User talk:Morwen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen

Contents

[edit] By the way...

User:Morwen/User_world_round I've added your world is round userbox in its own subdomain, mainly because I would want to use it in my own user page. Hope you don't mind! --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VPT#fun and profit with templates

I replied to your question at the tech pump, and I'm curious if it addresses your issue. Been playing with templates more and more lately and this one seemed like an interesting problem. --*Spark* 12:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted a potential solution to the VPT thread. The msgnw prefix allows you to include a template text without processing. If you put a citation in a template, you can include it regularly and with msgnw within a table. Gimmetrow 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your template

I had a little at fixing your template.. I think it would work if we had StringFunctions installed here but we don't :-( thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I also had a few shots at sorting this out (now deleted, at User:Warofdreams/metacite - but it seems to be a lost cause. I managed to pass one parameter and print the result, but any more and the problem of passing pipes to Template:cite book caused it to foul up. Warofdreams talk 01:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wigan and so on...

I hoped that I'd have sorted this out, but alas no :-(. See Higher End, Billinge Hospital and so on for more circular editing. What is noticeable is that the edits all come in fairly rapid succession. Whilst I am trying to keep them encyclopedic, I am kind of risking WP:3RR here and don't want to get banned for helping out. Do you have any thoughts? Regan123 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help request: infobox television

Hi . I am having a doozy of a time entering theme music composer to the television infobox. I tried to add it on the syntax section of template:infobox television and my edit did not result in the addition of theme music composer. Any tips? Thanks. Dogru144 14:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Durand Ruel

Thank you for your note on my discussion page. I cited the origin of the material in the sources and footnotes left in the "Life" section on that page. I found that material there several months ago - I left a note on one of my edits saying this page needs help. Also I wrote an original section "Impressionism", this morning and as I said - I cited the origin of the bio material - that was already there. Deleting all of the material including what I wrote today seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Modernist 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will restore a little of the more original and less controversial material later today. Hopefully and eventually the page will fill in correctly. Modernist 12:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock arbitration case

An arbitration case has been opened here to attempt to resolve the dispute(s) surrounding recent actions by Husnock, yourself, and others. --CBD 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

<shared sarcasm/exasperation?> Having fun yet? </shared sarcasm/exasperation?>--EEMeltonIV 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WNMHGB

Hi, I have a page where I review early/final drafts of TOS scripts and the differences between them and the aired version. If you follow the link and read my review of the FINAL DRAFT of WNMHGB, you will see the very longish narration by Kirk (read by Shatner, of course) that was on the "executives' cut." The link is:

http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/articles/unseen.htm

Best to you. Sir Rhosis 20:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I could be misreading what you (and the article) is attempting to say. So, I'm sorta in the dark here. Sir Rhosis 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Got your latest note, and understand. You're right. Best. Sir Rhosis 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Morwen, as a matter of fact, most of those entries were posted by me. My source: I own copies of most of them. The two stories by Philip Jose Farmer were confirmed to be rewritten/repeopled prose versions of stories he submitted to Trek in forewords that he wrote in collections in which the stories appear. Sir Rhosis 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be honored to be cited. And, I have gotten about 95% of my scripts from Roddenberry dot com (not to say that ol' Jr. is selling them legally, but...). Sir Rhosis 23:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Scripts were from r.com, outlines were from different sources--some of the writers (especially those not produced) sell them at cons, etc. GC Johnson published his in a book of his short stories. Sir Rhosis 23:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

Hello.

I don't know if you've seen this. Basically, User:CamelCommodore made a very strange edit. User:Husnock says you and he have been talking in email about this user - can you corroborate this? Is User:CamelCommodore known to you from elsewhere? Can he explain that odd edit? Thanks, Morwen - Talk 11:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comments on the arbcom page. Now, how about we got User:CamelCommodore to agree to you disclosing contents of your conversations, if any? No privacy breach there, right? Obviously the decision is User:CamelCommodore.
By the way, perhaps you have not noticed, but whilst all this drama has been going on, I have been doing major content work. I have written a large historical section about timeline of Star Trek, have been working on-and-off at Star Trek spin-off fiction, and have also done major work on Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode). Morwen - Talk 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but I do not see the relevance of such a thing. He can reveal it himself/herself and I can verify. --Cat out 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, right now the thinking on WP:AN seems to be that User:CamelCommodore is either someone trying to discredit User:Husnock, User:Husnock pretending to be someone trying to discredit himself. Thus, any independent evidence of User:CamelCommodore's existence would be good.
I think forgetting about the whole thing would be the better side of valor. --Cat out 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is why I am asking you to be more active in updating pages (rather than complaining/discussing so much). Be bold! If you see a problem, fix it. But please do so w/o butchering the article (this isn't intended to be an accusation, just a heads up if you will) --Cat out 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no desire to get into revert wars, which is the reason I haven't touched certain articles. I have been concentrating the types of articles I mention, which I consider more important, and also are the ones that it's actually easier to find sources on. You may be glad to learn I recieved in the post today a book about Law in Star Trek, which I intend to scour for usable things. Morwen - Talk 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If you add content as per 'source' I do not believe anyone would revert you. --Cat out 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You may not recall this but you were wondering why I wasn't blocked a while back. I sincerely hope your views about me has changed somewhat (since you haven't blocked me) --Cat out 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The wikibreak certainly appears to have done you good. I hope this continues. Morwen - Talk 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Had the community be more sensitive about removing trolls from the project, I wouldn't need a wiki-vacation. --Cat out 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posting where people live

Morwen, whatever you may feel about me, we should stop this Camel Commodore thing. I saw your lenghty thread and you appear to have posted where both he and I live. Not that this hasnt already been posted, but confirming it might not have been the best thing to do. I gave this person your e-mail address and havent heard from since yesterday. I don't like where this is heading as too many people seem more interested in whether this person is a sockpuppet rather than was that block fair. I don't think it was but it doesnt look it this will be overturned. I imagine this guy will just create a separate account if he hasn't done so already. -Husnock 02:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold Morwen, you may wish to include Dmcdevit's CU confirmation that CamelCommodore (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a sock of Husnock (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). The applicable information is here: [1]. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) (RFCU) 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"precious about his writing"? In context, "I do not think that word means what you think it means" (to borrow Inigo Montoya's comment). Perhaps "possessive" or a synonym thereof would fit better. – SAJordan talkcontribs 22:59, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Southwark-canada-water-tube-station.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Southwark-canada-water-tube-station.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any thoughts?

Hi Morwen, how are you? Hope all is well.

I think we've had a great (i.e. quiet) couple of months, and been able to flourish once again, particularly with that topic of counties.

However, I've left some comments at User_talk:MRSC under the entry of A very British Garuda. It relates particularly on a possibility that we may consider strengthening the Naming conventions (in the terms I've outlined) via community consensus.

You may oppose this completely, which is fine, but I'd be interested to know if you agree with any of the points I make.

I'm just testing the water at the moment and gathering research on how they may be recieved, but hope you can help. Kind regards, and of course - have a great Christmas should we not converse beforehand! Jhamez84 11:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somaliland Map

Hi Morwen

I was just asking, as you are great at making regional maps for countries, I would like you to make a regional map for Somaliland, with all the regions labeled. It is a small country, and there is only 5 regions, so can you please make it.

Abdullah Geelah 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know another user user who does it now. Abdullah Geelah 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio Wesleyan

Dear Morwen,

I am trying to get the Ohio Wesleyan University article to FA status. Could you take a look and provide some suggestions. Contributions will be greatly appreciated though I could understand if you are too busy for that. Thank you for your time!!! WikiprojectOWU 22:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek

Responded on my talk page. Sandy (Talk) 15:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Input

Would appreciate your input (not necessarily research; your fingers are probably all papercut by now) here. Dank ewe. --EEMeltonIV 16:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Star Trek: Phase II:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 21:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the Cause (DS9 episode)

Hi. I need some advice. I asked User: Cyberia23, and she/he said to contact you. Rather than waste bandwith re-explaining it, you can just read what I asked her here and her responses here. You can also respond in that latter section (my Talk page) too. Is this a new protocol? Is it what we have to do from now on? And should I use the tag she prescribed or yours? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream 06:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] one two three

Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works, such as the following, should be enclosed in double quotation mark.

There is no definition provided as to what a "shorter work" is - I'd say 1 minute is short but generally a TV show episode runs for 45 minutes.. that is hardly short when some films run for only 1 hour..) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It does say episodes but episode lengths vary from show to show - there is no stated cut off length and so it seems to be user opinion in this case as to what is "short" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but Template:Emot, I said "episodes" not "Episodes of a television series" hehe Template:Emot. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject UK

Morwen, is there a wikiproject on UK-related geography?? I'd be willing to help out where necessary.... --SunStar Nettalk 22:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Major-Ball

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Terry Major-Ball, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Terry Major-Ball. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Being a contestant on a game show doesn't make him notable; nor does being a Prime Minister's brother. If you can come up with something else; for example: Did he win the most money ever on that game show? Did he invent something? Anything along those lines....

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:David Laws.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:David Laws.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 {{fairusein|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cohesion 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Vincent Cable.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vincent Cable.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 {{fairusein|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cohesion 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Shirley Williams.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shirley Williams.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 {{fairusein|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cohesion 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:John Thurso.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Thurso.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 {{fairusein|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cohesion 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One of your subpages

Hi there - one of your subpages, User:Morwen/List of English League football teams by ceremonial county, is currently categorised within Category:Football in England, when it shouldn't be. Could you fix this as you see fit? I don't know whether you wish to transfer it into the main article namespace, or if it is a work in progress, or if it is a now disused sandbox page, so I thought I'd ask you to take the appropriate action. Qwghlm 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where no man has gone before

Hi Morwen. I'm considering nominating Where no man has gone before for GA. I think it has a pretty good chance of passing - it's well-written, complete, structured, and well referenced. But since you put a lot of work on it, I'd like to have your opinion on it first. Do you see any major problems with the page that still need to be taken care off before nominating for GA? -- Ritchy 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

More expansion and research in the "popular culture" section would be good of course, but I feel that listing all occurences of the phrase, as was the case before, would go against Wikipedia's policy on trivia. I'm wondering, what direction did you see it expending into? And more importantly, what references did you have in mind? I'd be happy to help. As for the "vulgar meaning" of the phrase... I honestly have no idea what you mean. Could you ellaborate please? -- Ritchy 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I've been thinking about your suggestions for this page. Well, first is the "vulgar" meaning, which I still don't understand. You gave two examples. The first is the B5 quote, I assume you mean Ivanova's "you're about to go where everyone has gone before". That's just a sex joke in the dialogue, nothing vulgar IMO. The second is Shatner's "get a life" speech. Once again, that was just a joke - the speech was a clip on the comedy show Saturday Night Live. But more importantly, Shatner doesn't use the quote in his speech. So I'm still rather confused about what you mean by the vulgar meaning.
The second suggestion is to have a defence of the split infinitive. I'm not quite sure I see why we'd need one. I mean, a discussion of split infinitives sounds like something that would be more appropriate on the Split infinitive page.
However, I do agree that the page would benefit from having a secondary source talking about how it has become an iconic phrase. I'll try to find one, but unfortunately I've never seen one. Did you? Do you have an idea where to get one? -- Ritchy 19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: The Animated Series

Hi. I see you made an edit to Star Trek: The Animated Series [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series&diff=95162587&oldid=95088444 reverted my removal of some stuff.

Now, one of the things you (re)introduced here was a claim that the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology says that the Enterprise is brought back for a SLEP after year 3. I can find no such claim on the Spaceflight Chronology. The Spaceflight Chronology ends with the launch of the USS Enterprise. Perhaps I missed something: if you can tell me what page to look on that would be good. Morwen - Talk 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I belive you are referencing the "Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future by Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda." The book I am refering to is "*Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology (Fred & Stan Goldstein, with Rick Sternbach -- Dec 24, 1979)." This is different book, published before any of the subsequent series had been made. Jason Palpatine 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Nope. I have both books and am rather unlikely to get them mixed up, especially considering the massive amount of work I've done at timeline of Star Trek. And as I noted, Spaceflight Chronology's timeline ends circa 2200, just after the launch of Enterprise. Morwen - Talk 07:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


From "Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology," page 180:
"After completing three years of its last five year mission, the much-used Enterprise was returned to Earth dry dock, where it has recently completed extensive refitting and uprating."
Hope this helps. Best; Jason Palpatine 01:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Ah, interesting. I appear to have a different edition of the Spaceflight Chronology, which doesn't have a page 180. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention; I shall see what I can do to source it. Nonetheless, the section is still godawful and improperly sourced in many many other ways and you should revert yourself forthwith to remove it againI have removed it again. A list of things that the article claims now that are not correct:

  • the statements on startrek.com are an editorial opinion by a website and do not represent official policy by Paramount/CBS/Abrams.
  • it compares stardates on episodes of TAS vs TOS, without any sourcing for this comparison. this is original research. Also, it's absurd, because stardates in the TOS era are meaningless
  • there is also no sourcing regarding a theory that TAS was a "second five-year mission". The only sources here for this paragraph are about the length of the mission depicted in TOS. for us to have this, we'd need to have some reliable source speculating that TAS was a second five-year mission. We don't have this. This paragraph is therefore speculation or original research, and should not be on Wikipedia.

Please check our policies about WP:V and WP:NOR. I removed this section for good reasons, and superficially adding sources doesn't fix its fundamental brokenness.

I replaced the section with the one at Star Trek: The Animated Series#Canon issues, so additionally, having 2 sections, both talking about whether TAS is canon or not, and where it is dated, is pretty non-optimal. If there are any specific points in the text deleted that you think can be adequately sourced to Wikipedia standards then please feel free to put these in this section, with appropriate wording : or maybe point out things to me and I will do them. but please don't revert this big wodge of text back there. Morwen - Talk 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over." -- HAL, “2001: A space odyssey”
I honestly think this is a matter that should be discussed by others rather than you and me. Much of the material being covered in the section(s) in question fall outside verifiability. Fandom talk and individuals' opinions are really what is being covered in the area you called "godawful and improperly sourced".
You also wrote "different edition of the Spaceflight Chronology, which doesn't have a page 180." It would seem that what ever this book is, it's not the same Spaceflight Chronology I am referencing. There was only a single printing.
I was asked for sources and I provided them. The novel and the chronology were both published at the same time and were considered canon at that time. They both give conflicting accounts of the recall of the Enterprise. The fact that the ship had undergone SLEP is established in tMP; both the novel and movie indicated this, despite the fact that the term itself was not used literally. This sparked A LOT of debate among fans during the years between tMP and ST2. And it is still being debated today -- that was the point of the aforementioned "godawful and improperly sourced" material.
I was asked for sources and I provided them -- 'nuff said.
Additionally, you commented "it compares stardates on episodes of TAS vs TOS, without any sourcing for this comparison. this is original research. Also, it's absurd, because stardates in the TOS era are meaningless." This information is in the original "Star Trek Concordance" by Bjo Trimble (Paperback - 1976).
Also, I have reverted this big wodge of text back there -- what happens next I leave to the others. -- Jason Palpatine (speak your mind | contributions)

[edit] KDE is not ferret-compatible

I found the KDE bug we were talking about earlier: Bug 108312. I could be misremembering, but I think the original bug summary was "KDE is not ferret-compatible", and then some administrator changed it to something more mundane. Regardless, you will observe the helpful screenshot demonstrating the bug and the fact that the bug still has a rather large number of votes. —Psychonaut 01:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Shatner

Uh... yeah, I knew that... wups... *embarrassed* Template:Emot RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Barnstars and User:Jamminman

Hi. I thought you might want to know that User:Jamminman, has copied and changed your barnstars and placed them on his own page. A quick look at Special:Contributions/Jamminman shows that this person's edits will end up getting them blocked sooner rather than later. I didn't know what to do, but wanted to inform you. Cheers. --EarthPerson 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sector (Star Trek)

Yeah, if you can write it better without too much from the books or whatever, go ahead. I didn't know a better way of explaining sectors and how they are derived without taking a lot from Mandel's book. I did add at line at the top that says the system has no bearing to real life astronomy and is purely science-fiction so readers know it was made up for the show. Cyberia23 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was also thinking of giving the "Starship Navigation" section it's own article. Most of the info for that came from Okuda's Encyclopedia and Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. I used to own a book, I think it was called the Starfleet Cadet Training Manual - a book I lost over the years. I think I loaned it to a friend and never got it back, but I can't find that book anywhere now, and I'm not 100% sure of the title. It explained headings and bearings other aspects of navigation in great detail. If you know the book I'm talking about, it's pretty cool. I think it had a gold and black cover. Cyberia23 23:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode)

Just to let you know, the image needs a fair use rationale, being a screenshot. Other than that it looks ok. RHB 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Regarding the article Ash (near Sandwich) - you have edited, have you got any idea about the origin of the name?

Eliko 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for you opinion: Image:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png

I noticed you had some well thought out arguments about AverageIQ-Map-World.png being deleted, do you think you could weigh in on the deletion debate over this image? --futurebird 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Where No Man Pic Fair Use rationale

Good day Morwen! Re: your request for comments on "Where No Man", and the Fair Use rationale mentioned above, FWIW I found the following Fair Use verbage with other Wiki pictures and thought it was pretty professional looking:

[edit] Fair Use rationale

  • This image is being used solely to illustrate the article specified above and is used for informational or educational purposes only.
  • This image is of low resolution.
  • It is believed that this image will not devalue the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the original work.
  • No alternate, free image exists that can be used to illustrate the subject matter.

I also have added an image source lines to the ones I've done:

Also, the gentleman who reviewed and rejected the ST:TNG episode list for FA status criticized the use of the film-screenshot banner for the pictures that article, probably rightly, it might be more appropriate to use the Tv-screenshot banner.

As far as the article itself goes, IMHO, looks great, I particularly like the format and how well referenced the article is. Cheers... Wikidenizen 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would appreciate you weighing in

  • grumble grumble*

[3]

--EEMeltonIV 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock

The case has closed and the results are posted at the link above.

  • Husnock is desysopped without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship.
  • Husnock is cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts or inappropriate postings by alter egos.
  • Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing.
  • Husnock, who has been desysopped due to unblocking himself and apparently sharing the password to an administrative account with another user, is cautioned to strictly conform to Wikipedia policies should he again be entrusted with administrative responsibility.
  • Several of the users who contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66#Death Threat Accusation added comments which served to inflame the situation (such as this sockpuppet [4]) rather than resolve it on mutually acceptable terms. They are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tandridge

How do i split this page without losing the history? It is both a district and a village so it is strange that both are in the same article. Simply south 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:IndonesiaNorthMaluku.png

A tag has been placed on Image:IndonesiaNorthMaluku.png, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A more accurate and higher resolution image is available in Commons: commons:Image:IndonesiaNorthMaluku.png. This image is not accurate because of the missing one West Irian Jaya province.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — Indon (reply) — 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Angus Robertson SNP.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angus Robertson SNP.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will 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. Chowbok ☠ 02:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More replaceable fair-use images

  • Image:David Curry.jpg

—Chowbok ☠ 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Simon Hughes.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Simon Hughes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd article

I've come across this article Tipton County Borough, is it just me or is this completely wrong from top to bottom? I can't find any evidence of any such county borough existing. G-Man * 23:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who Releases

Sorry, didn't know it was listed in DWM. Just saw them added there and no notes put in as where the source was. People before have put titles in there and not had official sources listed. DWM is the second most reliable source, but I always consider BF the definitive source. Sorry for taking it off of the page. As long as DWM says it's so, I'll take that as legit. The Core-Man 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:CumbriaNumbered.png

Thanks for uploading Image:CumbriaNumbered.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} 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 {{fairusein|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Nimmo

Can you come back and look at Kurt Nimmo? This article has been taglessly locked in in a state that clearly violates WP:BLP, and there's no hint that the two editors involved are ever going to reach any sort of compromise. -- Kendrick7talk 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] England and Wales

Somebody has proposed that England and Wales be deleted for rather dubious reasons. That can't be right. G-Man * 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BlankMap-EnglandSubdivisions.png, is SVG available?

Let me first start by saying hello and thank you for all the images you have provided. I noticed you uploaded Image:BlankMap-EnglandSubdivisions.png, and was wondering if you had the original image in a vector, preferably SVG. If you do would you be able to make it available for the community, or if requires converting I would be willing to help. Thanks, Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/User_talk%7EMorwen_11fb.html"