User talk:WikiuserNI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Alastairward)
Jump to: navigation, search

Trek and all that[edit]

Would you consider mentally archiving our recent discussions and the pair of us start afresh? I was editing while up pretty late last night and was probably not in the best of form.

With regards a few matters;

  • Firstly, genuinely didn't wish or intend to out anyone. I changed my own username for the sake of anonymity after all. Probably should have just retired my account completely and started afresh but there you go. I won't repeat what little I can remember of the oversighted material.
  • I was lazy with that hidden message after the episode count. I reverted to replace a fact tag and didn't bother taking out what was (even for me) a bit of a cheeky hidden message.
  • I probably should have just slept on the article, thought about the expansion of the parody and fan sections and edited them today. The extra parody information was, in retrospect, reasonably easy for me to Google for.

So, sorry about the fuss. I know the internet would be nothing without Trekkers/Trekkies furiously formatting angry messages to each other, but I hope we can let this be our last battlefield. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! Thank you; what an absolutely delightful message to receive. My apologies to you as well, for the fuss and the added hyperbole... :) You're an excellent editor, we're both obviously Trek fans, and I look forward to working with you now that our amok time has ended. Live long and prosper...and happy editing! 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, look forward to it. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
And I've just fired a full-spread of Quantum Torpedoes at any left-over pieces of my jerk behavior. I blame it mind-meld-gone-bad...yeah, that's it, those damned mind-melds....who knows what crazy things will happen when you meld with the Vulcan Mountains of T'Pol. Oh, my! Dreadstar 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, ok, was the Romulan Ale, I admit it. Dreadstar 20:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Romulan ale? I should have hit a raktajino that other night. Could do with one this morning too... WikiuserNI (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry WikuserNI just browsing, but have to say this makes a change from what i usually see you argueing at. My 2nd-cousin would feel right at home here, he's been able to speak Klingon since he was 14 or 15 and thats over a decade ago. Mabuska (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Not at all, who says I can't consume a spot of humble pie every now and again. Also, Klingon can be a useful language to know on occasion. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland[edit]

Didn't know about that. I've mistaken the data of the background with the religion ones. Specially due to the big variation between them. I'm without sleeping anyway... Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

last scene of 'Spectre of the Gun'[edit]

WikiuserNI, the part about 'martial arts type kick,' sure, I might be able to improve the phrasing of that. Now, with the very last scene, Spock, Kirk, and McCoy on the bridge, and you might be able to summarize it much better than I, that scene has some the ongoing philosophic debate, the nature of the human race, are we inherently violent?, and this thread is picked up on in other episodes, and it definite shows some of the relationship between McCoy and Spock, and it has a good-natured claim by Kirk about the advancement of the human race, all in all, I think we probably should include it in our summary in one fashion or another. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The plot summary should be as concise as possible, if something is to be dwelt upon, it should be significant to the plot and not just the viewer. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Big Lebowski[edit]

I don't get your point: why did you revert my bit again? A fan created site isn't trustworthy enough? Because I won't find any citations elsewhere, and I obviously can't cite the script either. So let me know why should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubezero² (talkcontribs) 10:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it really all that notable? If so, it would be cited in a more reliable source than a fan site, which wouldn't really pass muster as a reliable source. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: A Private Little War[edit]

I got an alert that the picture in the article was orphaned. I checked it out and saw that you deleted it for what seemed to be no reason, so I undid it - but I saw you had added an extra bracket to the picture's link which made it disappear, so I redid you edit but deleted the erroneous bracket which brought the image back. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I guess that makes sense. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Please just double-check your edits next time, thanks. Cyberia23 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I usually hit preview. I might add that what you did, to delete one extra [ using a revert, then a revert of your revert, without any edit summaries, was equally if not more confusing. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit War??[edit]

My information has been removed from this page as a threat has been made against my freedom of activity on this site. Ever piece of information should be removed by WikiuserNI after this has been read. All records of activity has now been saved by me for my report. If you wish a copy, do ask so. –Revron77

Replied on your talk page. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncited Nuclear War[edit]

I'd like to point out that I feel your attempt at the mass-removal of uncited edits is counter productive. Rather that point to a specific issue here (and I'll appropriately mention--without citations--that there are several), I'd like to direct the statement at the philosophy in general. It seems more productive, rather, to find potential sources yourself rather than waiting for another user with appropriate citations to rediscover that knowledge. And while that might not always be in the best personal use of any single individual's time in many cases, it certainly seems more fair to the many individuals who may have contributed to the sum of knowledge that isn't as rigorously checked as you would have liked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherealstill (talkcontribs) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You implied that my suggestion encouraged the existence of uncited sources. This implication is inaccurate. Rather, I'm suggesting that you change your personal behavior regarding the application of what YOU consider "uncited material." This does not encourage the violation of any particular rule within the wikipedia philosophy, it's only a recommendation to your personal editing philosophy which might improve your contribution to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherealstill (talkcontribs) 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As you may note, nearly all of the references you previously removed in a particular article have been re-added with citations. This suggests that with a little more effort, uncited references can be verified and remain as useful knowledge for the community to share. I appreciate your removal of these references for minor formatting and validity issues--every small bit of effort helps in the long run. However, you might want to reconsider helping in the search for these citations and/or reformatting them instead of removing them immediately, or at least consider allowing others the opportunity to properly cite the references while a user is actively editing an article with the stated intention of adding said references in order to avoid a so-called "wiki-war." Remember, the purpose of a Wikipedia rules is to more effectively contribute to our understanding, not to "one-up" users in an attempt to frustrate them or to justify your personal edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherealstill (talkcontribs) 04:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


What about the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings? That was a terrorist attack. It should be added o the list because it's missing. B-Machine (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Summa Logicae[edit]

This link [1] gives you a sense of the work I put in (over 100 pages) to correct the scan of Summa Logicae into MyWkiBiz, which Wikisource then ripped off. And now you refuse a link to the original version. Common courtesy suggests you allow the link. I also wrote nearly all the Sum of Logic article anyway. (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If so, then, as Mr Ollie said, you appear to be a banned editor. I think I should decline your request. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek Enterprise (Civilization)[edit]

I am still looking for sources. Maybe after I find some I'll change the article back. Until then it might as well stay as a redirect. At least this way the article the article won't be deleted :). Best, --Alpha Quadrant talk 21:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No consensus to merge[edit]

  • I don't see any consensus to merge. I undid some of the "mergers". Was this even mentioned on the Star Trek Wikiproject? Wait for consensus before merging. Currently more editors say Oppose than merge. I'm going to bring this up on the proper Wikiproject to get more input. Dream Focus 12:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Was this even mentioned on the wikiproject? Yes! Several months ago, in which time nothing has been done to improve the merged articles. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise (Season 1)[edit]

I see that you creating the Star Trek: Enterprise (Season 1) page, unfortunately it appears to be the only Star Trek page which is dedicated to an individual season. Please go to Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise (Season 1). I'm suggesting that it get merged with Star Trek: Enterprise. Fixblor (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

South Park Quality Drive[edit]

More than i quality drive, I'm suggesting a Good Article drive, getting articles up to good article standards. I suggest however, that we start on the best articles that aren't up to GA standards and work our way down. I'm not going to do this on my own, I would need a very committed partner, are you up for it?--Iankap99 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WikiuserNI. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suicide of Nicola Raphael[edit]

As you contributed to this article, or commented at its first AfD, you may be like to contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Nicola Raphael (2nd nomination). JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Reference[edit]

I've just added a culteral reference (I have title it Reference to movies) Okay, I can see you've deleted/reverted other similar entries (most of which are considerably better than mine) No doubt my entry will also go the same way (hence I haven't bothered to correct the headline)

I see culteral references on other Wikipedia articles, why not this one? I felt it was relevant. When does my sort of edit not come under the catagory of 'Trivia'?

As a newcomer (so please don't bite) I'd like to learn more of how to add such entries to an article without having them removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Checking your article contributions, it appeared you added a reference to a South Park article. I removed it as there was no link, with appropriate coding, to the source that told you that. The tags at the top of the article in question (The Losing Edge) should provide better guidance on how to provide that. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What a spoon[edit]

Just found one of your edits where you removed material because it's uncited, yet if you WATCH the material... there it is. In clear sight.

Question; are you anal? Answer; (I already know this) yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cite? WikiuserNI (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

South Park[edit]

Hey, buddy! Long time no see! Are you no longer editing the South Park articles any more? Could I convince you to go back to including them among your editing interests? I ask, because it can be really lonely over there, being what sometimes appears to be the lone voice of Wikipedia standards against an army of anonymous IP newbies, illiterates and trolls who can barely compose coherent sentences, can't write a synopsis worth a damn, constantly add unsourced synthesis, trivia and fancruft about what this gag or that joke is a pop cultural reference to, rarely if ever use sources to add real-world info about episodes like Critical reception. Often when I try to explain to them policy, I get everything from bizarre arguments, attempts to cite WP:IAR to justify adding unsourced material, uncivil attacks upon me, and even vandalism to my user page and talk page. One editor (who frustratingly, should know better, since he has a username account, and a modest number of edits under his belt), even tried to change the attributive wording of a passage so that a critic's opinion of a pop cultural reference in an episode was instead passed off as a fact, because, according to that editor, when a critic expresses an opinion, and it's backed up by a secondary source "It's not opinion". When I reverted this, and warned me not to change it again, he claimed on the ANI board that I "bullied" him. So if you could offer your skills at the SP articles again, they would certainly benefit from it! Have a great summer! Nightscream (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've been off the project for a bit after some house moving, but should be getting back into it soon. There's a lot on the Trek articles I've meant to polish off for ages and of course South Park is in my watch list. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Spock and Dr Jones.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spock and Dr Jones.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, WikiuserNI. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, WikiuserNI. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)