for so quickly uploading File:Boy satyr.jpg. --Defiant 09:31, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

It was easy enough, the image was on Trekcore, and I was already on the site. - Archduk 3 09:35, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

That was convenient! :) Thanks. --Defiant 09:56, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Captain Sam

leave my images alone!

You may only be capable of repasting crap you find on the internet that every body in the world has already seen but some of us are capable of alot more. Dont be jealous get a life and leave others alone – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Sam (talk • contribs).

Marking alternaty reality bits

You've undone my edits concerning Star Trek's alternate reality. I think we should refrain from using alternate reality/alternate timeline images as title images for any year (especially if there is an alternative from the "primary timeline"). They should rather be moved to their respective section... With regard to putting an "(alternate reality)" remark behind the film I have to concur, this is truly unnecessary. --36ophiuchi 14:07, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

There is no distinction between realities for the title image, as you put it, since that's there to help a reader easily identify the year. In the case of the 2233, '55, and '58, the most identifiable events are from the alternate reality, so they are used as the title image. All the timeline pages have POV problems, so there's no need to make the page less informative, not to mention break the page format, simply to quarantine alternate reality info. Also, never use "Image:" instead of "File:", as the former is broken and causes errors. - Archduk 3 14:15, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

That's true, nevertheless, we should prefer imagery connected to the primary timeline. After all, Star Trek 11 is openly depicted to be an "alternate" timeline, clearly different from the "main" universe ;) I know, this is a tricky discussion... I see your point when there is no fitting image available other than one from Star Trek 11, but otherwise we should put priority on pictures referring to the "prime time" :p --36ophiuchi 14:45, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, since currently there are only a handful of dates covered in the alternate reality, I don't think there's any reason to choose one over the other right now, since there simply isn't that much overlap. If that changes in the next film, we'll have to update the timeline anyway, and it could be dealt with then. - Archduk 3 14:55, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we're only talking about 2233/2240s/2255/2258/2387. 2255 seems to be the only year, where there would be an appropriate image referring to the primary timeline... By the way, perhaps you would be willing to assist me in assembling a major event-section for "24th century". So far, I've created them for the other century-articles in order to better separate between events without any exact year specification and a summary of decisive occurrences (which got mixed up in some cases). I'm also thinking about whether to put such event lists on the decades-articles as well. On a few pages this has already been done, so it would be matter of standardizing things...--36ophiuchi 15:08, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with major events sections in the decade articles, as only the ones where there was a series have enough information to create those sections without downright copying information from a year article. Also, maintain your indent on talk page, per Help:Talk pages. - Archduk 3 15:50, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

The circumstance of information being covered on various other articles does not negate the sensibility of having it displayed in a re-focused, re-organised manner. All the history-pages (e.g. Federation history) are doing exactly the same thing. Concerning the century-articles we should ask ourselves if they sould contain a section listing their main events, not whether this info might already be mentioned other articles. --36ophiuchi 19:00, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

If this continues to be a discussion about content, not about personal actions and reactions, I suggest to move this to a more public place. -- Cid Highwind 19:35, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --> Forum:Major events-section on centuries&decades-articles --36ophiuchi 20:38, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Raven-image on 2353

Hey there again ;) So, if that's disputed, why is the remark on the Raven left as a normal event, and not moved to "Notes"?^^ I mean, after all, you've managed to remove the picture :p --36ophiuchi 09:37, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Missed that, it shouldn't be. - Archduk 3 16:28, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user

The anon you blocked seems to be using IP addresses in the pattern of 92.11.X.X and have made that type of edit a few times on a few different pages. I'm fairly sure they are attempting to remove the names of actors who don't appear in an episode, not realizing that the credits are lifted from the episode(and thus are the same regardless of actual appearances) I'd hate to do a range block on them, but I've told them twice what they are doing is not correct and gotten no response. Just thought I'd fill you in on what I know.--31dot 21:07, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I also don't want to do a range block, but I doubt all, or even any of the edits are in good faith after the removal of LeVar Burton from First Contact. That's clearly vandalism, and I don't see a reason to treat it as anything but unless we get a response. - Archduk 3 21:18, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I agree(and missed the First Contact edit you speak of). I guess we'll have to see what happens.--31dot 01:34, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

ISS Avenger fighting rebels picture

I want the picture for the article "Terran Empire rebellion" which doesn't yet have a picture. - Mitchz95 21:53, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

There is no good image of that, see here, and we have shots of the Defiant fighting the rebels that will work. - Archduk 3 23:05, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

I found one that will work (http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4x19/inamirrordarkly2_459.jpg) but I can't upload it for some reason. Could you please do so for me, or tell me someone else who can? - Mitchz95 00:41, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

File:Andorian battle cruiser damaged.jpg
File:Andorian battle cruiser destroyed.jpg
File:D'Kyr type, forward particle beam.jpg
File:ISS Avenger explodes.jpg
File:ISS Avenger.jpg
File:ISS Enterprise and Warp Deltas.jpg
File:Tellarite cruiser, mirror universe.jpg
File:Vulcan cruiser destroyed by Defiant.jpg

Before uploading that image, can you tell me why none of these will work. - Archduk 3 00:50, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed one of those. - Mitchz95 01:13, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

USS Melbourne

The ship I saw was clearly a Nebula-class (without a recognizable label). The Melbourne is an Excelsior-class starship. I do not understand your objection. I just do not understand the objection in the article. This can never be the same spaceship. Where is my misconception? --87.171.152.170 17:56, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

The background section of the Melbourne article covers that ship, with the reasoning on the talk page and in the archive. For the record, it isn't my objection, it's the community consensus. - Archduk 3 18:10, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Your community says elsewhere in Nebula class that the Wreck is later nameless. And thus no longer the USS Melbourne. Somehow confusing. --87.171.152.170 18:18, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Since this conversation is already elsewhere, we should stop here. That said, yes, it is confusing. - Archduk 3 18:23, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I understand. From my side everything is actually said. I'm not a Star Trek freak anyway but only occasional viewers. I just wanted to add a missing fact. That it now might be a major discussion was not intended. I think it's still nice that my change was helpful to you. --87.171.152.170 18:47, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Memory Alpha is for everyone, not just the über nerd. If a casual viewer can't come here and find what they want within reason, then we have a problem that needs fixing. We'll see how this round shakes out. - Archduk 3 18:59, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Abusing administrative privileges

It was quite bold of you to be blocking me for alleged personal attack after my most recent quite harmless comment when your comments and responses towards me lately have been nothing but condescending and insulting. Speak of the pot calling the kettle black. As an administrator you should also know that in cases where you are personally involved in any way or the subject of controversy etc, it is very inappropriate of you to be imposing the block. In fact, you were told once - in case of locking a page - that if you are involved in the edit controversy with another user, you should not also be the one locking the page, but let another admin do so.

As to this recent block, there was no personal attack or real insult in my recent post really, but even so, you have certainly no right to be pointing the finger at me regarding bad attitude and personal attacks when just a couple of weeks ago your response to my simple and polite question on Ten Forward was "I'm sure anyone can be excused for assuming that DC can't click a link."And not only that, in another incident your remark to my comment was that This soapbox "proletariat vs oligarchy" bull isn't going to get you anywhere". These are just two that come to mind but there are more examples of similar condescending and rude behavior on your part that clearly constitutes personal attack.

If you recall, when you unjustly blocked user 1312 a few months ago, and ignored my requests for proper documentation justifying the block, I told you that next time I would pursue the matter. So I went ahead and reported you to Wikia - if that means anything around here anymore - and they are aware of you now. You appear to be considering blocking people as an enjoyably duty of administration and do not appear to comprehend that, per MA policy on blocks, you are to only block someone to prevent further harmful edits to MA and not as a tool for punishment - which the recent block against me clearly was just as the block against 1312 and who knows how many other folks. When you blocked 1312 for his tone of voice and etiquette, I explained to you that you cannot block someone for cynicism in their tone or for lacking etiquette. Your responses were belittling and insulting - as they always are towards me (and yes, implying that someone suffers from a mental retardation that prevents them from clicking on a link is an insult and personal).

I guess I could take this to the other admins here on MA, but they are the same ones that turned a blind eye to 1312's unjust block and i doubt we'd get anything fruitful here. You are certainly lucky to be operating within a framework where people without administrative privileges simply have no recourse for your abuse of your admin privileges. Anyway Wikia has been made aware and whatever else they wanna do and for the future I recommend you be very careful how you respond to my comments on talk pages and refrain from making threats left and right (something else you enjoy doing: threatening people). It is clear that your beef is with me personally as well - in which case I dont expect objectivity on your part (although on the part of other admins, but that's another story). Have a good day. Distantlycharmed 22:13, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

DC, here's "proper documentation" for your block: You clearly made a personal attack by calling Archduk a "genius" while criticizing his rationale for an edit, which, since you agreed with the end result of the edit, was an unnecessary comment and only served to attack him. --31dot 22:31, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

One can also certainly block someone for cynicism and tone if the cynicism and tone is disruptive, repetitive, and directed at other users. The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter of the rules. Additionally, Archduk is hardly the only one who has issues with your posting, as Sulfur said on one occasion(which is in a conversation you cite above)--31dot 22:34, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

And who blocks Archduke when HE makes condescending and insulting remarks like the one stated above? Or when HE during a personal dispute with someone goes ahead and blocks them instead of waiting for another admin to do so? Instead of addressing any of these issues you dance around them by repeating what was already stated. I can see that clearly you missed the whole point of my comment or maybe you are just deliberately ignoring it. When Duke comes in and responds to my question on Ten Forward with "oh just assume she can'y click on links" nothing happens to him and on one criticizes him, but when i say something far less obvious, I get a block? Are you kidding me? This is complete abuse of admin privileges and I find it very insincere of you to be pretending it wasnt and actually defending it too. Distantlycharmed 23:25, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying you can't get as good as you give? That doesn't seem fair. I frankly have little interest in debating this with you since I find it highly unlikely it would accomplish anything, as you wish to discuss other people's conduct more than your own.--31dot 00:04, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Please put your straw man arguments away and either stay with it or just refrain from responding as you suggested. My point here was the hypocrisy on side of this admin. Even if I am the worst person on Earth, this doesnt give Duke the right to behave badly himself, then berate me for it and then resort to abuse of his admin rights by blocking me. It is like he the prosecutor and judge at the same time. If you want to point the finger at someone, start by treating everyone equally and demanding the same kind of behavior of everyone instead of chastising one person for something while turning a blind eye to the inappropriate behavior of another person. I wasnt the one blocking someone else for something I have done in the plenty. Distantlycharmed 02:28, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

So, to cut through all the soapboxing there, wikia has your back now and I should make sure not to piss you off. Good luck with that. Let me just reiterate that from now on you will be block to protect the MA community from you if you wish to continue posting personal attacks on members. You've been doing this far longer then we should have let you, and there will be no further warnings. - Archduk 3 16:51, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty laughable, Archduk, considering that you're the one who's doing the personal attacking here. Care to give any examples of what you mean, re: DC's "personal attacks," or are you just going to leave that up in the air as an open-ended threat? --Defiant 17:19, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to link to the better part of a year's worth of her talk page posts, you can just check her contributions. I also suggest that if you have a problem with how this has been handled, you talk to another active admin. - Archduk 3 17:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection (and I have occasionally been encountering contributions from DC), I've been thoroughly impressed by her edits, so I'm certainly not sure what you're talking about, Archduk. It would help if you were able to cite at least one example of what you mean by her "personal attacks," though you evidently haven't done so. I'm frankly getting a bit sick fed up of admins trying to run this site on fear-mongering, and the disreputable behavior of the admins here in general was a big part of why I'm no longer one. Please don't give in to the bullying, DC. --Defiant 17:57, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I actually find you're insistance that I need link to an example "laughable" Defiant, since DC herself has already linked to some in her examples about my bad behavior. Considering that, I can only assume that you have better things to do with your time then check her talk page contributions for the others, and I know I have better things to do with mine than do the work for you. For the record though, this isn't about any single instance, like the ones you can find for every user who has been here long enough, including you, or even a handful for that matter; this is about a pattern of behavior that has made nearly every talk page she has contributed to for awhile now a hostle place for everyone. She will be blocked again to protect this community if she continues. You can call that a threat if you want, but it is what will happen. Once again, if you wish to make an issue of my handling of this, I suggest contacting another active admin, since I consider the issue self explanitory with the information I've suggested be viewed, as well as closed. - Archduk 3 20:37, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Archduke, you have been abusing your admin privileges and it is pretty clear based on the evidence cited as well as you conveniently ignoring of all my points referenced above (such as instilling the block when you are personally involved and your own list of MA violations in the personal attack department). So any denial on your part is insincere and frankly quite laughable. In any court of law you would lose. I have done nothing to threaten the community or disrupt it and I rarely throw the first punch. Do I get involved in heated debates on MA over editing? Of course. We all do. Look at a lot of the talk pages. But none of it is a violation of the rules and i have never called anyone names or implied mental retardation on their part preventing them from clicking on links, as you did. I could certainly take criticism from someone like Cleanse who doesnt himself regularly engage in questionable behavior, but you just lose credibility with all your insults left and right and then suddenly getting on the high horse to enforce rules when it is convenient for you personally. The fact that you insist that you did nothing wrong and threaten (which is against MA policy) is precisely what constitutes the abuse of your admin privileges. Thank you for proving my point. Like the question I asked on Ten Forward. There was no reason for you to interject and say something like that other than with the intention of personally insulting. Period. Why are you even denying that? That just makes you lose even more credibility. And then you have the nerve to come here and defend your behavior by citing that *I* threaten the community. The community needs to be protected from abusive admins who lack objectivity and apply a different set of standards to themselves and then to others they don't personally like. Anyway, the folks in wikia are aware of you and any more infractions, violations, abuse and insults will continue making them aware of you. A lot of people on MA share my view as I have been recently been made aware of; they are just too polite to tell you. Or maybe your intimidation tactics worked on them - which in turn would prove Defiant's point. Distantlycharmed 15:45, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Archduk3 has not abused admin privileges. It is true that, as a general rule of thumb, we ask admins to not use their powers in a situation that involves themselves. In case they do anyway, though, please note that any admin action is silently reviewed by a number of other admins, including myself, and that these admins would step in if there was any gross misconduct. Apparently, none of the active admins considered this to be necessary here. I recognize that you've already covered that base by implying that any admin who doesn't step in is "in bed with the enemy" so to speak, but this GWB-like argument is quite nonsensical. Anyone who follows some of the discussions we have should know that "the admins" aren't all BFFs. Last but not least, Wikia is not some sort of cavalry that comes riding into town to demote admins left and right at the first opportunity - not without checking back with the remaining admins first, and surely not because of a deserved short-term block. So far, I know of no admin that has been contacted by Wikia because of this situation.

Speaking of the block - you did deserve that, in my opinion. Not for just the comment in question alone (and I'm sure Archduk3 wouldn't have blocked any first-time offender for that), but for your general attitude. Just like Archduk3 stated, you've been acting in a way that can be viewed as borderline trolling for more than a year now - either because you are trolling and trying to get away with as much disruptive behavior as possible, or because you just don't know better. This time, it was a comment where you apparently even agreed with some action, yet you still considered it necessary to make some noise about it and resort to name-calling. Last time, it was asking for something that was in plain view, and crying wolf when someone notified you of the fact that the answer was right there. Countless times, it has been some claim about one or another admin, or otherwise active user, having a hidden agenda against you. Please review your behavior, and perhaps consider focusing on content edits more than on talk pages about site policy. Unless your behavior changes, I'm really not inclined to consider any further admin action against you to be "unfair". -- Cid Highwind 18:40, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

That's very one-sided, Cid. I hope you realize how biased you're being; it's not very becoming of an admin. --Defiant 00:02, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason I've decided against taking Archduk's advice of contacting another admin about this clearly unfair treatment; it's quite evident that the majority of admins have decided to gang up on DC. --Defiant 00:08, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. What would be our motive in "ganging up on DC"? I don't know her from a hole in the wall- if she had not engaged in name-calling and had a poor attitude, I would have no problems with her whatsoever. It's not "biased" or "one-sided" for Cid as an uninvolved party to state his opinion based on what he sees.--31dot 01:40, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Apparently, one is "biased and one-sided" unless one shares exactly DCs point of view in this debate - no other opinion allowed. If that's the case, there's even less need to further this discussion: the above will be my final word in this current DC./.AD debate. If you want to discuss a perceived general problem of admins vs. users, please do not misuse this user talk page but start a new discussion elsewhere. If you do, please be honest about your own behavior and role in those matters - for example, taking the high road now and claiming here that "disreputable behavior of admins in general" was the main reason for stepping down from admin, after claiming something completely different when requesting to be "de-admined" and later is dishonest and laughable. -- Cid Highwind 11:08, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you actually looked through the history of my user page, you'd find this edit, which explains my actual motivations; in all honesty, the only reason it was removed was it's a user page, therefore it's not very relevant to the topic at hand to speak exclusively about other admins. Just as 31dot claims of Cid, I also am simply an uninvolved party stating my opinion on what I see. It's little wonder that your attacks have shifted to me though, seeing as this place is essentially run like a dictatorship! It's highly contradictory, 31dot, to allege you're entirely unfamiliar with DC but then to go on and criticize her "namecalling and [...] poor attitude," as though you do know her. As for the suggestion that I'm only favoring DC's perspective, Cid, that's actually nonsense – all I meant was that, as an "uninvolved" third party, don't you think you could take both sides of the debate a bit more, taking more of a balanced perspective? It's what I'd encourage. --Defiant 11:24, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's very noteworthy that, still, not one of you who apparently have such a problem with DC's edits have cited even one such example of where you believe she has been derelict. --Defiant 11:27, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I never said I was "unfamiliar" with DC. I said that I don't know her "from a hole in the wall" (i.e. personally) and as such I have no motive to have any personal agenda against her. I still haven't heard what our motive is in "ganging up" on her if not for bad behavior.

DC actually did most of the work in posting her edits already. Additionally, she was blocked for her "genius" comment specifically in addition to her general poor attitude. It's already been suggested that you simply review her contributions list; most of her posts have been in such a manner. "Balanced perspective" also seems to be code for "agree with DC".--31dot 11:40, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm advising; it just seems to me that we could be saying more stuff like "you could do this [such and such] to improve your edits" or actually praise her contributions, while also saying "this could be better" or whatever. This method could be used on both sides, with such balanced advise issued to both Archduk and DC (for example). Apologies if that's already happened, but from what can be seen exclusively on this talk page, it seems like there's quite a bit of bullying going on, possibly just due to the lack of evidence of DC's offensiveness. I frankly don't have the time to rake through all DC's past edits; if I did, I'd probably use it to review all the policies and guidelines that seem to be updated almost daily! I wasn't familiar with the "hole in the wall" phrase, so thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm not sure what you mean by the "genius" comment, but calling someone a genius shouldn't necessarily be seen as offensive or a personal attack; that seems a bit ridiculous. :) --Defiant 12:27, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Apology excepted Defiant, since that is exactly how I started with DC, though you wouldn't know it if you just listen to her without checking the record. That has been the whole point now for awhile, so I'm going to have to ask that you stop, since you clearly are not up to speed with this matter, and as both of us have said, you have better things to do anyway. I would also ask that in the future you actually check the record if asked to if commenting on something you are unfamiliar about, since this time around has been nothing but a waste of all our time. - Archduk 3 12:45, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read my post from September 10th above, which refers to this edit. As DC agreed with the end result of the edit discussed in that section, her comment was unnecessary and only meant to be offensive. This will be my last comment on this matter.--31dot 12:47, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having now reviewed some of DC's past contributions, I can see that she's been veering very close to being personally insulting. So, apologies for my ignorance. DC, it's good that you feel strongly about a variety of subjects, but please try to stay on-topic and not be offensive; simply put, it's not productive and just wastes time. Plus, you don't like others being insulting to you, so try to imagine how they would feel. --Defiant 12:52, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I still think an outright ban was a little bit too harsh though, guys; I believe we should all keep in mind why we're here – because we're united in our enjoyment of Star Trek. --Defiant 13:10, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe this level of hypocrisy here. Archduk3 has been using insulting, condescending language against me OVER AND OVER AGAIN - completely unprovoked - as I cited above, such as the Ten Forward comment, and 31dot and Cid conveniently ignore that part and state that it is ok for him to block me on the "genius" comment and just summarily as "payback" regarding everything else you guys dont like about me - even though none of it constitutes violation of MA policy. And yes, it is personal dislike. You cannot even acknowledge that Duke acted out of line; you just keep defending his bad behavior because he is your buddy. Wikia acknowledged that his behavior was aggressive quite frankly warranting a block if it continues. For you guys to even pretend there is any objectivity here is a flat out lie and as Defiant said, this place is run like a dictatorship. 31dot keeps stating I shouldnt have made the "genius" comment because I was already agreeing with the conclusion, but Duke can make a comment stating "I cannot click on things" or that my response is "bull" without any reason or provocation other than wanting to make a point and thus disrupt the community, and it is ok?? Wow. Plus, an admin personally involved in any kind of "controversy" shouldnt impose the ban. This was a personal vendetta and payback for all the previous heated debates we had, compounded by the fact that Ducke was sore I was right about the Female Changeling and that the removal of said post wasnt nitpick but something else. You guys just keep deliberately missing the point and condone a person abusing their admin privileges to essentially get back at people. As predicted in my initial post, going to other admins would have been a complete waste of time, as this entire display above has been: nothing but denials of facts, straw man arguments and bias. You guys are obviously not interested in resolving anything in good faith and creating a community conducive to editing, you just want to be right, as evidenced by this discussion and generally how you treat most people coming here to MA. Distantlycharmed 16:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

The only response that I have is that the above comment is utterly absurd. We would all do well to follow Defiant's last bit of advice.--31dot 16:32, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I personally agree with DC's latest post and think you owe her an honest apology, Archduk. On the other hand, you were also well out of order to sarcastically and cheekily remark "genius," DC, and I don't think any more of this should be made of it than need be. Having said that, I'm not a fan of how 31dot just dismissed the post as "absolutely absurd," either, as it's quiet disrespectful. I'd encourage everyone involved to try to find some middle ground. --Defiant 16:41, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Oh of course 31dot - because you cannot rationally and coherently debate the issue and back up the bias, hypocrisy and double standards, it just must be that it is absurd. Can't argue it, dismiss it. uh-huh. I think you should take a bit of your own advise and try ot actually hear what Defiant said in his last bit of advise instead of just paying lip service to it. @ Defiant: that is exactly my point. Disrespect is quite rampant around here and condoned, as long as it comes from admins who have the power to block people they dont like. When I said there is no good faith attempt to resolve the issue, I was right on and 31dot just made my case. Distantlycharmed 16:48, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I dismissed it as absurd because(among other reasons) it is absurd to suggest that anyone involved has some sort of personal grudge against you because of a one-line comment on one talk page and a few heated exchanges. I(or anyone) don't know you personally, why would I have a grudge against you because of a Star Trek site? Does that really make sense to you? I have no grudge against you, and if you clean up your act you will have no problems from me. Even if you are right that others have disrespected you, (which I think you greatly exaggerate) bad behavior does not justify bad behavior on your part. As for "good faith attempt to resolve the issue", I'm not sure what there is to resolve. Just don't make personal attacks- that is primarily why you were blocked.--31dot 16:54, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I really, genuinely hate to have to repeat myself, trust me I REALLY DO, but THAT WAS NOT THE POINT. For the last time, the point was that Duke is engaging and has been engaging in personal attacks himself and THAT is why the block was unwarranted, hypocritical and an abuse of his administrative privileges - like being the judge and prosecutor at once. Do you understand that? Does that resonate with you? Would you like to care to repeat what I just said so I know you got it and it isnt just words bouncing off of you? Becasue somehow only my alleged bad behavior is on trial here, but Duke is getting carte blanche because he is your buddy and an admin. And you are biased against me. You dont have ot have met someone personally to dislike them. Are you kidding me? Everyone can smell that from miles away, that is why you dismissed MY ENTIRE POINT as opposed ot just the part about me saying you are biased. Urgh I am getting tired of this. It is like nothing sticks here - like teflon. Anyway I said what I came to say. Have a peaceful day. Distantlycharmed 17:20, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Just like I have no grudge against you because I don't know you, I am not anyone's buddy just because I agree with them, because I don't know them personally. Since you seem to know how I feel and what I think without me saying anything(and despite me saying what I think and how I feel), I guess I don't need to say any more. I stand by my comments and will move on.--31dot 17:41, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

DNFTT. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 02:21, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

You've just committed yet another personal attack, Archduk, which I'm sure all the other admins will again brush under the carpet! --Defiant 07:13, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read this entire discussion, but I wanted to get my comment down here before I finish. I agree with Defiant and support DC in this matter. I do not believe she has done anything wrong. All she has done is respond to the comments and behavior of Archduk3. Now I'm not saying any of the responses she has given are particularly right, but I can damn well understand her. Archduk3 seems to be personally involved in this matter and I do think he has something against DC. She should be unblocked immediately in my opinion. I'll probably post again once I have read the second half of this wall of text. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 12:25, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Having now read the entire thing, my comments remain. I also think you are well out of order to accuse DC of "trolling." She anything but a troll. She contributes to articles in a positive way and I feel that if you were to speak to her on polite terms she would respond politely. But as it is, you always seem to want to cause her disruption so that DC will respond in argument. While this may be something DC should work on, I completely understand her point of view and I think you are trying to "trap" her into making these comments so you can block her using your almighty admin powers. Oh, wait! Was that too personal? Damn, I might get blocked... --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 12:36, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't bother checking the block log either - or you would have seen that there is no current block against DC, because it had a length of one day. Next time, please stay out of discussions that you haven't read completely - and don't run to uninvolved admins for things that turn out to not even be true. It would save all of us some time. Thanks. (Also, I think it is time to move this away from ADs user page to some forum page - AD, do you want to do that, or should I?) -- Cid Highwind 12:39, September 14, 2011 (UTC)