User talk:Cyberia23/Archive/Archive 1

Images For Stargate

Great work on the images. I've started to add my own even. Adds a lot to the stargate series of pages. Tatarize 08:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spock's Brain

I'm not too happy that you got rid of my infobox.  :-( You say you didn't like the way it looked - was it the color scheme? The font?

It was a way to get key info at a glance and was something useful. What's the difference between my box and, say, the one at the United Federation of Planets page?

On another note, it would be helpful to have a link to your talk page on your user page. --StAkAr Karnak 12:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyright details on images

Hiya! Just thought I'd drop you a line, since a conversation I've been having overlaps with some work you've been doing. I was looking for info on the copyright situation of uploading frame grabs from movies & TV shows to Wikipedia, like you've been doing with Star Trek episodes, and got the following word from Jimbo Wales on the mailing list.

It is my belief that frame grabs of this type are perfectly within the realm of fair use and fair dealing.

See, for example Blackwell Publishing's discussion of the matter, here: [1]

The link suggests that images should be accompanied by a "sufficient acknowledgement".. "the film's name together with the name of its producer. In addition, for films made on or after 1 July 1994, it must also give the name of the film's principal director". Anyway, I whipped up something which seemed reasonable, added the {{fairuse}} template, and the result can be seen at Image:STSquireGoth.jpg (picked one of your uploads at random since I haven't uploaded any images yet). Reckon that look like a reasonable summary?

—Stormie 11:32, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

• Heya.. I'm sure that as long as you've got the {{fairuse}} tag on there your images will be fine, but I thought it was kind of nice to have the source details there too, not only for copyright reasons, but also so that anyone who comes across the image will not be left wondering where it came from. But yeah, it's the tag that's important.. if you look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags you'll see what a massive job there is getting the proper copyright details sorted out for Wikipedia's image library, I'd hate to add to that work by uploading an image and not tagging it. I do think it's worth adding a screengrab to an episode synopsis, though—and it's pretty traditional to do so. —Stormie 23:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ship names

Why did you revert my minor edits of "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" where I put the starship names in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)? --Arteitle 18:06, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for the inconsistency with regard to the periods in "USS". I disagree that all of the Star Trek-related pages are out of line with the manual of style (for example, see Starship Enterprise), but even if they were, that's no reason to perpetuate the problem. I'll change some of them as I come across them and so will other peple, and eventually they'll all be consistent with the Wikipedia style manual, and the world will be a happier place. --Arteitle 19:12, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Devil in the Dark

Hello there, cheers for your impressive Star Trek work :-)

Question about Devil in the Dark — do you know the name of the (Lieutenant) Commander in the red shirt that's killed? I was shocked at the time to see an Enterprise crew member of such high rank killed so easily (even if he beamed down in a red shirt). Don't have access to the episode, that's why I'm reluctantly bothering you. Thanks in advance! — Cwoyte 16:53, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Bird-of-Prey class

The Star Trek link on the page does go to the 'Star Trek: The Original Series' article. I just don't like to write that out on the page because it's not really the name of the series. As for distinguishing between the series Star Trek and the fictional universe Star Trek, I use italics to indicate the show and no italics for the whole franchise. I think that's pretty standard among the ST articles here. -- [[User:Djinn112|Djinn112 ♠♥♣♦,]] 00:06, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and in every English-language guide to style I've ever seen, you use italics for names of big things like TV shows and quotation marks for small, especially constituent, works like episodes. If you think that the naming conventions should be changed, you might want to try suggesting it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). -- [[User:Djinn112|Djinn112 ♠♥♣♦,]] 12:44, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Complaint

Are you talking about Tholian? Your edit to it was helpful: it noted the episode the events occurred in. So was mine: it noted the series the episode was from and put the title in quotes, proper formatting for the title of an epis

Star Trek and Copyvio

Just write your own on the /Temp page. When a week's up an admin gets around to it, Mr. Anonymous's page will be deleted and yours moved in. It'll be like he never was there.

And why'd you copy All Our Yesterdays from Memory Alpha yourself? -- Cyrius|✎ 18:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind that last bit, I see what you did. For future reference, pages should be moved by using the "move" command at the top of the page. Your copy and paste move left the history of the page's creation behind, making it look like you were responsible. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Requiem for Methuselah

Good sir- I have no idea why Cyrius is doing this. He has reverted my original work of Requiem for Methuselah claiming copyright violations. I have informed him this was not copied from any website, webpage, or other source. I wrote it MYSELF. If you understand his motives please share. This seems very silly. You and I should perhaps request mediation. Opinins? Thank you. -Husnock 27Dec04

Copyright question

Yours is a common misconception. Wikipedia's material is not "copyright free". It is released under a very generous license (GFDL) that allows for redistribution and modification. Sites that redistribute Wikipedia are doing so under that license's terms, which allow for commercial exploitation as long as the requirements are met.

Memory Alpha's content is also not "copyright free". They are under another generous license (Cc-by-nc-2.0), which allows redistribution and modification, but does not allow the use of the material for commercial purposes. The non-commercial restriction is probably part of making sure they don't get sued by Paramount.

The two licenses are not compatible, and transferring material from one site to the other is a violation of the terms of whichever license the material is under. They are unlikely to ever become compatible in future revisions due to the non-commercial limitation.

If you wanted to write original material for both sites, that's not a problem. Hypothetically, say you wrote a three paragraph essay about the internal organs of Tribbles. Because you would be the copyright holder, you would be free to license your work to both sites under their preferred terms. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Nevermind

I know the effect it has, and that's exactly why you should "bother" to do it. The category listings should show the topics listed in alphabetical order, without the "the"s. Take a look at an index. By the way, you should also "bother" to sign your posts on someone's Talk Page. Get it? -- MrItty 12:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Update Bradbury Page Credits

Cyberia23, Hi, I updated the Bradbury Page image credit (I'm the artist) to include my new website's Bradbury Class Image Gallery page.

Thanks, L. M. Nutter www.coldwaruniverse.com

Image Copyright Tags

Hello! I'm tagging lots of untagged images and stumbled across a couple images you uploaded:

• Image:RolandD50.jpg
• Image:RolandOctapad.jpg
• Image:RolandRE201.jpg
• Image:RolandSH1000.jpg

I've tagged them all as {{unverified}} for now. This means they *could* be deleted sometime in the future. If you could take the time to give them the correct tags that would be great. Or you could leave me a message on my talk page with the copyright info, and I can re-tag them for you. Thanks for your contributions! --MaxPower 18:55, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Yeah I *almost* tagged them {{fairuse}} but I thought I had better check. Unless you have own any of these rolands and want to take newer/better pictures of them, I guess I will tag them as fairuse. Thanks for the input. --MaxPower 21:14, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Star Trek overhaul

Provided the entire "theme" of the series of articles is the same, it is fine. Living things have their own setup, noble peers have their setup, religions and even battles have their own box. All articles should be linked to the episode that happened before it and after it, along with a link to the main series article. The VHS box was used as a default because access to actual stills was limited. If you can make your own, go for it. Make sure they are properly tagged, this is a big thing these days. Along the lines of making the article better, go for it, I just don't have the time to make extensive write-ups on every episode. I personally feel that every episode article must have the authors and directors along with a stardate. Other than that, make sure you don't violate copyrights and have fun. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 05:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek episode TSoP

Thanks for the info. jdb ❋ 18:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Angel One VFD

Why are you putting Angel One up for deletion? There are plenty of Star Trek synopsis pages just like it. Yes, it'a a boring episode, but Angel One has survived a pervious attempt at deletion, why continue to press the issue. I seen there are plenty of votes to keep it and other users have mentioned the previous VFD and agree it should stay. I've taken the liberty of removing the VFD regardless cause it's a moot point in my opinion. I'm not here to start a flame war over it, since deleting Star Trek pages is obviosuly a losing battle around here. Cyberia23 22:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I put Angel One up for Vfd because things are changing around here, and most other fancruft is getting merged and/or deleted. I know we are supposed to value inconsistency, but I think it would be misleading to new contributors to have a big stack of Trek episodes but not allow similar articles for other TV series or mangas or whatever. I have replaced the tag. Kappa 01:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a plethoria of knowledge, both useless and useful. Since there happens to be a bunch of detailed Trek stuff, that means there are more people who happen to be contributing toward it at the moment than other things. I have seen a lot of info on other shows like anime and sci-fi. I'm sure, eventually those will be covered more and more. It takes some time. Just because BOOM it ain't all detailed yet doesn't mean what is started should be trashed. I spent a lot of time on the stuff I written, and I've gotten mostly positive support for it. Thats why I continue to do it, and I'll be more than pissed cause some lamers don't want it around. In my opinion, like everything else in the world, if you don't like something, why is it so damn hard to IGNORE it? Don't like it, then don't look at it. Theres tons of other stuff to read. Cyberia23 07:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that this nomination has caused you stress, but I don't think you understand the situation. The majority view in Vfd is that detail like this should be merged or preferably deleted. The reason that Trek stuff survives is mainly because there are a lot of Trekkie wikipedians, who will all show up and vote "keep". Vfd voters know this, so they don't bother to vote "delete" even when that's what they want. Other fields can never become equally detailed, because there just aren't enough people working on them for detail to survive Vfd. I don't have a problem with Trek stuff being in wikipedia, but the trouble is Trek detail confuses people into thinking they can make detail for whatever other field they are interested in, and they end up wasting their time. That's why I don't want to ignore it. Kappa 11:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ST overviews

Well then. We seem to have come to a huge disagreement here. Most of the overviews you've been reducing are not overviews of the episode....only one part of it. None of the detail I add is specifically spoilers.

The end point is to be able to also find an episode given a small bit of the story. Cutting out pertinent details removes this ability. Stop making the summaries your personal pet project and deleting my contributions (images included). Cburnett 22:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:EnterpriseNX01.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. Rebrane 21:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright violation.

EnsoniqESQ1.jpg is a copyright violation; it is exactly the same as esq1.jpg from [2]. It's been removed from the page it was on, and will probably be deleted, eventually. If you have a replacement, or if the image was originally yours and got onto that site, please leave me a note. grendel|khan 21:25, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Conspiracy (Star Trek)

As I noted in the talk page for the article, the author at MA specifically stated that the text was derived from the text on Wikipedia. My understanding of it is that this derivitive text is necessarily GFDL, despite MA's use of Creative Commons, and is thus okay to copy back into Wikipedia. If the text is derived from Wikipedia's, it shouldn't be on MA. Removing it would remove any obstacles to placing it in Wikipedia. I could be mistaken about this; please explain where I'm going wrong in my reasoning. James 02:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think the MA article is much more succinct, written in better English, and more easy to read. I was going to just merge the two, but couldn't make it through the whole thing on Wikipedia, because it was simply too detailed. I know you are personally attached to the article, but that isn't a sufficient reason to not put in MA's text. Perhaps I'll give a go at shortening the article as is, but I really do think using the MA article as a starting point and going from there is a far better option at this point. James 03:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Trek Pages

Thanks for the heads-up. I apologize for initially removing the Overview bit on the "City on the Edge of Forever" page, but I soon after restored it when I saw that other Trek episodes had it. (Did it not take?) Thanks. Nightscream 8.11.05. 4:52am EST

But saying that they discover a time portal doesn't really describe what the episode's about. Wouldn't a slightly more detailed (but still) brief description of the basic plot, like you see in TV Guide, be more apt? Something like "Dr. McCoy accidentally alters history after going through a time portal to the 1930's, leaving Kirk and Spock to go after him and repair history"? Nightscream 8.11.05. 4:59am EST

please..

You may have just quite obviously had no idea who you are talking to here, I accept that, as perchance you do not believe that my father was the late Fred Freiburger, who was the producer on Star Trek in its third season, yes, its too sad for words that you didn't/do not yet give me any credence on that, very well, then just as "fans" of Trek.. how shall we avoid having an edit war on the pages of Star Trek unless we come to a mutual understanding here?, For I am not a troll, or a vandal, but I do understand the habits of them, and from your behaviour it seems that unless you get your way, you go and change things without a moments thought or care to others...am I wrong but isn't that yet another sign of a vandal?, Well whether you are one or not,( and I certainly hope not!!!) please, are we going to be able to reach a parley here? I TRUST so, for I do not like warfare yet will not shrink from one either. So lets talk?...and reach an agreement, btw, I am an old timer here and only recently came back under a new sn due to someone else taking on my password & perverting my old sn here, I have been online here at Wikipedia since 1999, and I'll thank you to talk it out with me before we start a battle here please!? thanks! (Cathytreks 16:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

Note the fact that I made a revert on myself, for the greater good on the spectre of the gun page? ( 16:34, 26 August 2005 Cathytreks (rv in the NPOV ideal ...of making peace with another who cares about Star Trek as well I do, and in the selfless interest of intergalactic peace sometimes one just has to do "the greater good" thing.)

Kathy, I'm a sci-fi geek, I admit, but I'm not that much of a geek to spend all day arguing about Star Trek, plus I don't really care who your father is in the least bit. Sorry he passed away and no disrespect toward him, but don't hold whoever he was over my head like I'm supposed to cower in fear by his presense. You lose a lot of credability points with me that way. Cyberia23 17:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cyberia, your words of understanding, peace and hope make one believe in miracles!, thank you and the site looks wonderful! ,oh btw.. my only reason for mentioning my late dad's name wasn't meant as a power play or anything so gauche, but only as a heads up for anyone so you'd know we could "talk trek" and know we are on the same page, for I see you as a true and honest fan, one dedicated to the truth of the show and the hard work and motivation's behind it, and protective of same!, all my best regards and thanks again for the new found understanding and peace between us, Shalom! (Cathytreks 18:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

No biting, please.

Please do not bite the newbies. Friday (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

ST episode template.

Hello! Can you please change the ST Episode template back the the blue colours? This was much more pleasing to the eye than the awful shades of green that you have chosen. It really does look most distressing now.

Regards,

(aeropagitica)

ST episode template revision

Hello,

I used the revert feature of Wikipedia to move the colours back to blue from green. I really do believe that this is an easier colour scheme for the eyes than the greens selected previously and not just an aesthetic choice.

Regards,

(aeropagitica)

Image:STSpecies8472.jpg

hey there, you uploaded an image of Species 8472 (which rocks). I was wondering, are you able to get anymore of them, or maybe an image of their ships? thanks alot... Gryffindor 14:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Well I'm sorry to hear that editors made life difficult. If you ever need a support-base, I can recommend you to visit Esperanza. regards.. Gryffindor 23:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Again. I'm sorry. I got a little cared away learning here. I'll be more careful in the future. Keep up the good work here at Wikipedia. You all have a great site!

Re:Knight Rider 2000

My Bad! Thanks for catching my editing mistake. Cheers! Autopilots 07:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

M.A.D. is an acronym for "Mean and Dirty"

The article Inspector Gadget is about the 1983 cartoon syndicated by DIC entertainment. It is not about toys or coloring books based on the show.--The_stuart 15:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I just want wikipedia to be acccurate.--The_stuart 23:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Knight Rider screenshots

The original screenshots I took for Knight Rider and related articles looked squashed because the original DVD frame resolution was 720x480, which does not match NTSC's 4:3 aspect ratio. I resized and re-uploaded them to fix this. They should now look correctly sized. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Firebug 02:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Graphic Arts

As a Graphic Artist and Designer I see no differnece in Graphic Arts and Graphic Design. Unless you want to get technical, the design phase is planning what you're going to do for a client, and the actual "art" would be the finished product that the client will use. Cyberia23 20:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no difference either. The comment before yours on the Graphic arts talk page is that of User:SkaldSircha, and their comment doesn't clarify anything to me. Also, the graphics articles are spread about with separate articles for Graphic design, Graphics, Graphic arts and so forth. I've thought about consolidating them, but distracted with other matters. Sparkit 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

KITT

I missed that. Delete my last... Trekphiler 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

super-pursuit KITT

You got me beat. I never heard that. Trekphiler 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefly's star system

Hi, Cyberia. You recently added a claim to Firefly (television series) with the edit comment, "as stated before, the system has more than one star!". I'm not sure where the previous discussion was, but I don't think that is correct, unless there's a change between the TV series and the film. In Serenity, the schoolteacher's map in the opening shows dozens of planets orbiting one star. It may be astronomically improbable, but that seems to be the creators' intention.

In addition, there was a long debate here about whether the accuracy of the terms "solar system", "star system" and "planetary system" with regard to the setting of Firefly/Serenity, and the issue of multiple suns didn't come up. If there was another conversation about the number of stars, I'd love it if you'd point me towards it. I want the article to be accurate, and I want everybody to be on board with edits too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I firgured this was going to start some kind of stupid debate, and since it's just a sci-fi series I hate arguing over this because it's really pointless. I saw the discussion but it's way to long to read all of it, I don't have the time right now, anyway it seems to be bickering about what scientific terms to use not if there was one or more stars. About multiple stars; my source is the role-playing game which is based on Whedon's notes who contruted to the authors work). In there they have a map of the 'Verse section which is a diagram of the star systems in Serenity/Firefly. I believe the the diagram, like much of the art in the book is taken directly for the movie. More specifially, the solar system diagram which was on a display screen on the ship. It clearly shows more than one star with several dozen planets orbting everywhere. (Kinda in a pentagram shape - some esoteric reference probably). Miranda is a rogue world which orbits the whole thing apparently. Everyone refers back to the computer diagram in the opening of Serenity which shows only one system, that would be the star system Osiris is in, since River and Simon are from that world. I keep adding "multiple stars" to the setting part and everyone keeps deleting it. I know if mention the RPG game everyone will scream "it's non-CANON Blah Blah Blah" as always. Cyberia23 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly know what you mean about not wanting to get into a long involved debate over something as trivial as a sci-fi series. (It sometimes astounds me what people will spend their time and energy arguing about here.) We could probably avoid the argument if the diagram you refer to is in Serenity: The Official Companion, which has a lot of pre-production and production art from the film. I'll take a look at that tonight or tomorrow and see if I can find anything definitive one way or the other. (Alternatively, when I get the DVD I can try to find the frame with the Miranda map — if it's clear from that then that would settle the debate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefly/EW

Okay so you deleted the EW thing - but your link just looks like a fan blog site. It doesn't look official to me. Cyberia23 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fan blog site, but user Joss is indeed Joss Whedon.--SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of hits

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I've not logged on here for a while (RL has me busy). When I mentioned number of hits, it wasn't for a page counter. That was the number of web pages Google found that were related to the search term. When you search for a word or phrase, Google not only finds the pages for you, it tells you how many pages it found that match your search criteria. That is what I was referencing -- the number of "hits" Google had returned for that search. Since that is a fairly good benchmark of how popular a topic is, many people consider the number of hits in their determination of whether or not a topic is notable. Of course, you must always take into account that obscure or technical topics may return relatively few hits, but still be very worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I hope that answers your question. SWAdair | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk]] 07:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

cleaned up my premature edit on all our yesterdays

and now remember you the perfectionist trekker!..my apoligys, peace out. (Cathytreks 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

TOS cleanups

(I think whoever wrote these synopses hasn't seen the series in many years)

In other words, I was more or less right.

It was not intended as an attack, merely as a wry observation. I don't live and breathe Star Trek either, although I count myself as a fan.

I guess I've seen every episode of TOS at least a hundred times over the years, and I rely entirely on them, not other 'Net sources. I'd be wary of them if I were you. Some of them contain some real nonsense. Harry Mudd, for instance, never expresses a desire to be called "Harvey", and "He throws himself about the bridge in an apparent nervous breakdown, and Spock can do little to help him at the moment" is absolutely laughable. My guess is that someone altered one of those sites, or perhaps this one.

I suppose I should have guessed that some of the information came from Star Trek sites, like this:

"The planet is believed to have been terraformed by the ancient Preservers, who transplanted humans there. The planet is given the designation FGC 347601 III, the third planet in the FGC 347601 system."

That, of course, is never mentioned in the episode "Miri". It comes across like typical Trekker babble.

Kelisi 01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Taxi 3 Ski Stunt

The stunt wasn't CGI, but it was faked. If you want to know how it was done, it's in the DVD bonus material. ;) κаллэмакс 20:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone said it was probably green-screened. Cyberia23 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

quotes

With regards to types of quotes, the straight quotes on the keyboard – ' and " – are leftover from the limited space available on mechanical typewriters. Typographic publishing (newspapers, books, etc.) has always used the – ‘’ and “” – style quotes.
Strictly speaking the latter is more correct. While some readers do prefer one over the other, Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not specify a preference. I usually change straight quotes to typographic quotes in something I am editing as I think they look better. (in Firefox and in IE)
And I was not using Word, I did it manually in Wikipedia’s native editor.
MJBurrage 21:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I use Firefox, and have always preferred—and almost always use—“typographic quotes” instead of "straight quotes". I also use – en-dashes, — em-dashes, … ellipses, and × multiply symbols where appropriate, regardless of the editor I happen to be using. I always assumed that those who did not, either did not know how, or did not care. You created the page that prompted this exchange, and I will refrain from changing them there in the future. —MJBurrage 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord/Dieties Kobol

Hi, Please don't copy/paste pages to move them use the move tab at the top of each page, doing so destroys the edit history and is can cause problems with the GFDL. Thanks, AdamJacobMuller 05:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

BSG move

hey, i just thought it was getting really long. plus, it says its a list of the episodes, not a list with summaries, credits, etc. its now a list without any spoilers for those who just want a list of the episodes. if they want to know more, they can click on the link and read what its about. anyways, you can always just revert it back to the way it was, no big deal. i was just bored and decided to clean it up a little. Xornok 02:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Full Colors

How does it violate POV? We have no proof that Full Colors and Pyramid are the same. Therefore combining the two and saying that they *are* the same is a POV violation. Keeping them separate allows them to be whatever they are. When they are proved same, they can be merged then. Yyyyyyyyyyy 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Y, you are making a fallacious argument that by NOT seeing anything confirming them to be the same that they are not the same. Cyberia23 and I are both in the right here. The ONLY thing that we KNOW about this from the screen is that they use the same deck of cards. Off-screen we have RDM's admission that they ARE the same thing and the name issue was his fault. There is plenty of evidence and rationale for a single article and NONE for two different ones. (Even when you DO pull it into two, the second one is less than meager.)

Cyberia, thank you for the formatting adjustments. I do like it that way.

VigilancePrime 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is

I believe the standard rule in English titles (as in book titles or movie titles, etc) is to capitalize anything that isn't a conjunction (and, but, or, etc), preposition (in, of, etc.) or article (a, the). See also amazon.com -- Curps 21:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

KITT's ECG

I don't have the DVD in front of me myself, but I remember KITT monitoring Michael's vital signs on the paired monitors as they are racing to the airport to intercept Tanya. As you will recall, Michael had been shot trying to intercept Tanya at Comtron and was on the verge of losing consciousness, leading KITT to monitor his vital signs.

Also, the scale of the EGT display (0-2000) is obviously for an Exhaust Gas Temperature display - I didn't believe that to be a pulse monitor.

So I'm obsessive. 8)

DiogenesNY 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cylon God article

I created an article for the God. Please help! - SGCommand

• Lucy Lawless character is a cylon. Ron D. Moore has implyed 2 things.

1. Number Three goes against the Cylon God
2. The God is a real figure. - SGCommand

Fair use debate regarding television screencaps

Currently, there is a debate on Talk:List of Lost episodes regarding whether or not use of a 1/30th stillframe visual excerpt next to a list of audiovisual works (such as List of Lost episodes or List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes) is in accordance with WP:Fair use, and has even resulted in the protection of the page.

If you have any opinions regarding fair use on the List of Lost episodes page, please feel free to express them as I believe these two pages are sister projects.

Cws125 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

TAPS/GhostHunters Dichotomy

You erased quite a bit of information about the running of the group TAPS and the way they conduct their investigations from the TAPS page, as it was already on the GH page. That to me shows a negligence for what you are doing, favoring change rather than meaningful evaluation of what you are doing. I have beyond all shade of reason made the TAPS article about TAPS. If you wish to erase this information from the GH article, think about why you are doing it. Does it really help anybody? The debate about the value and worth of both TAPS and the show Ghost Hunters are bound together. Can one dicsuss the credibility of the show without bringing doubt upon the group, and vice versa? --Ira-welkin 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

TAPS Groups?

There are groups in the 'TAPS Family,' which is a designation that TAPS gives groups it approves of the investigations methods of, but calling other paranormal groups 'TAPS Groups' is like calling every rock band a 'Beatle' group. I think you should DISCUSS these huge changes rather than just making them. TAPS gets donations from Sci Fi but does NOT GET PAID. You don't know enough to be making these changes. --Ira-welkin 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

GhostHunters 'Repitition'

I defend the apparent repetition by pointing out that the initial mention of Ian Cashmore relates to distinguishing the show Ghost Hunters from the show Ghosthunters that was also made by Ian Cashmore, and disambiguifying that right up front, and then mentioning him again under 'critisms' section along with other criticisms. People might have a hard time telling 'Ghosthunters' from 'Ghost Hunters,' especially since they were both initially made by the same people. You have a hard time telling 'TAPS' apart from other paranormal groups, calling them 'TAPS Groups,' which is baseless and innacurate, a case of extreme simplification and injecting fallacy into the article. --Ira-welkin 01:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Ghost Hunters" Wikipedia entry

I believe that Mr. Ira Welkin has led the "Criticism" section astray of its original purpose - to list the concerns of the show's critics. He has attempted to refute every criticism and mitigate any shortcomings. That is not "criticism", it's propaganda.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghost_Hunters"

Hey thanks for the feedback. I have only been a wikipedian a week and its been a whirlwind crash course! I appreciate the responsiveness of this community, and I hope I have addressed the above concerns that you have had with my changes. I agree that the response of supporters of the group did not belong in the 'criticism' section. Now not only do both sides have a voice, and now two sections to work with (clear forums for the seperate views) but everything is in an appropriate section. Thank you very much! --Ira-welkin 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unchallenged Supposition

Mr. Ira Welkin has concluded the GHOST HUNTERS Wikipedia entry with the following statement: "Until there is substantial proof otherwise, the possibility that TAPS fakes evidence remains completely theoretical." I believe this to be a conclusive and misleading statement. It would be equally correct to say, "Until there is substantial proof otherwise, the possibility that TAPS evidence is genuine remains completely theoretical." I feel that these two statements would cancel each other out, therefore, neither of them should be included. -- C. Darrow 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of episode images

I'm not sure if you are aware but all the images for star trek episode lists (and much much more) are up for debate at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists as not fair use and thus require deleting. The crux of the "anti-image" argument is that they are both non-encyclopedic and purely decorative, something which is an entirely subjective set of criteria (much more so than the legal concept of fair use). Either way please drop your 2 cents on the respective talk page because it seems the only way this will be settled is by shear numbers which is quite sad. Cburnett 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:LexxCrew.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LexxCrew.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring

Please don't engage in revert wars. If you want to discuss my changes (which, by the way, *don't* require a discussion beforehand, see Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages), there's a discussion underway at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Merging minor Cylon characters into Cylon article. If I have your assurance that you will not revert war I would be glad to unblock you and engage in discussion with you there. — Philwelch t 20:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, usually you WAIT until the vote or discussion is over until you begin trashing everything Phil. Whatever, Battlestar Galactica is not worth arguing over so you can unban me. I won't change it back. But your still out of line and thanks for destroying some of my better articles I appreciate it. Cyberia23 20:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and how am I supposed to discuss anything when I can only edit my user page. I'm blocked everywhere else. Cyberia23 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:ANI, here MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well since Phil seems to be blocking anyone voicing an opinion on this matter, including me, I can't give input. Someone lodge a complaint against him, I already sent one but who knows when I'll get my access back. This is total bullshit! Cyberia23 21:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You were unblocked hours ago. — Philwelch t 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Philwelch blocked me too for reverting a redirect, he did not give me any warnings. His block was completely uncalled for, I'm not some vandal, and blocking someone because they reverted a redirect is ridiculous. Dionyseus 03:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey about merging Battlestar Galactica articles

Hi, feel free to provide your input at the survey: [3] Dionyseus 07:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable statements

When you come across an unverifiable statement it should removed rather than merely tagged with {{fact}} as you did here. The claim that people drive around on two wheels in Qatar is ridiculously absurd and should have been removed immediately as simple vandalism. I can assure you, over there they drive their cars the same way everyone else does. --Cyde Weys 06:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:Karr

Woah, dude. Chill out. Please do not threaten me.

Shamrox 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

11001001

I moved 11001001 back to 11001001 (TNG episode) as you requested, although I'd still prefer to only use disambiguations like "TNG episode" in titles only when necessary. I still don't see any problem with it; if somebody vandalizes a page because they expected something else there, it's a simple matter to revert the vandalism and then disambiguate. I don't understand what you meant by "It screws everything up and makes endless redirects when other articles link back to it"; there is usually no problem with creating a link to a redirect. You cite the issue of consistency among article titles, but there's also the matter of consistency with the usual Wikipedia practice of only adding things like "(TNG episode)" to an article titles when there are, or are likely to be, other articles of that title. Still, perhaps this issue's not really worth getting into a Holy War over. - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Planets references

At the end of each planet's entry is a link to a particular episode from which the planet is referenced, either in dialog or actually shown on screen. Therefore the episodes are the references. I don't see how we can give a better reference than that. Cyberia23 22:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I see some without even that much of a reference. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 23:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Anaraug! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)