Memory Alpha


Back to page | < User talk:Defiant

40,550pages on
this wiki

Spoiler Policy Edit

Please do not add spoilers for upcoming episodes to articles, or create articles containing the same. Memory Alpha has a strict spoiler policy. Creating and adding to episode pages prior to transmission is acceptable, but data from the episodes cannot be included in articles until that episode has aired. This is why your article on Emory Erickson has had to be deleted. Thank you. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:57, Nov 27, 2004 (CET)

¡Babel One! Edit

¡Great work! --Ŭalabio 02:37, 6 Feb 2005 (CET)

Thank you, Ŭalabio! --Defiant | Talk 01:46, 6 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Hello Edit

You're making fantastic contributions with you episode summaries here on MA. Keep up the work... --Toddas 14:57, 2 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Thank you, Toddas! --Defiant | Talk 15:01, 2 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Edit war Edit

Am i to take it you have a problem with series articles being updated? Try talking to me rather than reverting an edit i made over again. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:44, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

Defiant, I'm getting a little annoyed -- putting links in subsection headers is something that is discouraged by our editing policy.. just because you have a problem with some of the edits I've made to that article, you absolutely cannot keep editting it back and forth between our two revisions! this is really wasteful of resources, and the edit i made to remove links is a policy enforcement, not a style choice -- its so tiresome to do it over and over again!
When you called for a consensus for whether the style of the article should be changed, it would have been much more appropriate to stop editing the article in dispute -- you've removed changes i made that aren't up for discussion! -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:53, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Please see Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation. --Defiant | Talk 14:42, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Good work Edit

Good work on the Babel Crisis article. It's excellent -- Rebelstrike2005 12:38, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Thank you, Rebelstrike! --Defiant | Talk 12:42, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Checking articles Edit

Could you check my Liam Bilby article for me? Its been a while since I saw that episode and all the information may not be correct. --Rebelstrike2005 17:41, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

Sorry, I'm not familar with that episode! --Defiant | Talk 17:44, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

ENT: "Affliction" has been made Featured! Edit

Well done on another great Featured episode! zsingaya 09:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, zsingaya! --Defiant | Talk 10:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well done from me as well. -- Rebelstrike2005 19:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Rebelstrike2005! --Defiant | Talk 21:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you a contributor yet? Edit

It seems ages since I added my support. -- rebelstrike 20:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think the bureaucrats have been around here recently. --Defiant | Talk 20:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Is it seven days like the featured articles? -- rebelstrike 20:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
The correct term is Administrator. A quote taken from the Policies & Guidelines section of the site:
"If, after a period of no less than seven days, there is unanimous agreement in support of the nomination, then the nomination is accepted and a bureaucrat will grant the member administrator privileges. If no consensus is achieved within fourteen days, then the nomination is rejected."
--Defiant | Talk 20:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know that you haven't been forgotten: I already contacted Harry and Dan yesterday to make them aware of your successful nomination. I don't know how soon they will be able to react, but there shouldn't be any problems... -- Cid Highwind 20:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

DVD pageEdit

Hi, I wrote a note for you on the DVD talk page ages ago, so I thought I'd write to you here instead! I've got a good picture of the 10-DVD movie box set. Also, there's a set with only 9 DVDs, and a separate cover for Nemesis. Are you aware there are also different cover designs for the region 1 box sets of the episodes? I've got examples of them too, if you want them uploaded. Just give me the word! zsingaya 09:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I was just looking for advice! I didn't mean to offend you!?! Anyhoo... I've uploaded the image. zsingaya 12:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Defiant. I just granted you administrator privileges after the successful nomination on Memory Alpha:Nominations for administratorship. Congratulations, and don't hesitate to ask if you have any question regarding your new tasks and rights... ;) -- Cid Highwind 16:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek Insurrection Special Edition DVD Menu'sEdit

They're not as good as the previous DVD menu's are they? -- Rebel Strike 13:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought they were better and more colorful! --Defiant | Talk 13:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but Generations and First Contact have great images of the various starships. -- Rebel Strike 13:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Enterprise DVDsEdit

I take it by all the articles on ENT Season 1, you have got the ENT Season 1 DVD. What are the special features like? Do they provide any good info on the first season? -- Rebel Strike 13:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have every Star Trek DVD that has been released on Region 2, including the box sets. If you want a better description of the ENT Season 1 DVD than what is available in the article, maybe you should think about gaining access to it or even buying it. --Defiant | Talk 13:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DVD categoryEdit

Has it been agreed on? -- Rebel Strike 23:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • I see it has. Disregard. -- Rebel Strike 23:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shran PicEdit

Just wanted to say thanks for the pic. I appreciate it. :) --Shran 01:00, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Hello Defiant. May I assume that you have the ENT Season 1 DVD? If so, would it be possible for you to get a picture of Krem, the Ferengi played by Jeffrey Combs in "Acquisition"? Tough Little Ship 10:07, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the picture! Tough Little Ship 11:19, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it really makes the Jeffrey Combs page complete! Now, all we need to decide is which one of Weyoun and Shran was is main character? zsingaya 19:21, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Image descriptionsEdit

I noticed that File:Patricia F OMalley.jpg has no description -- could you please make sure to tag any images you upload with a description that contains :

  1. a copyright tag such as {{image paramount}}
  2. at least one link to an episode as a citation for the image's source

Thanks a lot. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:06, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

No problem -- just trying to emphasize the policy as there were several other newer users on who needed a demonstration in using summaries and descriptions. business as usual ! :) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:51, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Episode summaries Edit

You did a great job retooling the summary for "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". I don't suppose you could do the same for "These Are the Voyages...", could you? :) --From Andoria with Love 19:20, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Re: Me? Get angry? Nah, I wouldn't do that. These articles are a community effort, after all. ;) Besides, it was a definate improvement over my original work. For "Voyages", if you could, I would like you to take a look at the teaser and Act One. Thanks! :) --From Andoria with Love 19:41, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Great job with the teaser for "These Are the Voyages...". Having to rely on the info from my own memory, I suspected a few errors would have crept in there somewhere, as well as some things that could have been worded better. Again, great work! I look forward to your reworking of Act One. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:35, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Re: I actually have access both episodes (and the entire series), but only on videotape, and I cannot keep rewinding the tapes to the fragility of our VCR. Also, I think I may have mislead you when I said I did it from memory - I had actually just watched part of the episode about an hour or so prior specifically for the purposes of writing the summary. When I wrote the summary, I had some quickly-scribbled notes to help me, but that only helped a little; most was from memory. Lastly, I made a mistake here; it was actually "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" that I wrote partially from memory, not "Voyages..."; I had help from a transcript on the latter. Sorry about that. (For some reason, I got them confused... oddly.) Anyways, good night, and again, I look forward to Act One. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:41, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC) Okay, just read my response here for the first time since I posted it... you probably think I'm full of it for saying this, but I did actually write the teaser for "Voyages" completely from memory. It was not until Act One that I located a transcript. So, I was right the first time -- the teaser was based on memory, as was "Mirror". Like I said, you may think I'm full of it, but that's the truth. Here's hoping I can one day afford the episodes on DVDs... --From Andoria with Love 18:21, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Just read the reworking of Act One to "These Are the Voyages...". Again, great job! :) I'll start working on Act Two now, although I'm not sure I'll be able to finish it. See you... out there. --From Andoria with Love 02:19, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Just completed Act Two of "These Are the Voyages...", although the last paragraph and a half were done pretty hastily as I am about to head for class. Good luck! :)

Defiant bridge image Edit

Thanks for clearing up the Defiant bridge image. ;-) Ottens 12:56, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Reply Edit

I fully intend on completing the summary for "These Are the Voyages...", but with my fall college classes just beginning, it may take some time. I also intend on returning to "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" when I am finished, if it has not been completed by then. Now that I have access to episode transcripts, I'll no longer have to rely on memory and short scribbled notes to finish up "Mirror" (or any other episode for that matter), but class work will likely intervene with the writing of these summaries. --From Andoria with Love 18:14, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I will attempt to complete the summary for "Voyages" as soon as possible... which may not be very soon at all. But whenever I get the energy and the free time, it will be done. Also, I think you're right about waiting until it is complete, this way you can finish it all at one.
I don't really have any ideas for images at the moment, although I do think a better image of Riker as Chef is needed (one in which he shares the screen with T'Pol). Other than that, I currently don't have any ideas, but I will post suggestions as soon as any come to mind. :) Lastly, thanks for continuing "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". Good luck with that! See you... our there! --From Andoria with Love 19:17, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Image ideas for TATV Edit

Hey there. First, I want to say excellent job with "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" and with the images for Act One of "These Are the Voyages...". Now, although I still have to write the summary for Act Four, I do have some ideas for images to use for the remaining three acts of TATV. I think one or two of these are already available on M/A, but most of them are not.

  • Pic of screen displaying a Pegasus crewmember, as viewed by Riker
  • Riker and Troi touring the NX-01 bridge, with Troi in the captain's chair
  • Shuttlepod 2 following Shuttlepod 1 onto the surface of Rigel X (with pod 1 visible in window)
  • Shran and T'Pol encountering the alien criminals, with Shran holding the glowing casing for the amethyst
  • A pic of the alien leader
  • Shran and Archer in the launch bay following the mission, with Shran holding his daughter
  • The Enterprise-D entering the asteroid field
  • Riker and Phlox discussing Tucker in the galley (I think Phlox is where he got the most needed information from, and also the camera angle is better, with the two characters on opposite ends of the counter)
  • Archer and Trip toasting "the next generation"
  • Trip holding the plasma relays just before he blows him and the aliens away ("You can all go straight to hell.")
  • A wounded Tucker in sickbay, perhaps where he's being carried to the med chamber
  • Riker talking with Trip in the galley
  • An overview of the alliance ceremony
  • T'Pol, Phlox, and Archer saying their goodbyes before Archer delivers his speech... or, even a better, a pic of Archer as he walks away from T'Pol to deliver the speech (frontal view, not rear)

Also, I think there should be a pic of Riker and Troi talking together somewhere on the article, perhaps when they are first talking in Ten Forward or when he finally reveals the truth about Pegasus to her. Either one should do.

Anyways, those are my suggestions. I don't think you need all of them, just use the ones you like (if any, lol!) I hope to have the fourth act completed this weekend (I'll be working on it on Friday, perhaps even Thursday night). Anyways, let me know what you think about those image suggestions. Keep up the excellent work! :) See you... out there! --From Andoria with Love 07:06, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

TATV Summary Complete Edit

I've completed writing the summary for "These Are the Voyages..." and it is now ready for its major refit. ;) Parts that definitely need to be worked on are the descriptions of the ceremony. Anyways, good luck, and I look forward to the final product! :) --From Andoria with Love 12:28, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re: Well, I don't really consider it a rewrite, but yes, it certainly does need to be reworked some. Just do what you do. :) --From Andoria with Love 14:48, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Screen Caps Edit

I noticed on your user page that you said you had pretty much all the series on DVD and were able to make screen caps from them. You may have noticed already but Zsingaya and I have been building tables for actors who've played multiple character with shots of each of their roles. A few still elude us, however. If you're not too busy, maybe you could help by finding any of these:

If you can find any of these, that's great and if not, that's okay.--T smitts 08:55, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Storm Front screenshots Edit

Hi, I know about the "take it from the show"-policy, but the "microcaps" you made from "Storm Front" are of very poor quality, so I tend to "better nothing than this". Maybe you can find something better from "real life". --Memory 16:56, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree. They're good enough in the context of the show. This isn't the wikipedia here. Given how relatively obsure the images were on the show, I doubt they can get much better than this and though you probably could find something better in "real life", that would be inappropriate. Better this than nothing, I say.--T smitts 19:05, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re: Act Two completed Edit

In reply to your completion of TATV Act Two -- It's looking good. Keep up the great work! :) (Sorry I took so long in responding to this, I meant to go back to it earlier). --From Andoria with Love 23:51, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Also, if it's okay with you, could I be the one to nominated it on the featured article page? It'll be described as a collaborative effort between the both of us (and can still be a Defiant-class article), but I would just like to nominate an article for featured status, as I have yet to do so. Please? :D --From Andoria with Love 23:51, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Actually, go ahead and ignore that last request. I suppose it doesn't matter who nominates it, just as long as it is. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:52, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the pictures you've posted. I appreciate it. Not all of us spent the extra $100 (Cdn.) to include a DVD player with their PC.--T smitts 01:43, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)


By, all means, if you've a better pic, upload it. I really didn't care about the angle, so much as if it was quality pic that shows his face. (zsingaya or I will add it to a table tomorrow). Thanks. --T smitts 09:17, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Duras picEdit

Thanks for the uploads of late, but if you don't mind my asking, why did you change the pic of Duras, son of Toral from portrait back to landscape? There really wasn't anything important on the sides and I think it fit better with both the article and Daniel Riordan's character table. --T smitts 05:33, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Enterprise episode listing Edit

I've notice you reverted edit of episode list to enable easier editing on the star trek: enterprise page. I would like to understand what you mean by that so we could come with a standard for all the series (I actually copied the original modification from TNG to simplify editing too, see Coke's talk page). Also, what about pages like ENT_Season_1 and the other? Should we change these (season x ep #) too?

Sorry for the signature, still new here. For the episode number, I understand that automatic numbering could be flawed, but still would like to know more about the definition of true numbering of the episodes as, for what I could see, they are listed in order in every serie where the episodes are numbered.

Rcog 03:04, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re: TATV Edit

Excellent job, as always, my friend. Definately Defiant class and it is now certainly worthy of featured article status. :) Unfortunately, I don't really think nominating it right now would be a good idea, given the comments left during the nominations for DS9: "Crossover". I was about to ask whether it would be wise to do so given the circumstances, but Schrei brought up the issue on my talk page before I could get to you, and now I think I agree we should lay off nominating episodes for a little bit. As I said in my reply to Schrei, I really don't think there's a major rush in nominating it as a featured article; just because it is not featured does not diminish the article's quality. But until all the complaints and so forth regarding episode summaries being nominated are hammered out, I think, as Alan and Schrei suggested, we should lay off nominating episode articles... but only for now. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:26, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, you think we should go ahead and nominate it? :\ --From Andoria with Love 16:27, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re: TATV Article Edit

I certainly wouldn't mind collaborating on other articles with you in the future. But it's not that it wasn't nominated as an FA that got to me, it was the so-called reasons they gave for not nominating it. Others have done complete summaries for episodes and those became FA's, but just as I participated in one, it was "too good" or "too detailed" or some bs like that. Sorry, but I'm not crazy about spending weeks on an article, doing the same thing you and several others have done, only to be told it's different, too detailed, and shouldn't be nominated. After reading a few of the comments, I just stopped paying attention to the nomination page altogether. Other episodes summaries that were just as detailed have been nominated, yet now everyone's like, "Ooooh, no, it's too good to be a featured article." Now I know how Gene Roddenberry felt when the passed on "The Cage". But, yeah, if there's any project you wanna work together on, we can do that, I just prefer not to waste time on episodes anymore. And, uh... I apologize for the lengthy rant/response. :\ --From Andoria with Love 02:25, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Removal of TATV FA nominationEdit

I don't really understand your reasoning for removal, the nomination had been added less than 10 days ago. Is this a personal issue? -- Cid Highwind 11:44, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Semantics aside, it definitely was the intention that any nomination should stay on the nomination page for ten days. See the 2004 discussion regarding that policy here: Memory Alpha talk:Featured article policies (first section). Anyway, could you please comment on the suggested new policy so that potential semantic issues like this can be avoided in the future? Visit: Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy/temp-- Cid Highwind 12:19, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Next time you find an error or loophole in one of the policies, please just bring it up on the talk page. It would save all of us some time and work... Thanks, Cid Highwind 23:02, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

TATV Edits Edit

Just wanted to say I think you're doing a great job editing the TATV article. :) I guess it was a bit too long, even compared to other episode summaries on MA. Let me know if you need any help... not now, though, b/c I'm going to bed. ;) --From Andoria with Love 12:14, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re:Temporary FA nomination policyEdit

Depends... ;) If it is more than just correcting a small error here and there, I'd like to see it brought up on the talk page instead. Not because I don't want anyone editing it, but because it a suggestion for discussion, and I think we can't come to a real agreement if everyone just edits the page. If it is something completely different, you might also want to consider creating your own suggestion? -- Cid Highwind 23:07, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

If it is something that obvious (given that there's already an old discussion stating that this is how it was meant from the beginning), then yes, you'd just clarify that policy and add an edit summary such as rule clarification: "within ten days" changed to "after ten days", see talk page. -- Cid Highwind 23:17, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Request for further comments re:TATV peer reviewEdit

Hi again. I have to get up in about 4.5 hours, so I don't have the time for comments now. I will try to remember commenting later - if I don't, just remind me again. :) -- Cid Highwind 23:40, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Please help!Edit

I'm trying to follow MA guidelines, and not lose my temper but I feel that some of the newer users keep targeting me! I was editing "These Are the Voyages...", and didn't realise my edits were too much. Vedek Dukat left a message stating that the page should not be edited further and that my edits were too often. He didn't even contact me on the article's Talk or my own, and I know that this action was personal. I've contacted you as I have previously read that users are advised to contact other users when such a situation arises. Please help me! --Defiant | Talk 21:48, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • For some reason it seems easier to reply on your page with your text added than to split the conversation over both our talk pages. Anyway, I left Dukat a message (User talk:Vedek Dukat) and removed the template he added, you made 9 edits in approximately a day and a half, I see no reason for what he did, so yeah. Hopefully that is something like what you had in mind. --Alan del Beccio 22:16, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

POV inputEdit

(I'm sending the same text to all the admins that are currently active, so I apologize for cut and paste):

I've been having a conversation with a new user on (my talk page regarding how to write an article on M/A in the proper point of view, that is from within the Trek universe (in the case of objects, people, places, ships, etc) rather than from the outside looking in.

My understanding of this website, from day one, has been that it is the internet version of the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and have never had any difficulty understanding it any other way. This user thinks otherwise. I'm to the point in the conversation, and I'm surprised no other admins have thrown their hats into the ring yet, that I would like to ask for a little assistance, as I believe we shouldn't have to have any "policy" (per se) on such a straight forward and frankly "common sense" issue, either by starting a separate talk page or to Ten Forward. Whichever the case, and no matter how many articles we have written in the point of view which I am defending (that being roughly 10000) this user does not seem to understand, and we do not seem to have any page (aside from a subpage Cid had in his archive that I found) that I could use as an example (btw, the user in question more or less snubbed off Cids page anyway). So please, anyone else willing to assist would be much appreciated. I can't seem to better defend a point, a method and a style that is so "ingrained" into my brain/our brains as "normal" any other way than I have, as being right, without getting out a big stick -- and thus far this user has been an exception, as I have had experiences with countless other newbies and they seems to catch on to our style, well except one other, rather quickly.

Anyway, I should also note, that I am aware of this users attitude and previous conflicts with adminstrators from other message boards (from my old Starship Modding days) and am somewhat in a position of a conflict of interest -- because frankly I believe this individual would rather go out in a blaze of glory than work our well established conformity.

If you need an example of the work in question, just compare the perspectives of the original contributions of the user to the draft rewrites I made in the respective histories. Thanks so much! --Alan del Beccio 18:51, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

image request Edit

I'm sorry, I didn't know that I was doing something wrong. I uploaded two pics of the NX-01's sickbay and removed the image request and put it under "fulfilled image requests". I thought that it was the task of the one that provides the images to remove the request. I'm still pretty new to memory-alpha, so I don't yet know all the ins and outs. Sorry! I'll write a message into the summary box the next time. --Jörg 23:45, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Article of the week Edit

I'm glad to see you took my suggestion on the talk page into consideration. :P I actually think that's a fine choice because it's the result of community effort and a compromise on the length issue. Also, thanks for opposing it and sticking to your guns, since I think a lot of us were too eager to rubber stamp it (ie the act issue). --Schrei 01:28, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, I agree completely about TATV, although to be honest I don't prefer long summaries (despite writing several). I ranted once about needing to stop writing novels but that was more my mood than my opinion. It's personal preference and not grounds for automatic disqualification. Oh and rubber stamp means you blindly approve it. --Schrei 01:49, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Rest assured that you have my vote (assuming I get around to reading the whole thing). ;) --Schrei 02:08, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

what are you doing???? Edit

stop reverting my legitimate edits!!! -I AM WEYOUN 02:28, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletions Edit

Please use MA:VfD if you would like to delete redirect pages, as it is not your decision to make. Thanks. Vedek Dukat 00:30, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Schematic image - Thanks! Edit

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for uploading the image of Reed showing the schematic of the original Enterprise in "In a Mirror, Darkly". I appreciate it. :) --From Andoria with Love 01:24, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

TATV continuity Edit

Regarding your last edit of the continuity section on TATV, I don't think there was an error here. Mayweather's exact words were that they had known each other for "close to 20 years." I think 18 years is pretty close to 20. ;) Also, when he said "he taught the Captain how to scuba dive somewhere off the coast of Florida", that didn't necessarily mean that was how they first met. It may have been when they first become good friends, but it was never stated that that was how they first met. Just thought I'd share that with ya. :P Again, great job with the edits. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:04, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Green picEdit

Looks pretty good. I'm trying to see if full-size but as you probably know, it can take a while for the image page to update itself. Thanks, though! --T smitts 01:23, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)


The Green pic finally updated itself and it looks fine. Pity we only saw him briefly on a small screen, huh? If ENT had gotten a 5th season, perhaps Manny Coto or Mike Sussman could have given us a Green episode (or perhaps even a Green arc!) --T smitts 02:33, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Shuttlepod 2 Edit

It should be complete up until the end of season 2 (I don't have Seasons 3+4 on DVD yet, so I can't say anything about those episodes) I might have forgotten some appearances, where you only see the tip of a wing of Shuttlepod 2 parked in the launch bay, or something similar uneventful, but the main appearances from Seasons 1+2 are there. --Jörg 18:29, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I checked my Screenshots of "Sleeping Dogs" again and Shuttlepod 2 is only seen parked in the launch bay. I guess I made a screenshot of this minor appearance, because not just the tip of a wing is seen, but the whole front of the Shuttlepod. The other two uses of the Shuttlepod during the episode are Shuttlepod 1. The other appearances of Shuttlepod 2 are usually from episodes, were you see two Shuttlepods at the same time, so you know that the second Shuttlepod is seen as well ("Two Days and Two Nights", "Bounty"), or from episodes, where you know that the first Shuttlepod is still on a planet or someplace else, so the second Shuttle must by Shuttlepod 2 ("Detained", "Desert Crossing"). I think the only time where you can really see "Shuttlepod 2" written on the hull is in "Strange New World", apart from the appearances in the launch bay (Again, only Seasons 1+2, I don't know about the rest yet). --Jörg 13:28, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review Edit

On the Nominations for Featured Articles page you mentioned a "Peer Review" process. I wasn't aware Memory Alpha had a peer review process. Am I mistaken, or were you referring to a more informal process? — THOR =/\= 20:09, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • The way MA implemented it is pretty obscure - you have to go to Talk:These Are the Voyages... (episode)/peerreview or Talk:Occupation of Bajor/peerreview to find it. --Schrei 02:25, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there anywhere to list that you're requesting a peer review though? I trust it's not just hoping that somebody'll stumble across the sub-page. — THOR =/\= 05:19, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New images Edit

I noticed some recent images of yours have neither labels nor links. I'm actually curious myself as to where File:Osama Bin Laden.jpg came from (obviously somewhere in ENT). Perhaps you should look under "my contributions" or "unused images" next time you're on - if it hadn't been someone whose contributions I was familiar with, I might have nominated them for deletion! Makon 19:10, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, is there any chance you can write image summaries, cite and add the proper copyright info for those images? There are at least a dozen, please and thank you. :) --Alan del Beccio 23:16, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ep Sums Edit

Howdy there, "D". :) Just wanted to tell ya that I've cleaned up the summary for "The Search, Part II", but it could definitely use some improving upon, and the summary for "Endgame" also needs work. The efforts made by Slamlander to write these summaries have been great, but, as with the summaries I have written, I think they could use a Defiant-class refit. ;) While you're writing those, I can be fishing around for images to go along with them. Speaking of images, could you tell me how to reduce the size of screencaps from sites like TrekPulse? The images in their original form are way too big! Anyways, let me know what you think or what not. Catch ya later! :) --From Andoria with Love 08:02, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Quantum universe Edit

1st of all I posted here instead of Refit of the Week so I could apologize for our rough start. You probably guessed this but the edit any page idea was tempting, and I wanted to push buttons at first. But I'm trying not to piss people off now, and I'm glad you seem to have understood! I'm curious what you have in mind (maybe a rough sketch) for Quantum universe as Refit of the Week, I'm not familiar with the idea and would be open to helping refit it in the future if I knew where to look other than TNG: Parallels (I missed that one). Vedek Dukat 02:43, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Late Reply Edit

Sorry for the delay in replying to your last message. I have not yet been able to figure out how to resize images from TrekPulse, and I was hoping you could help me with that. I did it once on my old computer, but am having trouble with it on this one. Anyways, what is it you want me to help you with for the background section of "Broken Bow"? Whatever you need, I'll do my best to help. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:13, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I have added a few more background tidbits since our last conversation. Let me know what you think (if it's too much, or what not). Some of it might need to be reworded for length, but I personally don't think it's much of a problem. Oh, and don't forget to check out my talk page for my replies to your latest comments. :) --From Andoria with Love 08:29, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

claymore Edit

A claymore is a Scottish sword. But, interestingly, Montgomery Scott was unaware that he was not looking at nor holding a claymore sword. The only explanation for this can be that the alien responsible for making Chekov believe he had a brother (when in fact he was an only child) also made Scotty see a claymore where there wasn't one.--Mike Nobody 02:25, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Broken BowEdit

I am already familiar with the reviewing process but I simply did not had the time to review it while this process was running. When I did had the time, peerreview was already closed and the article entered FA nomination. The only way to add my remarks was on the FA page. As far as I am concerned a closed peer review does not mean comments about its contents/structure cannot be made on the FA page. The alternative would be to remove FAC status and re-establish peer review again, but as far as I am concerned thats up to the person who requested the review in the first place.

About the human/vulcan relationships. I simply missed it in the article, and felt it needed to be addressed, but for the moment had no real idea how it should be put in the article itself. As per peer review policy that would be up to the one who asked for the peer review. -- Q 20:54, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Re: Deanna Troi Edit

College happened. I have been meaning to review episodes of TNG for further info on Troi, but I have simply not had the time.The same goes for Captain Kirk -- I simply have not been able to get around to it. The free time I do get I usually spend on here, and I do what I can here but I have not been able to follow through on my intent to update Troi and Kirk. Hopefully, with Thanksgiving break coming up and winter break after that, I'll be able to do something. --From Andoria with Love 09:18, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Merging articles Edit

I was wondering how to merge articles properly (for example, the former "Kathryn Janeway's Coffee Addiction" into Kathryn Janeway). I see various ways to do this. Some will delete the article the content is being transferred to, then will restore the article with the new content in it, then delete the unneeded article. Some will simply delete the unneeded article and paste the information into the other article, which I think is what you did. I wasn't exactly sure what to do, so I just left it to someone else. Is there a certain situation that calls for one way or another? If so, how do I go about the deleting/restoring/merging thing? --From Andoria with Love 09:38, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Re: Deanna Troi (2) Edit

I'll get on it as soon as I can. At the moment, I'm starving, so I gotta eat somethin'. As for the merging thing, don't worry about it; Mike created MA:MERGE‎ to explain the policies. Thanks anyway, though. :) --From Andoria with Love 13:38, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I just read the details you added on the Troi page. There might be some way of shortening the references from "Life Line" and "Inside Man", specifially the Doctor being delivered to the Alpha Quadrant and the Dabo girl being revealed as working for a Ferengi. Those bits, I think, are the only things that someone else might find a bit too "in-depth", although I don't really think that's the case here. Personally, I like it all just the way it is, since it's all part of Troi's involvement with Pathfinder. Specifics are a good thing, so I don't think you should change anything unless you feel the need to or if someone else suggests it. Great job! :) --From Andoria with Love 15:16, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

[Comment] Edit

Hi! You do good work, and I figured I'd leave you a message since your talk page looks lonely. Roar 01:36, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sig question Edit

Hey, D. I didn't get a response from you earlier, so I was wondering, did you get my reply regarding your signature question (found here)? Just wanted to check and make sure; didn't want you to think I ignored you. See you... out there! --From Andoria with Love 14:04, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

image requests Edit asked for it...I put up these requests on the Requested Pictures page a while back but haven't gotten a response. Think you can help?

An image of Minuet from Riker's imagination in Future Imperfect.

Two images of James Moriarty one with Data and/or with Dr. Pulaski; the second of him from Ship in a Bottle, preferably with the Countess, or with Captain Picard. Logan 5 22:07, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Some pictures from "Conundrum" because I'm going to improve the episode page! --From TrekkyStar 47!!!!! 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • One of Ro...well not in her standard uniform.

Nonsensical deathEdit

I know you got a new project and all (interesting wikicity, I might look into it), however, you shouldn't declare your old self as dead just to get some much-needed visitors. Also, I don't think a redirect to Wikipedia, even from a user page is allowed. A soft redirect would probably be okay though.--Tim Thomason 17:10, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

A "soft redirect" is simply a remark that says something like, please see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, for full information. It is to prevent accidental jumps from one wiki to another (common on regular wikicities to the Central Wikicity), so that a user doesn't get confused and doesn't have to press the back button to get to the wiki he was at. It is usually used as placeholders for some help pages and the like.--Tim Thomason 20:53, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Sorry I didn't get your email, as my Hotmail account was deactivated. Do you want to send it again? Tough Little Ship 23:29, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Vedek's admin Edit

Actually, this whole experience has sorta turned me away from being a regular editor on this site, and I'm sorry I used that word, I guess it was a poor choice and I apologize again. I'll now return to Wikipedia where I know how things work better, because I think things might be a little bit different here and what I find unfair from my experiences on WP might in fact be considered fair here. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's a different site, of course. I still might make sporadic edits, though. I'm glad we could clear this up a bit more. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ten ForwardEdit

I'm cleaning up TF, so I would like to know if this has been answered somewhere and so can be removed? --Memory 23:15, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

X-Files Mulder Edit

I long forgot where I got the pic of Mulder. I'm pretty sure I came across it searching google images for something to fit the article.--Mike Nobody =/\= 05:51, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Storm Front II Edit

Hi, it's my first time commenting here, hope it will look OK. Anyway, I saw you wrote that King Hussain appeard on the archive footage of Storm Front II. However I searched for his image on that scene and didn't see him. I saw most of the others. Can you tell me where he appeares there? Thanks  :) subatoi

Star Trek gifs Edit

Hi there, are you the same Defiant who runs this website? [1]. Just wondering. Zsingaya Talk 18:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Counter-Insurgency Program Edit

Can you suggest what category this article should fit into? Thanks. Maybe there should be some sort of category for things like red alert and this counter-insurgency program. Zsingaya 08:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions! Its good to get some feedback finally, it seems like people have stopped promoting articles for featured status recenlty, and have become uninterested in the voting process as a whole.
As for the category, you might like to comment on the category suggestions page. Thanks! Zsingaya 15:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spock's Brain rollback Edit

Hi Defiant. Sorry for the rollback, I was going to explain myself on the talk page of the IP address, but was just checking some other recent anonymous edits for vandalism. I'm pretty sure that Spock's Brain is not "usually regarded as one of the best Star Trek episodes" - quite the opposite, in fact. Which is why I thought that this comment, added by an anonymous editor, could have been an attempt at mild vandalism and rolled it back. If you think that what is now on the page is "POV" as well, we could try to rewrite it in a more neutral tone... -- Cid Highwind 12:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We should probably discuss article POV on that article's talk page... I agree that it could be toned down a little... Regarding your signature, I just did some tests. I guess you added something like "YOURNAME]] [[OTHERLINKS" as you nickname in the preferences? Apparently, that hack no longer works. Instead, add to your nickname field the complete signature as you want it to be (including all wikilinks), and check the box "Raw signatures" below. That should work... -- Cid Highwind 12:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ENT Season 4 screen capsEdit

I'd be happy to get you the screencaps, if you could tell me where the moments in the episodes are where the screens are shown? I bought the DVD on a whim and haven't really watched it. -- Tough Little Ship 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image citations, etc Edit

When uploading new images please remember to given them wikified descriptions with proper citations and copyright information. Please see File:Recovered Borg drones.jpg, "File:TNG badge.jpg" and File:Na'kuhl Technician.jpg. It is usually easiest to remember this if you add the desciption when you originally upload the file. --Alan del Beccio 18:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Gvsualan (this comment added by Cid)
Moved from User talk:Gvsualan (this comment added by Alan)
That seems highly ungrateful! I went out of my way to provide this site with screencaps. It's the last time I'll be doing that, that's for sure! What's to stop you from adding the citations yourself if you see it as such a high priority - pure laziness? I'm no longer interested in Trek, anyway, and only continue to contribute here to help out without watching any of the old, boring series again. There are far more members of this site who are obviously interested in Trek and have more time in their days. Sorry, but I do neither. --Defiant 00:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Was that really a serious reply? The above request by Alan wasn't unreasonable at all, and actually made in a polite way - it is necessary to at least have a citation and a copyright disclaimer on an image description page, and it is usually less work for all involved if that is added when the image is uploaded, not at a later point by someone else who would have to do some research or, worse, guess where an image is from. You, as an admin, should know that... -- Cid Highwind 09:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, on two accounts, it seems to me that it was. First off, let me quote: "If you like/dislike my contributions, or have any issues you'd like to bring to my attention, etc., feel free to leave a message on my Talk page" -- as I did. Secondly, each day I am here I "go out of my way" for this site, and yet I do not require nor expect any sort of recognition for my work. "Laziness" would hardly describe my efforts to this site. As much as I enjoy caring for and maintaining this site, it is just as much my duty to make corrects as it is to point fixable errors out to others. Considering you are an administrator, you of all people should be most careful in following our own procedures. Otherwise, I'm sorry you find this site too ungrateful for your efforts. --Alan del Beccio 19:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CSS help Edit

How did you get rid of the white from pages like log-in and Special:Preferences? I've left this question at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css, but there's been no reply. Plus, I was told you were the user who made the changes. --Defiant 09:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Generally, everything in the Mediawiki:Monobook.css that is called "preferences", "#prefsection", "#userlogin" or "login" might be connected to that - also "fieldset" and "legend", which is in use on the preferences page at least. If your wiki CSS is a total conversion like this one, you might want to start by copying the whole instruction set and work from there. If it is a single element that still shows a wrong color, it would be best to have a look at the HTML code itself and compare to the available CSS formatting. If you need help with that, let me know and add a link to the wiki you're trying to change. -- Cid Highwind 11:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise image Edit

I was curious as to why you reverted my clean up of the "destruction of the Enterprise" image...the original is too dark to show detail, and the color balance is way off. I had it cleaned up.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

new paris image, et al Edit

hey defiant. i wanted to tell you that you did a good job finding a replacement for tom paris' top image and also i'm glad somebody finally tried to expand harry kim's page a little. regarding paris' pic, i was wondering if it would be at all possible for you to crop the image so that it is more consistent with his shipmate's photos. as you may know, i've been trying to clean up the voyager crew's pics and have tried to set a single proportion (not size) for all of the headshots based on the promotional images used in the TNG cast's articles. it's just a suggestion, but i think it gives a little more polished look to the articles when they contain a little continuity. i've also been trying to make the format of the sidebar consistent with the format used for janeway's. anyway, thanks and good job! Deevolution 20:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for moving the new Article of the Week live yesterday. Did you want to nominate an article for next week? If not, I'll scour through the list and find one, but I figured I'd give you first dibs. I'm striving to ensure that the AOTW and the Did You Knows are kept fresh. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

File:TAS Enterprise.jpg Edit

I was going to remake "File:TAS Enterprise.jpg" from the DVDs, but I dont want to steal your fun if you plan on doing it. So tell me if you want to and I'll leave it alone. --Bp 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last edit to "Viewer" Edit

Hi. Could you please comment on your removal of 26KB of text from Viewer here: Talk:Viewer. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Romulan crewmen Edit

Hi! I've noticed that you've uploaded the two pics of the Romulan crewmembers. One of them was played by regular stuntman Vince Deadrick and I think you switched the two pics. Look at Deadrick's site and compare the pic of the Romulan crewman with his pic as Matthews, his face is not the same.I think he is protrayed on the orther pic. Perhaps you can correct this? Thanks. – Tom 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Mhh, perhaps I was too fast. When you look at this pic Walt Davis you see the Romulan crewman also did not look like Walt Davis. Are there more Romulan crewmembers in this episode ?– Tom 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image citations and licensesEdit

When uploading images, such as:

Can you please ensure that you put a quick citation (ie, what it is, episode it appeared in), a license (for screen captures, just use {{image paramount}}), and a category (Category:Memory Alpha images is generally a good fall-back). Thanks for your cooperation! -- Sulfur 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Defiant usually gets to them in short order. I think we just need to me more patient. --GO RED SOX 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Kai Winn Pics Edit

Thanks for uploading and adding a few more pics of Winn. I always thought that article was image-deficient. ;-) – Cleanse 09:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for input regarding video-wikis on Memory Alpha Edit

Hi, As you may have heard, in the next few days there will be a new collaborative video feature on Memory Alpha. The feature is based on technology created by Kaltura, where I work. We’re really excited to have our technology on Memory Alpha and are hoping that it can be a great tool for the Memory Alpha community. I am contacting you and a few other administrators hoping that you can tell me where you think collaborative videos might fit in within Memory Alpha. We have a few people that are great with rich-media, and that are active in the community and would like to get a few videos rolling as soon as the feature goes live. For example – what pages do you think could benefit from a collaborative video that any user can add, edit and remix? Are there 5-10 top pages/topics that you think could be cool to add videos to? Any specific ideas of the kind of videos the community would like? Maybe a tribute to a certain character, or possibly a video that talks about why people joined Memory Alpha, etc. Any input you could provide would be excellent, we’re hoping that the Memory Alpha community gets familiar with the collaborative video feature and enjoys it. Thank you! Lishkee 09:21, 15 February 2008 (EST)

TrekkyStar Edit

A bit harsh, don't you think? I'm sure it's annoying, but still... :/ --From Andoria with Love 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

different borg queen image Edit

hi. it's an all new screen capture. i think i did a little bit of tweaking to the color and contrast, but nothing major. photoshop is what i use to adjust, resize or punch up pictures. it's a pretty great utility to have. but in regards to this image, there wasn't much done. Deevolution 19:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet AcademyEdit

In which episode of Star Trek: Enterprise is Starfleet Academy mentioned? --Dr. Zefram Cochrane 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Rift Fleet HailingEdit

Haven't been here in a while but I have a question. Do you know how I can get permission from Paramount and/or CBS to host my fanon story on the WEB? Myn main user page in on Memory Gamma and I had to remove my story their until I get the rights to host it online. Can you please help? Rift Fleet 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom ParisEdit

What MA policy would that be? --Alan 23:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Alan! I neither know nor care whether the policy is included in MA's ever-changing, always confusing policy dos-and-don'ts - like other "help" pages on wikis (including wikipedia), I have particular problems with reading the information - but I do (and did, at the time of my edit) recall it being decided in discussion that both an old pic and a new one should be used for character tables. If this specification has changed recently, feel free to change the page back, and sorry for any confusion caused. I personally have very little time for this site these days, especially since it seems like every time I visit here, another "moderator" is personally harassing me - correct me if I'm wrong but, this time, it seems to be you! That's obviously a sorry state for ANY site to be in! IMO, the emphasis on "conforming" makes the admins little better than the Borg! --Defiant 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious how exactly I am being harassment? Someone changed something, tagged on some claim about being in accordance with MA policy (especially when we really don't have formatting "policies"), and curiosity got the better of me, so I had to ask. Sorry for being curious. --Alan 01:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Gvsualan block Edit

I'm not sure what the rationale was for blocking Alan, so I have unblocked him. I do not see any evidence of harrassment, and even if he actually was harassing you, it is improper for you to block him as the alleged victim. I'm not sure what the issue is here, but I hope that it can be worked out amicably.--31dot 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've responded here, just to keep the discussion in one place.
I am not ganging up on you or anyone. I am not a buddy of Alan's. I saw a block of someone who I did not expect, and examined the situation and came to the conclusion that the block was not warranted. I have no idea what the dispute between you and Alan consists of.--31dot 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have brought this up before, but my main bone of contention with Gvsualan's edits has been the number of images I've uploaded and, upon visiting, have found those same images to have been tampered with, by Gvsualan - credited to him rather than me, removed altogether, replaced by a clearly worse version, etc. This is not only images that I've personally uploaded, although the vast majority are. It is harassment to follow another user around the wiki and alter their edits merely because you have a problem with that contributor, as Gvsualan has been doing with my edits! This is clearly personal and, of the aforementioned alterations to my edits, I can list many, many examples (let me know if you require citations!) Although I at first suspected a conspiracy was in progress and that sarcasm was being employed, I now believe that Gvsualan has acted alone in intending to personally attack me. As I said before, I am completely willing to try to settle this amicably. --Defiant 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not harassment to fix percieved issues with the manner in which edits were made, unless Alan stated that he did so because of a personal issue with you or a dislike of you. If you felt that your original actions were proper, you should have begun a discussion about them first and stated why you feel that way.
It is well known on a wiki such as this that no one "owns" any of the articles or their contents, so I am almost sure Alan is not doing so to take credit away from anyone else.--31dot 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm having difficulty with understanding your most recent post, due to finding it too general. Could you please specify what you mean? I take it you think I have been over-reacting?! --Defiant 23:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. If you felt Alan was reversing proper edits(whether they had to do with you or not), you should have discussed it with him first, and if that failed, then with the community in general, before taking the extreme step of blocking another admin(even ignorning the obvious conflict of interest, as I've said already) If you also feel that he was taking his actions due to a personal issue with you, that should have also resulted in a discussion first, and then if it was determined that his behavior broke policies, a third party should have taken action.--31dot 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to discuss it with Alan but he acted innocent of harassment, simultaneously implying denial of personal abuse, and was evidently sarcastic (see his second post in this thread for the example!) Since he did not seem willing to have further discussion with me about this, asking a rhetorical question and ending with a sarcastic "apology", I did not further the issue. However, I have previously also tried to discuss his behavior with other admins, including Shran/FromAndoriaWithLove, but this was not resolved and Alan has nevertheless continued to harass me, without anyone stepping in! Having unsuccessfully sought assistance from the admins that was not forthcoming, I felt I was left with little option but to ban him. All in all, I think we should "let bygones be bygones", as it were (yes, I'm even willing to do this with Alan), and work on both creating and then implementing our "removal from adminship" system so that, if a similar case were to occur (regarding my feelings towards Alan's persistent alterations to my edits), there will be a forum for users to voice their concerns and hopefully find the kind of help that, in this situation, I struggled to obtain. --Defiant 23:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, clearly you've only spent time patrolling your own contributions and not the site's in general, because my edits encompass far more than merely your contributions. So to make such a claim towards me is simply arrogant.

Also, regardless to what you choose to believe, my last reply was genuine. In fact, based on past experience (due to the volatile nature of your replies), I've done nothing but tread lightly with my comments on this page.

So boiling this down to today: thrice now I've been accused of harassing you without the least bit of explanation, hence – with regards to my last reply – "I'm curious how exactly I am being harassment?" – especially when you cite some policy you claim not to care about that doesn't even exist (re: my second sentence). Finally, "sorry for being curious..." was in response to the accusatory reply to what was an outrageously simple question in the first place. I never got a reply to any of that, which clearly has much to do with whatever today's problem it, therefore, I dispute any innocent claims about trying "to discuss it with Alan". --Alan 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "volatile nature of your replies"? Also, would you care to cite the 3 times on which you've been "accused of harassing [me] without the least bit of explanation"? Both these statements are accusatory and vague. I did try to discuss it with you, Alan, which was why I said, "correct me if I'm wrong but, this time, it seems to be you" - showing that I was open to reading your view(s). You voiced your opinion, implying that you disagreed with my perception of the situation, and, since it was clear we probably were not going to reach a general consensus between the 2 of us, about whether you were actually harassing me, I avoided conflict by discontinuing with the discussion. I have explained myself as best I can, today, so I don't understand where you're finding the "thrice" number from! Alan, I would be willing to work with you over individual, smaller issues but it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere fast by arguing about whether you have been harassing me or not (with me still believing the former and you still arguing the latter). I hope, by now, I've made myself clear - I am open to co-operation, and do not wish to argue. --Defiant 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
How exactly is not saying a word for three months on the subject, and then blocking someone you are angry at for a month (beyond what we do to even standard vandals) "trying to discuss it?" It would seem to me that is the opposite, since it involves three months of not talking before you pulled out the banhammer. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? I have to clarify "volatile nature"? How about your reply to my simple, concerning comment three years ago, where I brought up the reminder about the guidelines for image uploads?

While most people would say, "ok" or "thanks for reminding me" or something of that nature, I get personally attacked and told that I'm lazy, ungrateful and thrown under the bus because I've spent so much of my time caring about the maintenance of this site, thereby sowing the seeds for this insane conspiracy theory of your regarding my harassment of you. At that very point it was 'you who made it personal towards me for reminding you of something the 3rd of four times, yet it was just that one time to me, of those times, that you lashed out.

Personally, I don't know where you get the gall to accuse me of making "persistent alterations to [your] edits"? The whole "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" aside, I've made over 98,000 edits to this site; over 20,000 just to images. If you do the math you might find that the odds are pretty high that I am going to edit something someone else has previously edited, yourself included. Obviously there is an unfortunate inevitability of being ultra visible that goes along with that kind of exposure, but to sit there and feign victim to me (or anyone else for that matter) is purely self righteous or self induced.

However, if me-harassing-you is what you still truly believe, then it is not only you being harassed here, because myself, and all of the other admins (apparently excluding yourself), plus cobra, morder and several others are equally guilty of "harassment" for each and every time they've ever addressed, reverted or tweaked any other user's contribution on this site. Whatever I have apparently done to you is done here to everyone by everyone. This is a wiki, it is always changing, everyone is always editing everyone's content, tweaking, manipulating, re-uploading, etc – get used to it. --Alan 04:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for a somewhat civilized answer, Alan, but your reply was frankly just as "volatile" as usual! I can see, as can anyone else viewing this thread, that you don't wish to work anything out and are instead eager to continue targeting me while claiming that you do the same to everyone else's edits. --Defiant 08:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Constitution class docking port.jpg is one example of the kind of thing I was talking about, earlier - I uploaded the original version of this image, and remember doing so (although my memory isn't quite so good as yours, Alan - three years is quite a stretch! lol!) I guess I'm just confused why the history of this image does not reflect it's true history! As stated above, the only images I've seen like this have had Alan's name appearing as the original uploader. --Defiant 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Because, in the past, we had the "best practice" to allow admins to delete earlier image revisions after they had been replaced by better quality files. Since you don't own the rights to a simple screenshot any more or less than the next guy, this has never been a big deal. This was done to conserve disk space - however, since even deleted image revisions are now stored for potential later undeletion, this practice has been given up more or less (though not strictly forbidden, mind you).
Anyway, I agree with the others that this whole course of events, from you blocking another user against all policies (=misuse of admin rights), over not really being able to cite any single block-worthy offense of that user, to continued attacks on that and other users, is absolutely unbecoming of an admin. Since we don't have any "de-admin" rules in place yet (they are currently being discussed elsewhere), I'm not going to do anything about it right now - you may already consider this a reprimand and issued caution towards a later "de-admin" in case of repeat offense, though. -- Cid Highwind 12:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Cid Highwind! I don't agree that I've been responsible for "continued attacks on that and other users" and I'm sorry if anyone feels this way! However, I would be eager to nominate myself for de-adminship, if such a procedure were created. I don't recall familiarity with MA's rules & regulations being a condition, upon me originally being considered as an admin, but this issue has nevertheless repeatedly cropped up, the longer I've been a member of this site since then. The nomination system for adminship seemed more like a popularity contest, more concerned with worth of user's edits to the content pages than any such knowledge of the constraints of user's rights, so maybe this should be changed if it isn't already! --Defiant 13:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the following statement has been a part of Memory Alpha:Administrators even back in 2004: "It's best for the nominees to exhibit a good understanding of Memory Alpha's Policies and Guidelines and to be an active participant in the implementation of those policies for various articles." With a self-nomination for admin, people might have expected that you actually considered yourself familiar enough with the rules.
In any case, and for what it's worth, any "de-adminship procedure" would only be necessary to act against the will of the admin in question. If you no longer want to be an admin yourself, you could just request the removal of admin status. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly - it says it's "best to" have such an understanding, not that each admin must have that knowledge. Also, that same paragraph begins by stating, "There are no strict standards for becoming an administrator". As this is the case and because my intentions have always been to help the community at large (I was thinking particularly of new users experiencing the same difficulties, regarding seeming incorrections in image histories, when I voiced my concerns), I've decided not to request the removal of my admin status. Again, sorry if my behavior has been seen to be "attacking", as this was far from my intent! --Defiant 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Still, it somehow escapes me how knowledge about the rules and guidelines that you, as admin, are willing (and supposed) to help uphold could be considered some unimportant and "optional" quality of an admin candidate. If the wording of that paragraph has confused you during the past four years, please consider this a reminder to finally familiarize yourself with the rules! Thank you. -- Cid Highwind 15:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The wording of that paragraph makes it clear that such knowledge is optional, so maybe the wording needs to be changed. --Defiant 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Account merge? Edit

Just wondering, as it looks like you're registered as an administrator, would it be possible for you to transfer my contributions, pages and settings to the name ProtoKun7? I no longer go by 'Prototype 01', and I would like to adjust my accounts to the new name I've registered. TIA Prototype 01 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied on your talk but I'll reply here too. No you cannot merge accounts you can stop using one but any contributions must stay under the original account. — Morder (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was doubtful. I believe it is possible to change the name of this account, but would it involve the deletion or renaming of the other account too? Prototype 01 16:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Krauss talk Edit

For your attention:

Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek."

Youtube video 23:22, October 24, 2009 (UTC) Strength and Honour 23:22, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Scimitar shuttlebay Edit

Hey. I've uploaded two images of the shuttlebay area of the Scimitar. You can see them here. Hope this helps. – Tom 03:02, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

IAMD Citations Edit

Hi there Defiant. Regarding your additions to "In a Mirror, Darkly", could you please tag which notes were from the audio commentary, as per MA:CYS? So something like:

This helps later users know where the information came from, and is also vital if notes start to get rearranged or added to (as they do ;-). Thanks.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:38, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, sorry to be a pest. :-) – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:35, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Image Request Edit

Hey I saw on your user page that you would be willing to find images from DVD's. If it's not too much trouble would you be able to grab a screenshot of the Equinox blowing up from "Equinox, Part II" (season 6, ep. 1)? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Nero210 18:54, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Defiant 11:51, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Nero210 23:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

No problem! :) --Defiant 23:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Voyager info Edit

Hey, just want to say, great job on all the various background info for the Voyager episodes. I'm having a great time reading it. --Delta2373 22:52, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been an ambition of mine to try to beef up the background info on Voyager episode articles for a very long time, especially the early seasons (I love the heavy sci-fi stuff, before the Borg was overused)! --Defiant 22:55, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
It would be interesting to hear what everybody on Voyager's staff thought about the infamous season 2 episode "Threshold". I've never heard what Piller or Berman or Taylor thoughts on it are. --Delta2373 22:58, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

My Blog Edit

My blog is for star trek reiveiws of the episodes and/or movies. Sorry i started all offical like. I want to post a link to this site on my blog and wanted permission please get back to me as soon as you can. "Live Long and Prosper" and also Pray to Q so he doesnt smite you! ScarletScarabX (Talk) 21:57, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

You don't need permission to link to Memory Alpha, we just won't be linking back, since if we did we would have to link to everyone's blog. - Archduk3 22:20, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Question Edit

Hey Defiant, I need some help. You being a Voyager fan, I was wondering if you have seen recently or own VOY: "Bride of Chaotica!". Apparently, there is a reference to plasma injectors in the episode and it is the last reference I need to complete the article and I don't own the episode. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Delta2373 08:47, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm only a selective fan of Voyager and don't much like the later seasons, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I haven't seen any of the Captain Proton stuff in years and, even though I do own the entire series on DVD, I'm really quite busy just now. I did a quick scan of a transcript (here: [2]) of the aforementioned episode, but it came up with no results. I'd suggest you try asking someone more familiar with the later seasons of Voyager. Otherwise, I'll rewatch the episode later today (once I get the chance!) --Defiant 09:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Delta2373 09:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I just watched the entire episode and couldn't spot such a reference. That, coupled with the unsuccessful searches for the term in transcripts leads me to believe there is no reference. Hope that helps. --Defiant 22:31, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Defiant. By sheer coincidence, the episode actually aired the other night and I caught it. I did not catch the reference either. I guess the missing reference to plasma injectors must have been a mistake. In any event, thank you for helping! --Delta2373 08:12, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
No problem! :) --Defiant 08:17, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Help with production/FX categories Edit

Hi, Defiant. Over at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions#Production company sub-categories, we're trying to figure out a way to break up Category:Production companies. I made a start at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox, but ran into some difficulty divvying up the special effects/post-production companies, in part because I don't have a very clear understanding of the different stages of effects production and post-production. Archduk3 suggested that you might be able to help. Could you have a look at the discussion and the attempt in my sandbox, and advise on a better way to categorize the various companies? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe 05:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

Thank you for uploading the picture of Androna. :) – Tom 10:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. For years, I'd been wondering what she looked like! --Defiant 10:48, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Image licensingEdit

Can you check this image and determine if the CCL is appropriate for your reproduction, or if you'd prefer it be simply public domain?

I'm trying to clean up the last of our unlicensed images. Thanks. -- sulfur 20:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but, for the life of me, I can't remember where I obtained that pic from! It's an oldie, being more than 5 years old. I'm guessing that I probably got it off another website, though; I doubt it's my own work. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! --Defiant 21:38, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think that I sussed it out. It looks like one of Kris Trigwell's works that is available on ST-Minutae. I've labeled it as such. -- sulfur 01:05, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; I managed to locate the image at [3], and I now remember originally taking it from there. So, thanks for reminding me! :) --Defiant 01:20, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

My Kobali edits Edit

Dear Defiant,

Thank you for quickly pointing out (on User:Sulfur's talk page) how my spate of many mini edits on the Kobali article was bad practice.

I really am sorry for the many changes I made in a row. I can (ie, the iPod will let me) make minor edits to sections without crashing mobile Safari. I kept catching little errors. That's why I made so many edits in a row. It's terribly difficult to copy the entire article into a text editor, make a minor change, and then paste it, especially when I keep catching little copy edit errors. If this is wrong, let me know.

I had thought by marking them "minor" I was hiding them from other users so I wouldn't cause them confusion thinking I was on an edit-marathon or edit-war. The last thing I want to do is cause trouble. I'm a newbie (and dunce) at massive collaborative wiki editing. I only wish to help if I can make a positive difference. If I'm a nuisance, I'll stop making life harder for you vets.

Please advise. I need some guidance.

Also, if you could, please let me know if what I did to the article was good/prudent/wise/helpful or wrong. I really am curious if my first major edit was a success or failure.

Thanks. I much appreciate your help.

Note: I left a similar comment on Sulfur's page but addressed your concerns here for your convenience.

Best regards,

--Cepstrum 13:44, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


It sounds like you are using the JS category select option. I would suggest going to your preferences and putting a checkmark beside "Disable Category Select". -- sulfur 14:27, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for the advice. :) --Defiant 16:12, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Theme Designer Edit

Please note that the "Theme Designer" is an admin-level tool to change the layout of MA for all users and not just for yourself. I just had to revert your changes to green background. If you want any of that changed for yourself, you will have to do that via User:Defiant/wikia.css. -- Cid Highwind 19:37, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't know that the theme designer changed the skin for all users. I'm still finding my way around this new, crappy wikia skin! Apologies. --Defiant 08:39, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
In fact, if wikia doesn't want people erroneously thinking it's an individual tool, I don't know why they would have put it in the "My tools" toolbar; that just seems a bit stupid to me! --Defiant 08:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I wonder if it's worth letting Wikia know about this placement problem. -- Cid Highwind 09:32, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, frankly! I'd imagine, though, that they've got tons of other criticisms over the new skin. I also personally don't think I'd have the patience to communicate with them again, after all the things they've gotten wrong (and still get wrong)! --Defiant 09:38, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

The New WikiaEdit

I have heard some bad news about it from various wikis but i like it here. i can see the Fed Classic font and it lookas awesome! so wanted to ask your opinion. ScarletScarabX (Talk) 00:12, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Borg philosophy: thanks! Edit


I said most of this on the article's talk page, but I wanted to reiterate a personal message to you here: thank you very much for the positive feedback! It thrills me to have reached a consensus via dialogue there. It represents my first time, and it's something I've been highly anxious to do.

And your kind words really made my day. :) I tend to automatically think badly about myself and my edits. You have no idea what a lift you've brought me (I'm suffering from many personal problems and nearly died last night – just one of the life-threatening conditions I'm dealing with!)

So I thank you again. I hope we can continue to have productive dialogue on the talk page until we get the – rather obscure and low-important – article in as good of shape as possible. (I added a section that incorporates your great recommendation of mentioning Eddington's UFP-Borg philosophy comparison in the article's background. I look forward to your feedback on that.)

Thanks again and best regards,

--Cepstrum 13:10, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think you should be wary of repeating info, which is why I slightly changed the Eddington section. Aside from that, the article's looking really good, IMO! :) --Defiant 13:58, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Gene Roddenberry Cite Edit

Hey there Defiant. Great work on the Voyager pages. :-)

I was wondering if you might be able to dig up a citation for the claim that Tom Paris' middle name was a homage to Gene Roddenberry. It's tagged with a citation request on the latter page. Just a small thing that I thought you might have seen during your work. Thanks. ;-) – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:47, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unsure of a citation for that, as I've been mostly concentrating specifically on the episode pages. I'm a lot more unsure of general series-related facts, but I suspect the info about Tom Paris is available in the book A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager - it's just a tome of useful info, as regards Voyager! Though I'm a bit busy with non-Trek related stuff right now, I'll have a search for the requested citation and get back to you. --Defiant 12:30, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I found it in the Star Trek Encyclopedia - page 348 in my version, the 3rd edition. But since the only difference (as far as I know) between the 2nd and 3rd editions was the addition of another section, it's probably on the same page of the 2nd edition too. --Defiant 13:02, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I only have the 1st ed. of the Encyclopedia myself, which predates Voyager.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 06:41, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to have been of some help. :) --Defiant

Special characters vs HTML entitiesEdit

Just to let you know, the "–" character is not on most modern keyboards, so without using a character map program, is difficult to duplicate. We've been encouraging use of the HTML entities (such as –) in its place, including placing the HTML entities into the edit help buttons that show up at the bottom of edit windows. Thus the change I made to Chef that you since reverted. -- sulfur 12:08, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am not sure if I am violating policy or etiquette by adding a comment on another's talk page in response to a third party. Please accept my apologies and correct me if I am!
The whole back and forth changing from the endash ("–") to the either hyphen ("-") or emdash ("—") or something else really confused me. I left a more detailed explanation on the article's talk page. I'd really appreciate some clarification, for I'm hopelessly lost. Could you take a peak at my question on the talk page please? –Cepstrum (talk) 16:58, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
There's 2 reasons why I reverted your edit, sulfur. Firstly, I've been "corrected" on the X-files wiki for using endash;s and been told that the "right" method was using "–"s. I've always assumed that this was true and the latter version is certainly easier to read in the edit view. But now that you're telling me different, sulfur, I'll change to using the long, html method. The other reason why I reverted your edit was because you essentially did so to my change, first; what you technically should have done was contact me (either directly or on my talk page) about it, rather than basically just reverting the change I'd made. --Defiant 22:11, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Every wiki is different. XFiles wiki might like using the direct characters, MA doesn't. And I shouldn't need to contact you for every single change I make to your edits, should I? That's why I made the change, and then came and posted on your talk page, to let you know about the change. -- sulfur 22:44, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you should be contacting me (or any other user) any time you change back an edit I (or anyone else) has recently made; it otherwise constitutes an edit war, here on MA, and what makes you think you can bypass common courtesy to other users? If you weren't stalking the edits I make (though I see I'm not the only one you've recently done this to), there wouldn't be many edits of mine you'd be changing back, anyways. --Defiant 22:56, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I added on 16:28, November 6, 2010 (UTC) a stupid, tangential post directed to Sulfur – not Defiant! – here. In keeping with Cid's advice, I've moved the post here, on my special page for archiving my stupid, long, irrelevant posts. It's not even worth summarizing here, for it doesn't even concern poor Defiant! But I've learned now to stick to salient, succinct posts, at least as much as I can. Expect no more rambling nonsense from me.) --Cepstrum (talk) 14:02, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your predicament, Cepstrum, but I don't much like my own user talk page being used for such a long message addressed to another user; it doesn't seem very appropriate. Personally, I'm not interested in personal arguments generally and am trying to edit MA while attempting to reduce these to a minimum. I'd advise, Cepstrum, that you check out the page Memory Alpha:Etiquette; there's definite ideas on there that you can cite if an admin is in breach of any of them. Remember that admins need to remain within the policies and guidelines, too. And take it from me – the last thing an admin wants to be is in breach of those! I'd also highly recommend that you try to stop taking things as personally as you clearly are. I'm finding that a bit difficult myself, due to the edits that at least seem to be personally targeted, but the more we can get on with editing MA and leaving personal stuff aside, the more productive it's gonna be. --Defiant 19:11, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I posted a ridiculously long apology. Suffice to say, I had apologized profusely. Again, I moved this stupid monologue, posted 17:38, November 7, 2010 (UTC), to my archived section of dumb posts, found here. So you can still read it if you desire. Sorry!) --Cepstrum (talk) 14:02, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I will read more about it later, but... Edit

does wikia use the same syntax that wikiHow does? As far as links go, it looks like it. Reading will also tell me that, but thought I would start a dialog and find out an easier way!! I am an editor there.

They certainly look the same (in so far as programming code). The two are bound to have their differences, though (apart from the obvious cosmetic ones). Not being a regular user of that wiki, I wouldn't know and I don't think I'm the right person to ask; sorry. --Defiant 12:41, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

"Nero, Number Two" FA Nomination Edit

Hey Defiant, I have done more work on Nero, Number Two and was I hoping you would reconsider your objection on the nominations page? Even it you still object, I appreciate you looking at it anyway. -- TrekFan Open a channel 01:48, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update but, since my objection, I've been keeping an eye on it (as I do with any article under FA consideration), and would have changed my vote by now if I thought differently to when I made it. Besides, even if I did reverse my opinion of the article, it would require additional votes before being accepted as an FA. --Defiant 01:58, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Thanks for looking and yeah, I am aware it needs more votes. -- TrekFan Open a channel 02:02, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'd like to add that I feel both that the article has a lot of promise and that that is largely capitalized on, though I also feel that there's quite substantial room for improvement with it. From the start up til this point, I've felt that a peer review process would be more beneficial to the article than an FA nomination. --Defiant 02:12, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Since it is currently undergoing the nomination process and there are 2 supporting votes, I will leave it to run it's course. If the nomination is unsuccessful, I will most definately take up your advice and put it up for peer review. Thanks again. -- TrekFan Open a channel 03:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Headings Edit

Hi there. I noticed you capitalised the headings on "Visionary" and I just wanted to get some clarification really. I had been told previously that we don't capitalise headings on here. Though I think headings should be capitalised, I went with it and didn't capitalise them in articles. Can I just confirm with you that we are indeed capitalising headings? -- TrekFan Open a channel 18:05, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Trekfan. Sorry but you seem to have been misled. Whoever told you that we're "not doing headings" is either just plainly mistaken, stupid or both! Look here for the right answer: Memory Alpha:Manual of style#Headlines and sections. Personally, I completely detest the use of lower-case lettering for article headings. However, I know that some other archivists feel the opposite way, and wish all article types were with lower-case headings, so I'm happy to compromise, with the episode and movie articles being the odd (but wonderful) exceptions. --Defiant 18:32, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Defiant. I too believe that headings should be upper-case so that clears it up for me. Thanks again! -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:33, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

See also Memory Alpha talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization in Episode Pages.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:44, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, if you want to learn more about the debate, TrekFan. --Defiant 12:39, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Hope and Fear Incite Edit

Damn, that was fast. :-p –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:06, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Defiant 00:44, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Votes Edit

It's not surprising that you didn't know about the nomination being a vote, since I just recently changed guideline to reflect that because: A) There was no rule saying the person who nominated the article couldn't vote for it, and B) it seemed kinda asinine to make the nominator actually write out a separate vote, since the nomination made a support vote implicit. - Archduk3 07:02, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the bg info, Archduk3! :) It's just that I'd expect the nominator to be excluded from adding any sort of vote to the nomination procedure, due to the frequency of self-nominations, if you know what I mean. Basically, it seems just like adjusting the "5 votes required" guideline to instead 4 votes. --Defiant 07:21, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

...and now that there's no article up for FA status, your concern has been addressed. The requirement of five votes from separate users for self-nominations should now be pretty clear while still maintaining that "non-self-nominations" don't require a double post from the nominator for them to support it. - Archduk3 00:14, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

X-Files Wiki Edit

I notice you're the founder of the The X-Files wiki? I'm just getting involved in the series now, something I have been meaning to do for a while now. I used to watch it as a kid and now I'm "re-acquainting" myself with it - I'm up to "One Breath" atm. Just wanted to ask for some further insight into your wiki, really. I've seen a couple of articles but is it written from completely in-universe? Do you only use material from the series/movies ("canon") like on MA? etc. I'd be interested in knowing more, if you could spare a few minutes? Oh and on a side-note, your "Dan Leckie Way" wikipedia link doesn't work anymore as there's not an article by that name. :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:50, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, The X-Files wiki is not expanded universe. Thanks for the broken link info, by the way. :) --Defiant 11:00, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good. I don't like wikis that are written along the lines of "x character first appeared in x episode. In x episode, he did this..." Once I've got up to speed with the series, I might start contributing to a few articles, see how it goes. Thanks for the info. And no problem! --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:03, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Edit Comments Edit

I just noticed your comments on "Visionary" regarding Sulfur's edit summaries. This is something that I have been annoyed with for a long time and I had no idea that everyone else was aware of it. His edits are sometimes so sarcastic that I want to just post a load of sarcasticness back on his talk page, though I do restrain myself! --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:18, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Protection status of "Visionary (episode)" Edit

Please state, here and now, how page protection of "Visionary" has been "in violation of policy" - so that I can determine what action to take next. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 11:22, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. The page Memory Alpha:Protection policy states, "Do not protect a page if you are involved in the process that makes protection necessary in the first place," and, "In general, administrators should not protect pages which they have edited in the past (this includes discussing the article on the talk page)." Sulfur has been involved in the edit war, has edited recently "Visionary" and (now) has also contributed to the discussion on its talk page, in violation of these statements (though the latter wasn't). --Defiant 11:28, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It is true that page protection seems to have violated the "letter of the law" in this case. At the same time, though, I have to agree with Cobra (and others) regarding the point that you haven't been above "the laws", either. I've seen some violations not only of "letter", but also of "spirit of the law" coming from you, too. Also, while that is not an excuse, you might have noticed that I was absent for about the last two weeks. I'm back now, will keep an eye on that discussion from now on, and will protect the article again (this time as a neutral person) if necessary. Keep it civil over there! -- Cid Highwind 11:35, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cid. It's good to see you're back. :) I understand that I may have taken this discussion a bit too personally, and sorry for any offense caused. --Defiant 11:39, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Script Book pages + coversEdit

I uploaded covers for both script books, although if you have a better one for the Q Chronicles, that would be nice.

Also, who were the books actually published by? I couldn't find any clear information on that, so left the "owner" for the images as "?" for the time being... -- sulfur 17:04, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

They're published by Pocket Books. I'll probably be able to upload a scan of the cover of "The Q Chronicles", though I'm also a bit busy, as I need to eat soon! --Defiant 17:10, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for helping me with those script book articles, sulfur. I was about to add the blurb on the back covers but saw you got to it first (my computer crashed in the interim!) I'll try to add that upload of "The Q Chronicles"' cover. I'm away to feast! --Defiant 18:05, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Visionary Edit

Hi Defiant, I was hoping you wouldn't mind providing a couple of examples of what you found confusing in "Visionary"? Just so I can eventually get around to correcting it and hopefully get it featured. Thanks. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:45, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Reginald Barclay Edit

I have made some amendments to the Reginald Barclay article. I'd appreciate your comments so we can improve it further if required. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:51, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Your comments Edit

Hi Defiant. I thought you might have something to say about this discussion since you suggested including websites like in the "Visionary" nomination. Thanks! --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to think up something to say, but the absurdity of the opposing comments is too much! If it's not evident to the users who make those kind of remarks, I doubt anything that could change their minds would be. --Defiant 11:31, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything arising from the mild disagreement on the nomination page that warrants such accusations that other users are totally immune to reason and could never change their minds. Also, the only "opposing comment" is yours. I supported the nomination, and Sulfur just commented...–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 13:03, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Did I ask for your opinion, Cleanse? No. This was meant as a private discussion between myself and TrekFan. --Defiant 13:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to have a private discussion, do so elsewhere- any page here can be commented on by anyone at any time. If you don't wish to involve others in your conversations here, just ignore them.(and don't strike out other people's comments)--31dot 13:31, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for those tips, 31dot. :) --Defiant 13:34, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

"Melora" comments Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starlog #213 Edit

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

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

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

Deleted scenes and "would" Edit

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

Regardless of whether it is any different from any other, I think it should be, Cleanse. My opinion counts for something too, you know?! In this case, I'll assume that the matter has already been settled by community consensus, but I thought your tone could have been a little more accommodating! --Defiant 13:32, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Defiant, I'm not sure what kind of issues you appear to be having with Cleanse here, but he was simply noting that your recent additions to the deleted scenes page in the Voyager section did not have citations listed. There is no need to take offense at what was a calm comment and reminder that you forgot to add citations. It happens to us all, and you do not need to be defensive about the situation. -- sulfur 13:44, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
I agree; I've no need to take offense or be defensive about Cleanse's post, which is why I'm doing neither. --Defiant 13:59, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
In response to both Cleanse and sulfur, the post that started this thread was not a "reminder" (though clearly meant in that way), as I didn't forget – not including citations with my additions to the deleted scenes page was a conscious decision, on my part, made in accordance with the guideline to make "bold" edits. As I said, I think that particular page should be treated differently from other articles. --Defiant 14:11, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, any sort of citation for the scene that was removed from "Eye of the Needle" and added to "Cathexis" (which the latest of those additions by myself pertains to) would automatically have to include "original research," which I was under the impression we're trying to avoid. The book A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager consistently talks about the scene as a part of "Eye of the Needle", and I've been unable to find any sources that specifically make the connection, saying outrightly that it was incorporated into "Cathexis". So, what are we to do, in that case?! I am (and have been) perplexed! --Defiant 14:24, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
So, the scene (according to the book) was part of "Eye of the Needle"? And then showed up in "Cathexis"? In that case, cite the book, as it notes that it was part of "Needle", and perhaps rework the sentence slightly to put the citation at the relevant point, as the citation that it is in the teaser is... er... the episode itself. -- sulfur 14:55, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that, sulfur. Just to clarify, the book does discuss the scene's deletion from "Eye of the Needle", just not any info about its obvious presence in "Cathexis". I'll assume from your last post that we're not as dead-set against original research as I originally thought we were (maybe I've been thinking of wikipedia!) I've now added a citation to the bit about this scene. I'll look for citable page number(s) soon, but I'm currently busy trying to search for page numbers for the "Heroes and Demons" article. Once I've done that, I'll concentrate on the deleted scenes section about VOY. --Defiant 15:14, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider that specific example original research myself. Original research is when you go through 30 episodes showing that Sisko is a anarchist (for example) based on his behaviour. It isn't pointing out the obvious (such as "scene X was deleted from episode Y, but used in episode Z"). Anything that can be readily verified by visiting a source (whether reference book, interview, or the episode itself) is not original research. -- sulfur 15:21, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, got it. I'll try to remember that, now. I always thought it meant own/personal research, therefore drawing a conclusion where something is not outrightly stated but implied would be included (e.g. the presence of the deleted scene in "Cathexis"). Something else that I don't understand but pertains to this site (there's quite a few such things!) is the quibble that some people have over the word "would," saying it's grammatically incorrect. I've always thought, "Surely context plays a part in that issue, too!" Do you know what I mean? --Defiant 15:37, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
The issue with the word "would" is all about context. It's not grammatically incorrect, but it can be grammatically awkward. Used such as "X would be used in Y" is awkward language and better phrased as "X was used in Y". Any time the "past imperfect" is used, it is (by necessity) rather awkward. As we strive to be an encyclopedia, we try to avoid the use of imperfect tenses wherever possible. State simple facts "X was used" not "X would be used." The biggest issue is when a sentence is written in one tense, then changes to another when the "would" is introduced. That's what we're trying to avoid. -- sulfur 15:52, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Well, yeah; that's the example of context I was considering bringing up, as it does seem grammatically awkward. But the word "would" is used on other occasions, too (such as quotes, etc). Are we saying that those sort of cases are acceptable? --Defiant 15:59, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
A related issue is whether we employ our other decisions, re: words, in quotes, such as "Human" and "The Doctor" having caps. --Defiant 16:12, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
If the quote is from a book, written interview, etc, then the quote should be verbatim. If from an episode, video or audio interview, etc, then our styling. -- sulfur 17:39, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Cool – that is how I've been doing them (for the most part, anyways). Thanks for all your advice, sulfur. :) --Defiant 17:51, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure what you mean by "stifling opinions" but I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of having an unaccommodating tone and, IMHO, that's something quite different from suggesting that you could have a more accommodating one. Just as I took no offense to you, I didn't mean to cause you any offense, either; I'm sorry if I have. I'm not quite sure what your problem is, though. --Defiant 23:03, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
After some further reading, I've realized that you've kinda been out of line with MA guidelines, Cleanse. MA:BOLD states, "It's always better to have some content (as long as it's on-topic and not patent nonsense) rather than no content at all [....] It's perfectly all right to dive right in and add your own ideas to make the article better." Therefore, not only should you just have been happy that I added info about the deleted scenes (rather than me continuing to let there be no info about those scenes, on the deleted scenes page) but, as far as I can see, there was nothing stopping you from adding however many citations you felt appropriate, yourself! I appreciate that you did this for the one about "The Defector", but I think you'll just have to come to terms with the fact that not everyone shares your opinions; I'm sorry you have a problem with it, but that's just how the world works. --Defiant 23:25, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
With your last comment on the MA:BOLD bit, that suggests that our text on that policy is out of date. It should note that citations are required. I'll try to remember to update that tomorrow. Citations are important, information with no basis makes us no better than IMDb. -- sulfur 02:20, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
  1. In the future, if you don't want to accuse me of things, then don't make it sound like it. I wrote my initial comment in a polite manner. I would suggest that if you don't want people to think you are accusing them, then don't dash off replies with exclamation marks and personal complaints. Okay? :-)
  2. I welcome Sulfur's idea to update MA:BOLD. However, it should be obvious already that it does not permit experienced users to violate policies and then expect others to clean it up for them. As an administrator, you are meant to uphold the policies and the general practices of the wiki. Other administrators leaving a reminder/heads up is not intended as an attack, but just to ensure that everyone is on the same page.
  3. It's not my "opinion" that pages should have citations, it's the policy created by consensus. You are not above policies. In fact, I am confused by your sudden resistance because you have participated in discussions about the format of citations (so have contributed to making the policy), have added citations and "citation needed" tags to existing information etc. Clearly you know the policy on citations and why this is important in an encyclopedia. As I said above, if you are concerned with how to cite something, or that it may be original research, just bring it up on the talk page.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:13, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

1. It's a text-only website, so it's impossible to make any posts "sound like" anything; I'm not entirely responsible for the way you read (as in "red") my post and it seems a bit laughable that you'd find an exclamation mark offensive (or any other type of frequently-used punctuation, for that matter). I made no "personal complaints" – it was a suggestion, just like you wrote "I would suggest...."
2. Okay, for the most part... though I didn't interpret your "heads up" as "an attack" – as I've stated multiple times now, it did not offend me. I also believe that the purpose was not to be offensive.
3. It's clearly both your opinion and general consensus that all pages should have citations; otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing for it so strongly. The need for citations is not, actually, in dispute. It's clearly just been assumed that that is what I do have a problem with, as at no point have I been asked why I think the deleted scenes page should be an exception, which smacks of arrogant presumption on your part; you're evidently not interested in what I have to say, so why ask? Your conclusion, this time, was far better; thank you! :) I agree that I am not "above policies," but as both a member of the community and an admin, my voice/opinion is just important as yours. That's the way it should be, anyway. --Defiant 09:07, July 6, 2011 (UTC) were suggesting that my tone should be more accommodating, but posts don't actually "sound like" anything? Huh? %-)

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

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

Talk:Gang Edit

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

I'm sorry you didn't take my initial comment to you in the way it was meant and I would have said something along the same lines to anyone else with as few edits or evidence of uncertainty regarding the English language. But I certainly didn't mean it as a personal attack. As far as I can see, you're doing very well with editing so often and I believe that, if you keep it up, you have the potential to become an admin. I simply recommend that you might want to wait til then to add your insights to discussions about admin-related issues, such as merges. --Defiant 17:44, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
A merge is not an admin-related issue. Anyone can speak to merges (and pretty much anything else) here on MA. -- sulfur 17:52, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
The actual merge should be done by an admin, because of the deletion required to merge the page histories, but merge discussions are open to whoever wants to post. - Archduk3 18:31, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. That's definitely news to me, but alright. Sorry, OvBacon; my error! :( --Defiant 18:59, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please remove my admin status, then? In light of this misunderstanding, I clearly don't even have as much knowledge about what constitutes admin-related issues as I thought I did! --Defiant 19:13, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Accepted of course. I would also like to make clear that I have no problem with it if the opinion of an admin has more weight than my own, I just want my opinion to be heard and through participation in discussions to learn the ways of MA. -- OvBacon(Talk) 19:19, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

If you want to surrender your admin powers, Cid or Sulfur can do it.--31dot 20:58, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Done. -- Cid Highwind 21:18, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Cid. :) --Defiant 22:49, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Compendium Edit

The Star Trek Compendium has multiple editions, so the edition number should be mentioned in the citation. Thanks.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:02, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I was unaware of that. Guess I should have looked it up; sorry. --Defiant 10:30, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Input requested Edit

Can you take a look at Memory Alpha:Files for deletion and weigh in. Further input is need to break the tie. Thanks. - Archduk3 07:54, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Done, giving my honest opinion. Glad I could be of assistance. --Defiant 08:42, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

That's all I ask, and I tend to agree, that images should be used on Wikipedia somewhere. - Archduk3 08:48, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Rura Penthe aliens Edit

Hi there! I noticed the note you've recently added to Rura Penthe inhabitants, and it's probably a long shot, but I wonder if your source has anything at all to say regarding this unresolved discussion? If it's the same alien, it would be exactly what you were talking about in the note. -- Capricorn 14:40, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember finding any particular info like that. I probably would have noted it if there was. --Defiant 17:52, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Gav Edit

In adding some background notes, apocrypha and external links to Gav, I also had to add an {{incite}} to the note you just added about the episode's script. If you could, would you mind putting the citation in? --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:31, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's from the actual script that I got off ebay. --Defiant 20:10, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
So, I've removed the citation request, since the note already says that the info is from the script. If you can think of a better way to cite script info, you're welcome to either add it or talk to me about it first. --Defiant 22:00, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
Defiant is correct – stating that the information comes from the script is a sufficient citation. It is good practice, however, to link to scripts where possible, which is mainly the case for TNG, DS9 and the films.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:42, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
Which I have been trying to do, and will continue to do. --Defiant 05:51, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
I know. Just clarifying the situation for TrekFan. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:56, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I reckoned as much. It's good advice if you're adding script info yourself, TrekFan. :) --Defiant 06:00, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

I always do add citations. I figured you had got it from a reference book that contained the script from the episode (like The Q Chronicles), in which case you could have cited it with that and the page number just to give it a source, but never mind. --| TrekFan Open a channel 08:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Input Edit

If you don't mind could you sound off on this discussion? Thanks. - Archduk3 17:31, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Cinefantastique informationEdit

I'd just like to thank you for the information from Cinefantastique you have added to several pages, most notably on Voyager episode pages. I read on your user page that you don't like DS9 (which I think is crazy, but each to his own) and was wondering if this was why there was little information from Cinefantastique on Deep Space Nine on Memory Alpha, or if the magazine just didn't focus on Deep Space Nine that much. -- DS9 Forever 13:12, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, other than to say that Cinefantastique appears to concentrate just as much on DS9 as Voyager and TNG, and that some of the folks who have an interest in that series don't seem to have access to the magazine. Ever since starting my concentrated effort to upgrade the Voyager episode articles (and even years before that), I've secretly been planning to do the same for all the spin-off series, which would ultimately include DS9. Voyager seemed like a good one to start off with as, unlike such series as TNG or DS9 (which both have their respective Companion books), Voyager's bg info seems rarer and/or more evenly spread over a number of sources (there therefore seemed less of a chance of risking copyright infringement by endeavoring to be definitive). I always try to keep my edits here relatively disassociated from personal feelings, however, so I have no qualms about concentrating on DS9 info eventually. --Defiant 13:37, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Recent talk page comments Edit

I've seen many talk page comments similar to those on Talk:Armus from you in the recent past. Typically, you start side-tracking a till-then civil and on-topic discussion by claiming that you have been treated unfairly, and how this wiki is about to collapse because all admins are evil. Please stop doing that, it's becoming terribly annoying. I am not out to get you, and if you read "attitudes" into innocent discussion comments, it perhaps says more about your mindset than about that of the guy you're talking to. -- Cid Highwind 17:19, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm baffled by what you mean about "claiming [I] have been treated unfairly, and how this wiki is about to collapse because all admins are evil." If you read my user page, it actually talks about "the wonderful, ongoing efforts of the admins and fellow contributors," so I think you might just be misreading some stuff or something like that. --Defiant 17:32, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
I'm 110% sure that I haven't once said you're "out to get [me]" (as I actually think quite the opposite since, as far as I can see, you keep your posts very on-topic, etc., for which you should be commended). I don't have any sort of ongoing problem with you, so if anyone here is reading "attitudes" into innocent discussion comments... it's not me. By the way, I also don't think this wiki is about to "collapse," since I know wikia's method: once at wikia, always at wikia (even if mirrors are created)! --Defiant 17:43, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
(Posting here to avoid being off-topic on the other page) I did not say you were acting in bad faith, or anything other than good faith; I was simply pointing out that I didn't agree with your comment.--31dot 18:09, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, 31dot. I didn't mean you; I was referring to Cid's comment above; I apparently think admins are "evil," etc. --Defiant 18:20, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Let's break down what you said there Defiant:
"Well, just forget my suggestion, then, as you seem dead-set against giving it any sort of approval. Even if you don't approve of the idea, you could still have acknowledged/welcomed the fact that I contributed by making a suggestion."
This is uncalled for and a complete over reaction. No one has even suggested that they were "dead-set" against your idea, and if "welcoming" and "acknowledging" an idea requires discussing it in detail even if that's not what the person was talking about, then I ask why anyone should pander to what you think? Cid acknowledged your idea by saying it wasn't what he had in mind. That doesn't mean it was a flat out dismissal, just that it's not what he was talking about. The idea is still there and can still be discussed, though I'm not sure why anyone should now that you've flown off the handle about it.
"The fact that you didn't is typical of the attitude adopted by MA's admins nowadays, if you ask me!"
This right here is the off topic "admins are evil" crap you like to spread around, and no one asked you. There is no way to read this as constructive at all, it's just you complaining for no reason and pushing a point that has long since been rejected by the community. You call this an "innocent discussion comment", but it's more of you raging and trolling because someone appeared to disagree with you, and that has to stop. - Archduk3 18:46, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the insult "crap", I don't believe there's any need to get so personal and insulting. I request mediation from an admin uninvolved in this. --Defiant 23:57, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
I feel really abused by the accusation of "trolling," especially since I've been a user here since 2004! I wasn't even taking this personally, not by one iota, but actually arguing for the rights of newbies who may also encounter the same sort of dismissive attitude. It seems very, very clear to me that there's little I can say or do that will make the truth be known, though – that every and any point I make is for a precise reason, entirely unrelated to "trolling." I'm still requesting admin mediation, as there's apparently so little I can do without the accusations starting! Evidently, the "assume good faith" guideline is repeatedly being breached. With these accusations of "trolling" and such, I'm feeling very threatened, and this is even after a few hours of me following the "taking some time out" guideline. --Defiant 00:29, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, my motives are being misunderstood time and time again, and in lieu of an explanation (rather than just inquire as to one), some users seem intent on just assuming an awful lot (the main faux pas being that, since no reasoning has been outlined to you, there mustn't be one, other than the nonsense of "trolling"). If you misunderstand my motives, I'd request that you please ask me what they are (just as people frequently do in reality). I certainly don't appreciate being personally attacked, as in Archduk's post. What I myself can't understand is why, even though I admitted (early in this discussion) that this was just a small nitpick (and there's only a single, short, non-personally-offensive post that seems at question), others have felt it warrants a force of three admins to respond! Doesn't that seem a little bit heavy-handed, especially since Archduk has breached the policies and guidelines multiple times without any comeback from any other admin (at least, as far as I can see)? --Defiant 08:56, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

It's funny to see you complaining about others assuming "an awful lot" about you, given the fact that this thread was started to ask you to stop assuming too much about others. As long as you won't even admit that this is the case (that you did read things into other peoples comments), I see no further sense in continuing this discussion - or acknowledging any future complaints from you, for that matter - because we'd just be running in the same circles over and over again. -- Cid Highwind 10:03, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "it's funny," I'm glad I could amuse you, Cid. :) I'm not sure what you mean about "stop assuming too much about others," as I have stated that I assumed your original post was "well-meant." Was that too much to assume? --Defiant 10:20, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
I'd also ask how you supposedly "know" I "read things into other people's comments" without any proof of that, and evidence (in fact) to the contrary! Don't you think I'd know what I've been assuming more so than someone else half the planet away?! I'll swear on everything sacred to me, including my own mother's life, that I didn't presume anything from your post other than it was well-intentioned. I'm really getting tired of all these accusations, though, so it may indeed be for the best if we try to cut down on contact with one another. But by that, please don't assume that I mean anything negative towards you (as is your habit). --Defiant 10:59, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
I am not part of a "force of three admins" who responded to you; I simply wanted to respond to your "good faith" comment; nor did I get together with anyone else to plot against you. I'm trying to stay out of this discussion as I don't really have anything to add.--31dot 11:17, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Well, your input has been much appreciated, 31dot. "Force" may have been too strong a word. That may be why others have been assuming that I'm taking things personally/negatively (for example, at no point did I mean to suggest a conspiratorial arrangement). I'll try to further reserve the impact of the words I use; that might help. --Defiant 11:23, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • On Talk:Armus, you accused me of being "dead-set against giving [your idea] any sort of approval", and that this "is typical of the attitude adopted by MA's admins nowadays" (and "typical" in that context can only mean "bad" rather than "good" - otherwise, why complain about it in the first place?). All I did was to state that your earlier assumption about us "thinking along similar lines" was wrong, because what I had in mind was something different. If you then, later, stated that my post was actually "well-meant" instead of "the [typical/bad] attitude adopted by MA's admins nowadays", this is just an example of you backtracking from an earlier claim, something which often happens in discussions including you.
  • On Talk:The Keeper, you basically called my a hypocrite that "just criticize[s] the previous creative efforts without making any sort of creative effort [himself]" and noted that "just criticiz[ing] anything else anyone writes" is my main objective - although, in fact, my only objective was to not start an edit war with someone who is just editing the article in question.
  • On the two recent forum threads about admins, you claimed that "there's a gross miscarriage of justice carried out by the admins at large", that "admins [are] trying to run this site on fear-mongering", that there is "disreputable behavior of the admins here in general", that "this place is essentially run like a dictatorship", that the only reason for opposing a specific admin-removal policy was that "those who have ceased [sic! most likely meant was 'seized'] power often want to retain it for themselves" (and not the fact that the suggested policy was full of problems)

So, yeah, these direct quotes from you are why I know (and not just "supposedly") that you misinterpret other people left and right - and those are just from four discussions of the last month that you participated in. You will probably just twist all of that into being "my" problem instead of "yours" again, and if you do, I'm not interested in playing that game any longer - but please note that I will move off-topic remarks on article talk pages to your user talk when I find them. -- Cid Highwind 12:25, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that clarification, Cid. I've been under the mistaken impression that this was on-topic with the discussion that started this, at Talk:Armus, not just a whole load of loosely-connected issues. Since this discussion is now over in my opinion and apparently also in your own (quote: "I see no further sense in continuing this discussion - or acknowledging any future complaints from you, for that matter - because we'd just be running in the same circles over and over again"), please accept that. --Defiant 12:44, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki