Talk:Spock

Pre-empting an Edit War

Hey EEMIV, what gives? I actually take time and effort to start updating this article (currently C-rated) and all you can do is swoop in and [revert] most of it? Except for a bunch of IP vandalism, there isn't a whole lot going on with this article. At least I actually care about making it better. And I also put an {{underconstruction}} tag on the top of the page. So maybe you can wait a bit until passing judgement rather than being hasty about it. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's break it down

"Spock is closely associated with the voyages of the Starship Enterprise, serving as science officer and first officer, and later as commanding officer of the late 23rd- and early 24th Century iterations of the vessel. After retiring from the United Federation of Planets Starfleet, he goes on to serve as a Federation Ambassador, responsible for the détente between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. In his later years he serves as Federation Ambassador to Romulus and becomes involved in the ill-fated attempt to save the Romulan Empire from a rogue supernova."

In one short paragraph I've summarised his career in the nutshell. The detail follows in the main section further down the page. If I'm a user dropping by to read about Spock, I would expect to see a short summary of the character's IU history. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

---

"Spock's mother and father are Human and Vulcan respectively. This mixed heritage, as well being the first Vulcan to serve in Starfleet serves as an important plot element in many of the character's appearances. Along with James T. Kirk and Leonard McCoy he is one of the three central characters in the Original Series episodes and films."

The second sentence is a statement of OOU fact. However it would make no sense without the first sentence. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Review

Since there was a call at WT:TREK, I've appeared! Some general impressions and comments.

• I think it's better from a readability standpoint and in keeping with WP:WAF to put the development of the character before the character summary, and sprinkle some of the work-specific content into the relevant sections (namely, Spock's death.) As it currently reads, the first section of the article is a repetitive, "In X, Y..." You can break all those paragraphs into a more streamlined form.
• File:Star Trek-Jacob Kogan-Child Spock.jpg doesn't meet NFCC.
• Obviously, the biggest shortcoming right now is the lack of general reception. It's the hardest to find, but the most important. Forget UGO, he's been a massively important character for decades. There's got to be more scholarship on how he was recieved, as well as the ethical considerations of the Vulcan logic (although some of that may simple be too specific for Spock and should go in the Vulcan article. Part of the problem may be the division into "Reception"/"Cultural impact" sections. How was the character originally seen by critics back in '67?
• I think quoting the Spock principle in full seems like overkill.
• Facial hair as it's own section? Eh.... I think the image can go too.
• No love for TAS?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey David, thanks for the comments, I've got a few comments/queries, please let me know what you think:

1. I'd thought about changing the order of Development and Depiction, but I wasn't sure if Wikiproject Star Trek may have a preferred template or if this has already been hashed out elsewhere. When I started editing the article, I compared it against its peers in particular Kirk and McCoy for obvious reasons, and those also have Depiction before Development. Also, the only FA-rated Star Trek character article I could find is for Khan Noonien Singh, and that one also has the Character stuff prior to Design. Your thoughts?
2. You also note that "the first section of the article is a repetitive". I would love to expand it, but based on the reversions done against my edits last Friday, I am worried that it's going to get deleted for being "IU Fancruft". I would also note that Kirk, McCoy and Khan's articles have a lot more story summary in them. Is it OK then for me to expand on it? I agree that it's a bit thin and repetitive, but I also don't want to be wasting my time. (And the iteration just before I got started was just a massive chunky paragraph that was impossible to read, which is why I split it up a bit).
3. This is only the third or 4th image that I've uploaded. I was pretty sure that it met the threshold - can you please explain further on why it's not NFCC? And if this isn't NFCC, then why is the pic of Zachary Quinto NFCC?
4. Any thoughts on where I could find more on critical reception? There's virtually no newspaper coverage scanned in that dates before the 1980s, and I don't really have the resources to go after the scholarly stuff.
5. when I quoted the SCoT decision - my thoughts were along the line that when you see this sort of thing happening, Spock isn't really just for hardcore geekdom anymore, he's mainstream, and let's highlight that fact
6. I'm happy to kill the facial hair section, but it was already there before I arrived.
7. I didn't mention TAS because it's such a grey area w.r.t canonicity. I could put stuff in, but again if I start quoting from "Yesteryear" and that Spock used to have a pet sehlat, that I'm just wasting my time once the deletionists arrive.

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond. Cheers. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Jake

Well, you don't need to go into that much detail in the TAS stuff, but mention that he appeared in the series and Nimoy lent his voice (it's out-of-universe importance, regardless of canon status.) In regards to Khan, I structured it the way I did because the "design" section also focuses on some scholarly interpretations. Making one section work before the other really just depends on how you structure the information presented; for example some video game articles have a "plot" section before the "gameplay", and vice versa. If you want to keep it as is, you're going to need to slim down some areas and structure it more as an introduction, i.e. "General info about Spock. Enterprise stuff. In the movies. Blah blah blah", keeping enough in so that when you hit the design readers aren't going, "wait, they designed what about what? I didn't have any knowledge of that before!"

The appearances are a bit more in-depth in Khan, but I could get away with it because he's only had two canon appearances. Unfortunately you've got to condense a lot more Spock history into a relatively smaller confines. Forget about the subheads. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Rockin' the Spock

Yeah this sentence here doesn't have a period: Spock decides to attend Starfleet Academy and serve as a Starfleet officer, rather than attend the Vulcan Science Academy, contrary to his father's wishes[5] The relationship between Spock and Sarek is strained, often turbulent, although rooted in an underlying respect and carefully restrained love for each other. After the word wishes there should be a period before the. This is considered incorrect grammer. You can find this sentence in the Background section of this article. Please make this change. Thank you.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Worth Adding References or Links to an Element of Spock's "Proposed" Family History?

I refer to Barbara Hambly's book Ishmael. I can't get this disambiguated title to come out as an internal Wikipedia link, so I'll just paste the text here and hope someone else can fix it -- sorry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28Star_Trek%29

Anyway, in this book Hambly sends Spock back in time through the Guardian -- to the world of the TV series "Here Come the Brides". And she gets him involved with a character in that series, Aaron Stempel (spelled "Stemple" in her book) . . . who was played by none other than Mark Lenard. Of course, since he's a human, she makes him an ancestor of the Grayson family -- but it might be worth either discussing or at least linking on the main page here, too.

-- jalp (a wand'ring wikiminstrel I) . . . 209.172.14.203 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. We can't include what happens to Spock in every book ever written about him. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

While I'll admit it's interesting, (non-)canonicity of the novels is a problem. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Spock Principle Edit War

[1], [2], [3] Shall we discuss? So what exactly is it that you object to? The content itself, or the prominence given to it by placing it in a quote box? I might be willing to concede the latter, but it's no more "trivial" than anything else in the Cultural Impact section, and serves as a good way to illustrate Spock's acceptance in the main stream of thought, rather than being a narrow pop cultural reference. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It is trivial and unnecessary. It in no way improves the article and should be left out. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It's not an "edit war" when one editor comes in and adds material against consensus without discussing it beforehand. WP:BRD may be helpful here, but in the short term I suggest you discuss these changes before you simply add them back into the article. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty disingenuous of you, when I'm the one who started the "D" in BRD. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. What else would you like to delete, because pretty much the entire section is trivial depending on how you look at it. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The picture of Spock as a child, for starters. As for the rest of it, you have my opinion. I would suggest we involve some of the other editors that have contributed this article (like Mike) and see what their thoughts are before any additional reverts take place. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This material has been in for a couple of months now. I would suggest that your deletions are what's against consensus. I challenge you to produce the diffs for the discussion where a consensus was reached to not include the quote from the SCoT ruling. Also, I added about 17K worth of material to this article from April 1 to April 9. Maybe that would have been a better timeframe to voice your objections. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. when was the last time you or Mike posted an edit to this article that wasn't a reversion or a minor edit? Just checked the history. July 2009. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

July 2009 is when the article achieved perfection and, until your edits, didn't require any subsequent revisions.  :) Thanks for noticing though. It's appreciated. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfection isn't a C-rating. Although it's good to know that my efforts haven't been for naught. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And your sneaky attempt to imply that this has to do with WP:OWN is disingenuous, given that you're edit warring over an article that you haven't substantively involved yourself with in almost two years, but are claiming to understand the consensus on what should and shouldn't be included. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:OWN because when I last edited the article is irrelevant. David Fuchs, EEMIV, Mike, and I all seem to believe inclusion of the "Spock Principle" in the article is unnecessary and, as David put it, overkill. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the diff for EEMIV's opinion on the matter? Also, as you can see from the discussion above, I discussed it with David Fuchs, and if he really objected to it's inclusion, I'm sure he's more than capable to removing the offending quote himself and doesn't need you to speak for him. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is going nowhere and is non-productive; this ins't a forum. David's statement is above, you have mine, and you can see Mike's revert. EEMIV and other editors can make their own decision on this subject. As it stands right now it appears to be 3-1 for its exclusion. If you can make an argument that inspires other editors, go for it. Until then it should stay out per current consensus. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, this isn't a forum - it's a discussion of the appropriateness of content as per WP:BRD. "EEMIV and other editors can make their own decision on this subject." Yes they can, but you're the one putting words in their mouths. And it's 3-2 if you include Mattbuck's edit earlier. Oh, and don't forget that Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the tag-team reverts by you and Mike are an example of Multiple-editor ownership. Technically, in combination you've already violated WP:3R, but I won't hold it against you. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR, as I have not had 3 reverts in 24 hours. You need to look at the edit history a little better before you even go there. See my notes above. Until you can change consensus, we're done. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said that you violated it individually, but rather you violated it in combination with Mike. In fact, I even sought clarification on the matter here. So actually, I have looked at the edit history quite closely. I love your dismissive tone, though. Don't forget to be CIVIL. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

@Erikeltic - You're assuming consensus where there appears to be none. Can't get consensus without discussion, which an edit war isn't. 67.193.96.49 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. 67.193.96.49 is in Belleville, Ontario. Based on previous edits, I think I know another editor from that area. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is interesting. So what exactly are you claiming here? Why don't you say it outright instead of implying it in veiled terms? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you really do not want to turn this into a flame war. I suggest you both step back from the article for a little while and cool down. Nothing can get settled if you are accusing each other. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone - he is -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

←And you're still responding like a child. Honestly, people, it's a paragraph. Is it really worth this much garbage? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but I don't really see either of us backing down. Although by default it would seem that Erik has won this one, since the article is currently sitting at his last reversion, and I have no intention of running afoul of 3RR. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for a group consensus to materialise, which probably won't happen until the holiday is over. What do you suggest? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I think there's nothing wrong with mentioning the Spock principle, but we really shouldn't be quoting that which we can summarize. Considering the prose established what the Spock principle is, and that it's been quoted in legal decisions, what does the quote add? (I'm not sure if there are non-free content considerations as well, as I'm not sure if a judge's opinion is in the public domain or not.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal decisions (at least in the U.S.) are considered public domain - after all, where does legal precedent come from, if people aren't allowed to access, quote, and interpret from them? Anyways:

• "state and local laws and court decisions are in the public domain" [4]
• "For our legal and political system to function properly, we must all have free access to official legal documents such as official documents [etc.]. For this reason, all such works are in the public domain [5] -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there something in WP:MOS or some related policy that says we can't quote this? To put it another way: it's hard to argue one way or another when something should be quoted or summarized. Most if not all quotations are able to summarized, and yet we see quotes in articles throughout Wikipedia. What's the bright line, if any? Does this quote in any way detract from the article content? In fact, I even tried to compromise by moving the quote from a box to a block [6], to reduce the perceived prominence of it, and yet that still got deleted. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's overly weighty and, as David said, can be summarized. Its inclusion is unnecessary. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik - I'm well aware what your thoughts are on the matter - but I'm sure David can speak for himself -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik, since you agree that it can be summarized, then do you also agree that this edit which removed all references to the "Spock principle" was unncessary?

Furthermore, I would note that your last reversion left the summary unsourced, which I had to fix [7], or are you now saying that unsourced claims are acceptable in Wikipedia? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My two strips of latinum: the term "Spock principle" is a neologism (or whatever you call a made-up phrase) that it appears is used only in that one medical dispatch text. The current phrasing of that paragraph implies (or I at least infer) that the Texas court decision refers not only to the movie quote, but also uses the term "Spock principle" -- which it doesn't. At a minimum, I think the term "Spock principle" needs to go away. My suggestion for actual article improvement is: find a source that identifies Spock's mantra as a reflection of utilitarianism, and phrase that paragraph along the lines of, "Spock's utilitarian assertion that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'[ref#] is cited in the blah blah Texas court case." Ideally, the piddly little sentence can get tacked on to the end of something else. --EEMIV (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with EEMIV on this point. The phrase currently doesn't deserve its own section; I think inclusion should be based on what other elements of a similar theme you can aggregate together--scholarly views of Spock, what have you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, if that's the consensus, then fine. Is one of you going to post the edit? I don't really feel inclined lest I fall afoul of Mike and Erik again. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is consensus. I can not do the edit if you'd prefer; I could care less as long as it's fixed. EEMIV can do the edit if he would like as he has done many great edits to this and other Trek pages in the past. His views are the same as mine on this issue, so I have no objection to either he or David making the change. Erikeltic ^(Talk)!

Yes, there is now consensus. Whereas before there was none, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. Does this statement support your position in anyway whatsoever or is it just another inflammatory non-sequitur? Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thanks. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that you've got to wait for consensus to actually occur, instead of just assuming it's there. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What's inflammatory is this pain I'm feeling in my .... -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Jacob Kogan/Young Spock image

[8] Would user:Erikeltic kindly explain his edit summary which states: "Image clearly doesn't meet NFCC". As it was uploaded in early April and has withstood almost two months of scrutiny from his fellow editors, I would suggest that it is not clear. Furthermore, I think the NFCC justification provided for the Kogan image is superior to that of the Quinto image, which was uploaded in May 2009, and so Erik has had a whole two years to remove the latter image from this article. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. You keep addressing time frames on this article and seem to pointing out that you and you alone have been the driving force behind it for ____ <-- (insert time here). You really should familiarize yourself with WP:OWN before you make that argument again. It isn't helping your cause. I made the statement to you that the picture was unnecessary, David pointed out that it doesn't meet NFCC, so I removed it. Why it was included in the first place is really beyond me, but please don't mistake the fact that it was there for a while as evidence that it should have been there in the first place. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And I specifically asked for a reason why it's not considered NFCC, but neither of you seem willing or able to do that. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is my last response to you tonight until other editors have a chance to add their voice. Again, Wikipedia is not a forum and should not be treated as one. First, the picture you uploaded meets none of the requirements of WP:NFCC. Read the guideliness to find out what that means; I'm not going to spell it out for you. Second, the other image was published in a Wired magazine as a secondary publication, has contextual significance to the new film, and is related to the content about the 2009 film. The NFCC-failing image of "Spock as a boy" is totally unnecessary here, adds nothing whatsoever to the article, and is clearly copyrighted material. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not sure how you think this is a forum, as opposed to being a discussion as per BRD. Since you're the one objecting to its inclusion, I would suggest that it's incumbent upon you to properly explain why. In fact, if you object to the image so much, why don't you initiate an AfD on it, so we can have a proper discussion. In other words: convince me. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, you have my answers to both issues. Now we should allow other editors to have their own voices heard, so I am going to walk away for the evening and/or until that happens. As for "convincing you", I don't need to convince you of anything. To quote WP policy, "It is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How odd, I thought that this was your "last response to [me] tonight"?

And as for "It is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" I believe I've already done that in the original upload summary. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this the dispute I've been asked to weigh in on? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but you certainly can. The dispute in question is the one above and is regarding the Spock principle. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we reach a consensus here as well?

This discussion has been stalled for several days now. As Spock's father has made his thoughts known here and here, can we now try to make some progress at reaching a consensus? Since my opinion on the matter is pretty well known, I'll keep try to keep further comments to a minimum unless necessary. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'd recommend removal, unless sources can be provided that show the role was the subject of a significant amount of critical commentary and the image is necessary for reader comprehension of said commentary. Otherwise it doesn't meet WP:NFCC, no way you hack it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I also recommend removal. The image is no more important to the content of the article than those actors that played the progressively aging Spock in Star Trek III. In addition, unless SarekofVulcan states that the image should be included in the article, his feelings that it meets the NFCC cut should not be interpreted as support for its inclusion in the article itself. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet more back and forth that has very little bearing on the discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"In addition, unless SarekofVulcan states that the image should be included in the article, his feelings that it meets the NFCC cut should not be interpreted as support for its inclusion in the article itself." Hm, seems to me that you're just as guilty of interpreting someone else's words and actions. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC) I believe that this edit answers your question. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Let me borrow some words from another editor that were written above and use them to respond here. "Erik Jake - I'm well aware what your thoughts are on the matter - but I'm sure David Sarek can speak for himself." --Jake Fuersturm Erikeltic More sniping? I would have thought you'd know better by now after yesterday's debacle? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC) I don't see how you can find this statement objectionable, since you're the one who made it in the first place. I find it pretty ironic that you call my statement sniping when in the very next sentence you're far more confrontational. Furthermore this type of thing isn't necessary. You were the one that wrote "Since my opinion on the matter is pretty well known, I'll keep try to keep further comments to a minimum unless necessary." Erikeltic (Talk) 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) The key point being "unless necessary". -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Your statements to me at this point are not necessary. Your opinion has been noted for all to see. Do you just need to have the last word? Is that what it is? Erikeltic (Talk) 15:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Again, you should not use Sarek's views on this image making the "NFCC cut" as evidence that he believes it should be included here. I'm sure if Sarek feels it should be included he he will make it known to all of us very clearly. Erikeltic (Talk) 14:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC) No, what's evidence that he believes it should be included here is his reversion of your edit -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Feel free to revert his revert if you feel so strongly about it though ..... -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC) That is in error and (now for the third time) you should not infer his views on the copyright status of the image--and subsequent revert which was directly related to the copyright status--as his views for its inclusion. You wrote to me that David could speak for himself and yet now you seem unwilling to let Sarak speak for himself. Why is that? If he feels that it should be in or out, I am certain he will let us all know very clearly. As for your suggestion to me to revert his revert, are you saying you no longer object to the picture being removed from the article? I don't want to put words in your mouth or infer a meaning that isn't there. Erikeltic (Talk) 15:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC) "As for your suggestion to me to revert his revert, are you saying you no longer object to the picture being removed from the article?" Now's who's putting words in who's mouth? Nope, I agree with his revert of your edit. I only wanted to see if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC) You mean ask for clarification of another editor's ambiguous rather than just infer his or her meaning? Yup; my money is right where my mouth is Jake. That's why I asked. So how is any of this "keeping your statements at a minimum?" How are your statements at this point at all helpful to the discussion about whether or not to include this picture in the article? Erikeltic (Talk) 15:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC) As I responded above, the key point to my earlier statement being "unless necessary". You've made it necessary. Now, are you going to cease the personal attacks, or are we going to do this dance (again). And so you know, I have asked SarekOfVulcan to contribute to this discussion. Whether or not you decide to wait for him before making another comment of your own is up to you. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Once again, demonstrating that you must have the last word. For the record, all I said was that you should not infer his feelings about a copyright as being his feelings for the picture's inclusion. That's it. Erikeltic (Talk) 15:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't care about the copyright status of the image, but I do believe the image doesn't belong in the article - the actor's appearance is only a minor footnote in the history of the character's portrayal... MikeWazowski (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)