User talk:Alyeska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, Alyeska. Thank you for your fine work on the Star Trek starship class articles. Judging from the work you've done, it seems that your forte is science fiction; you can find plenty of articles in need of help in this field or others at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.

You might find these links helpful in starting new articles or helping with existing ones: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, and About 'Show preview'. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you'd like to introduce yourself to the community, you can sign yourself up at the new users log. If you have any particular questions, you can see the help pages, or, for individual help, feel free to add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Thank you for your contributions; I hope you continue to help us.

-- Djinn112 01:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re ISD

From [1]: "The ship class was named after the Imperator in the Mandel blueprints of 1978, long before the present generation of references. With the exception of a few modest references in LucasArts games, the first-wave references have been unreasonably ignored by newer works, despite being generally just as accurate. The Mandel plans definitely precede the recent "Imperial-class" referencing. " "... the common mile-long destroyer known to the forces of the Galactic Empire as the Imperator-class star destroyer, and colloquially known as Imperial star destroyer to rebel operatives." --Golbez 19:26, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] RE: Sovereign class

Alyeska:

Greetings! Thanks for your note and for pointing this out. This count varies according to who you connect with, what has been observed (and not) in the TNG movies, and on production diagrams of the ship from the powers that be. OK: I've made editions that I thought were correct. Let's recap:

Original version - 5 launchers total, comprised of: 1 forward (quantum torpedo) launcher, ventral saucer (near Captain's Yacht) 2 forward launchers, ventral engineering hull (near navigational deflector) 2 aft launchers, ventral engineering hull (on aft hull undercut)

Refitted version - 10 launchers total, comprised of above launchers and: 1 forward launcher, dorsal saucer (near deck 3/4) 2 aft launchers, dorsal saucer (near aft docking port) 1 aft launcher, dorsal engineering hull (above shuttlebay) 1 aft launcher, ventral engineering hull (below shuttlebay)

Not all of these are observed firing but are either noted on production diagrams or can be observed on the ship if you look closely. I previously included the quantum torpedo launcher with all of them and then totalled badly ... oops! So, I've changed the page to reflect the above noted count. Let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again!

User:E Pluribus Anthony

Alyeska:

Hi there; thanks for your reply and clarifications. Actually, I think you and I are on the same page but use different terminology:

2 launchers in twin configuration near the upper shuttlebay and docking facility SAME AS 2 aft launchers, dorsal saucer (near aft docking port).
1 launcher just above the lower shuttlebay SAME AS 1 aft launcher, dorsal engineering hull (above shuttlebay).
1 launcher just forward and below the main bridge and surounding deck area SAME AS 1 forward launcher, dorsal saucer (near deck 3/4).

I did not note the forward launcher on production diagrams near the transporter emitters on the saucer dorsal, since this is not observed (or at leas clearly) when closely inspecting the Nemesis DVD.

I believe the only divergence of opinion you and I really have concerns only one launcher: the aft (ventral) launcher on the structure underneath the lower shuttlebay. 'Refit' diagrams indicate the launcher is there and I believe it can be observed on close inspection of the movie: refer to scenes in the DVD when (1) the Enterprise-E arrives at Kolarus III near the beginning, and (2) one of the final scenes when the ship is in spacedock being repaired.

As well, be careful about referencing or characterising edits which are as valid as yours as 'screwing' with them; who are you again?

If you think differently, feel free to indicate. Thanks again for your review.

Anthony

Alyeska:

Hi there! Thanks for your reply. The aft launcher of note, if indeed it is one!, is likely smaller because it is single and largely within the frame/structure of the ship. I would think it similar to the forward dorsal launcher on deck 3/4. The aperture, though, need only be at least 0.8 m in size, the approximate width of a torpedo (and allowing for some clearance), and this definitely appears to be the case. However, that aperture can just as easily be some sorta purge vent or pleasure shaft. :)

Also, mere reliance on production drawings can be dubious; however, the arrows on the diagram do point to the location of the aft torpedo we are debating about (though the launcher is far less apparent in Nemesis). I would imagine that the quality and authority of the diagrams is somewhat questionable since they are not full-up schematics and since these do not fully agree with film evidence (which alone should be canon). Of course there are discrepancies between these things but, ultimately, the content we include in Wikipedia should be based on authoritative sources or empirical knowledge.

Believe me: I find it nonsensical that such a ship has a heavy aft torpedo complement, unless each of those weapons (a possibility) have lower capacities than the forward tubes. It makes one wonder, though, why 'Starfleet' (in this case, Eaves and company) would design or refit a ship with such an unbalanced weaponry arrangement.

To preclude an edit war, since we can both be right or wrong, I propose we enter this into a public forum or consult other (online) sources to resolve this issue. I'll keep the weapon counts as you've edited them but will change them again if needed.

Anthony

Hmmm; your reasoning is very selective. One of the forward dorsal launchers on the refit diagrams (near the transporter emitters, very upfront) cannot be observed on the actual ship and we concur it is not there. As well, one of the newer forward launchers on deck 3/4 (forward) is not large at all, as its aperture alone is present ... and is likely similar to the aft launcher under the shuttlebay or even over it. Of course all of these appear different since they are located on different surfaces for which the details cannot be resolved clearly enough.

By the way, which pages agree on this basic consensus? We are supposed to cite contributions and, particularly, if they are challenged. I will do the same shortly.

I will await other contributions before making any other commentary or editions. Thanks!

Anthony

Thanks for the info and references. Unfortunately, there are no references that you cite that prove or discount the rear launcher I contend is there. My contention is that--if the rear launcher exists--it is similar in structure to the forward launcher near the bridge. It is not as apparent as the forward launcher, but that doesn't discount its existence and nothing discussed yet has changed my perspective on this. I'm also unsure the rear launcher that may exist is smaller than the forward launcher near the bridge. Remember: only the aperture needs to appear, with considerable machinery in the deck structure forward.

Trust me, I'm inclined to give the Sovereign a more balanced weapon layout and omit it outright, but have not yet been convinced--given that damned diagram and the appearance of the port in the movie--that it doesn't exist. I'll see what others contribute before making any more judgements.

Thanks again!

Anthony

Since you have not conclusively convinced me regarding the rear torpedo launcher in question and given the preponderance of canon information, I have edited the torpedo count as indicated as a compromise. Unless you can convince or demonstrate reasonably that this is not the case, further attempts to revert the count will be corrected to the current version.

User:E Pluribus Anthony 06-Feb-2005 1539 UTC

[edit] Specification lists

Please understand where I am coming from. I am a long-time Star Trek fan as well. If you check the edit histories of Rick Sternbach, Ronald D. Moore, Michael Okuda and Brannon Braga you'll see that. However I don't think we should be including content here which is filled with guesswork, and stuff from non-canon sources that is very likely to be inaccurate. BTW You can't say all the data you are entering on these specification lists is accurate, when it is clear from your own talk page that you are negotiating stats with other people. Also studying screen-captures probably dances pretty close to breaking the no original research rule. AlistairMcMillan 13:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signing

Type ~~~~ after your comments and Wikipedia will insert your username and a timestamp for you. AlistairMcMillan 02:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Test Alyeska 02:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "intentionaly dense?"

Wikipedia:No personal attacks AlistairIntentionallyDenseMcMillan 04:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

Who is being intentionally dense now? Please study the following pages.

I hope that is clear enough for you. AlistairMcMillan 02:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only one I in McMillan

Please answer my questions on Talk:Peregrine class starship. AlistairMcMillan 03:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted compromise

I've tried to attempt at the compromise on the Prometheus specifications. Please reply to my comment in Talk:Prometheus_class_starship _before_ performing any edits. Bluap 15:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

Actually, if you go back and check my edits, you'll find that I have been very carefully to never break the three revert rule. AlistairMcMillan 16:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 12 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 13:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


Probably becuase you ran into the IP blocking bug.Geni 22:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allistair MacMillan

According to Wiki policy, he's officially pissed enough people off to warrant further action...as you described, he single-handedly does so many deletions and censoring it's not funny. The link is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Klingon_starships

As the policy says, there has to be at least two people who are complaining, it looks like at least three now. Just informing you about it...I'm not advocating anything that we don't have a right to do.

--Atrahasis 19:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accepted Policy

Please see these two pages before reverting anything else.

AlistairMcMillan 02:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on K'Vort class starship

Please discontinue edit warring over whether K'Vort class starship should be a redirect or not. Please instead discuss on the talk page and come to a consensus. I would also ask that all editors refrain from characterizing edits pertaining to a content dispute or significance dispute as "vandalism". Kelly Martin 03:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

See the Nebula class discussion for further information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nebula_class_starship Alistair is nothing short of a vandal or a troll. He is now openly lying about past things he has said and done and is calling me a liar for pointing this otu (and I have provided evidence of this fact). He has constantly changed his mind over what information should and should not be posted. He has made unilateral decisions without discussion with anyone. He has attempted to hide from his actions. He has deleted information that he declares invalid without bother for other peoples opinions. Also check this discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Klingon_starships#Atrahasis Alyeska 03:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the conduct of another editor, please refer to Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures for how to proceed. All I'm asking you to do is (a) stop reverting one another and (b) stop referring to edits related to a content dispute as "vandalism". Thanks. Kelly Martin 03:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I already attempted something like that. They said "compromise with the guy". He refuses to compromise. Its his way or the highway, period. Alyeska 03:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You provided your evidence. I pointed out problems with it. You responded with "not going to wade through that crap". Then you started banging on about me lying to you. BTW I never once accused you of lying. I might have said you were wrong, but I never said you were lying. Please try to accurate when you are accusing me of something. AlistairMcMillan 03:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. You previously agreed to the Prometheus information and you can't outright disprove certain numbers that I've highlighted. You appeal to ignorance and move the goal posts. Alyeska 03:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Please show me the edit where I said I agreed with your original research. AlistairMcMillan 03:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I am not sure whether you have seen my note on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress, so I post a note here too. There was no vandalism involved in my edit that deleted your text on WP:VIP. WP is extremely slow for me and times out frequently, and the latest hiccup was that I didn't get a conflict warning when I should have. After posting my note on the WP:VIP talk page, I finally got some meaningful answers from the revision history but when I tried to fix the mess, I did get an edit conflict because you beat me to it. I hope that clarifies things. Rl 20:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering what was going on. Ok, I am going to retract what I posted. Alyeska 20:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Rl 20:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BC-303

Please try to understand, Wikipedia is not the place for you to publish your speculations. There are a great number of places out there for you to theorise and speculate, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, information that other people can check up and confirm is correct. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a discussion board. I'm not trying to hound you or piss you off, but you don't seem to see the distinction. AlistairMcMillan 03:44, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The information I posted is valid when you consider the technical accuracy the show aspires for. And you are trying to piss me off. I caught you in a lie which you failed to acknowledge until I quoted and linked you to that three or four times. You vandalized someone elses page acussing them of being me, and you expect that to not be taken personaly by him or me? All you've done is attack my work and call what I've done speculation. You apply a double standard when you allow the exact same information in other pages. Leave me the fuck alone. I've stepped out of the Trek pages, you stay out of Stargate. Alyeska 03:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD frequency

For better or worse, I am aware of no current policy on how often an article may be nominated for VfD, or the amount of time required between nominations. There was discussion about this following the multiple nominations made for GNAA but no specific policy changes that would help you with Stardestroyer.net. --Allen3 talk 01:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding so quickly and thanks for the clarification (even if it didn't realy clarify anyting). Alyeska 04:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page history for Stardestroyer.net

Looks like Stardestroyer.net was just one of several articles hit by a page move vandal. A page history mere has been performed so things should be back to normal. --Allen3 talk 15:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. Alyeska 20:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stardestroyer.net content

I've copied the content to User:Alyeska/Stardestroyer.net per your request. However, remember that reuse is subject to the GFDL requirement that all editors be credited. FCYTravis 05:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected deleted

I tend to agree that after a single recreation an article should not be given protected deletion. I miss-read the delete log and thought that it had bgeen deleted for recreation multiple times (it apparently was undelted and redeleted to export some of the content). However, I can't think of another use for this article title besides writing about this website which (apparently) isn't notable. I think whether it should have been protected like this is a toss up. The amount of sockupuppetry in the VfD suggests that there will be more such attempts to recreate the article in any case. Also, the "proper channels" you cite (for future use) wouldn't be simply rewriting the article at its current location since it could be speedied at any time anyways. This link is Broken 21:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SDNet-Big-4.jpg

If you are referring to Image:SDNet-Big-4.jpg, I deleted it under rule I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which says that copyrighted images uploaded without permission of the copyright holder (i.e. images tagged as "fair use") which are not used in any article should be deleted. User subpages aren't considered articles, and the fair use policy explicitly says that fair use images are not allowed on user pages, and any use outside of the article namespace is likely copyright infringement. On November 17 the image was tagged with {{or-fu-nr}} by User:Roomba, with the tag warning of its deletion after 7 days. Coffee 06:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Being a moderator on the forum does not necessarily mean you own the copyright on the website's logo. If you do own the copyright, you should tag the image appropriately to prevent future deletion. "Fair use" tags are for copyright images that are used without permission. Wikipedia:Fair use very clearly states that fair use images are not allowed on user pages. If you think the image, as it stood, did not violate policy, perhaps you should read that page more closely. Coffee 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm only enforcing policy. Fair use images are not allowed on user pages, and calling my good faith edits "vandalism" and abusing Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is counter-productive. Coffee 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a complaint to enforce the criteria for speedy deletion. For crying out loud, if you have permission then tag is appropriately with some proof that you have permission. Fair use images are not allowed on user pages. Coffee 18:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SDNet.gif

If you want to keep this image you should change the tag before someone deletes it. You can find a list of the available tags here. AlistairMcMillan 16:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as I don't know how to tag images, I can't do jack to fix it. This is the second time some one has warned me to fix it or it gets deleted when I've pointed out I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX IT. Alyeska 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Read through the page I linked above and find the tag you want. One of those things braced by a pair of squiggly brackets. For example {{logo}} and then you click "Edit this page" on your image page and replace the {{logo}} tag with whichever you think is appropriate. AlistairMcMillan 17:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I give in

I'm tired of arguing with you. Do whatever you want. Feel free to vandalise whatever pages you want with what crap you want, safe in the knowledge that I won't touch your edits. AlistairMcMillan 19:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't however. You are analysing onscreen footage and comparing it with other onscreen footage and the Tech manuals. This is research. Because it is your own, it is original research. This is not allowed. Regarding the TMs, because they are not canon, information provided by them is not neccesarily accurate, and due to its unverifiability, cannot be added to a factual article. I fail to understand why you cannot accept this. - Hayter 09:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You'll likely also notice that I've reverted your additions of the stats where I've seen them on other starship pages. Even if you disagree with their non-validity, surely you can see that the posting of controversial new data to an article without consensus is wrong, and borders on POV vandalism. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (as you did with the Akira afd) is not the path to a better article. - Hayter 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Then I fully expect you to revert all stats to DS9 TM values. Do not erase all data.Alyeska 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying again

The idea with the verifiability thing is that when you add information to Wikipedia, if there is a chance that someone is going to dispute it, you list your source(s). That way someone else can come along, read your sources and go "Okay I get where they got that." Does that make sense? A few years from now, even if none of us are still currently around on Wikipedia, other people can come to the pages we have edited and see where we got our information.

That is why your stats are a problem. You can't just say "these are correct", you have to explicitly point to your sources. Does that make any sense? AlistairMcMillan 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything derived from visuals can be verified through screen shots and examinations of the physical models. Methods might be disputed, but some very clear pieces of information do come from the counting method which any rational person with moderate education is going to agree with. Some people do indeed disagree with such information, but these people are invariably poorly educated on the subject matter and have a poor understanding of the methods being used.
Perhaps a Wiki page dedicated to detail how screenshot methodology works would be a good start. Any material sourced via this method can link to this Wiki page to explain methodology and give ametuers a much better understanding. Alyeska 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
But the sources have to be linked on the page. The sources for information on the Galaxy class page are meant to be on the Galaxy class page. The sources for information on the Akira class page are meant to be on the Akira class page. That is policy. We can't just redirect to another generic page and explain in abstract where the information is sourced. AlistairMcMillan 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So create another page for each ship. Screenshots with clearly labeled aspects of what is being posted as factual in the article itself. Alyeska 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So you start a page with screenshots of Akira class starships. You point out the squares that you think are torpedo launcher ports on the pod. Someone else will disagree with you. Point out something else that they think is a torpedo launcher port. Someone else will say the squares are pallet full of research instruments. These are just your/their opinions. Your/their analysis. AlistairMcMillan 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because some might disagree doesn't change fact. Some people will disagree with everything. Some people will disagree with the statement "The Sky is Blue". Saying there will be a conflict and using that as justification to not go ahead with the project is a copout. Wikipedia is about discussion and community work. You work through those disagreements. Hell, look at us. We just sat down and talked about some issues far more rationaly then either have us have done so before. Alyeska 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So you are sticking to your guns. Your statistics are fact. Anyone who suggests anything else is wrong? Seriously please look at this. You said pointing to this photo[2], "This model has just 5 phaser arrays, it is missing the arrays just under the pod on the saucer."[3] Please look at this version with two areas highlighted.[4] The rigth side of the saucer is nearly completely washed out but there is clearly something there exactly where the phaser strips are on other Nebula class starships. But look at the left side, isn't that clearly a short phaser strip right on the top edge of the saucer? Doesn't that prove that your figures aren't fact? AlistairMcMillan 00:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There are known variations in ship classes. The Sovereign herself recieved some changes between Insurrection and Nemesis. Rather then say all ships are identical, known differences can be identified. The Nebula page already had information diferientiating the normal Nebula style from the Phoenix subtype. I am generaly correct on these issues, but if someone can point out information I missed, I am more then willing to admit mistake and support fixing the article. Alyeska 01:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been trying to think of a way to say this that won't piss you off, but I can't. You are still talking about adding your opinions to Wikipedia. You have your opinions on what certain hull details are (torpedo launchers or whatever), and other people have other opinions. Please read the original research page. Please read the parts about primary sources and secondary sources. "...it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library..." AlistairMcMillan 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
PS, does my responses in my discussion page show up as message for you, or are you just being rather polite by checking my discussion page frequently for responses? Alyeska 01:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If he's watching your page, it'll show up in his list but he'll only get a message notification if you edit his own talk page. - Hayter 10:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I was just checking frequently, like Hayter said you only get the message notification when someone edits your own talk page. Wikipedia ain't smart enough yet to flag you if someone answers a query you've left somewhere else. AlistairMcMillan 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And once again you fail to grasp the very simple meaning of the Original Research rule. The visuals are primary source material because they are derived straight from canon. Anything to do with visuals quite simply can not violate the original research rule. If you stretch visuals to be a violation of the rule, then the entire article itself is a rules violation because dialogue is also original research. You are taking the original Research rule out of context, and then cherry picking its enforcement. Furthermore, you incorrectly site the original research rule against the TMs themselves. Alyeska 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it is you who doesn't grasp the OR rule. Yes, screenshots are primary sources. But the analysis is not. You keep talking as if no-one is going to disagree with your analysis, that your analysis is purely factual. But I've listed one example where I disagree, E. Pluribus Anthony disagreed with your analysis of the Sovereign class, etc etc. The idea with the original research rule, the verifiability rule and so on is that information here is backed up. That someone can read the information here and understand where it came from. There is a difference between saying Picard is bald based on a screenshot, from saying that indistinct squares or dark marks on the badly lit surface of something that is blurred as it flashes past the camera is a torpedo launcher. AlistairMcMillan 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Simply claiming that people will disagree is a copout. Your drawing an imaginary line on the issue. Either Visuals are in or they are out. Which means that the likes of images of the ships and basic descriptions go along with weapon systems. Your making issues of certain things and drawing a broad brush to paint the entire issue. Phaser arrays are infinitely easier to count then torpedo launchers, and other items in the Specifications come straight from dialogue, which you removed anyway. Your not actualy trying to solve anything here. And once and for all, I already pointed out where it specifical states that sources from non-reputable pieces. It said NOTHING about analysis of reputable primary sources. Alyeska 01:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If phaser arrays are so easy to count then how did you miss the two on the Nebula class that I've pointed to repeatedly? And about reputable/non-reputable sources, EVERYTHING on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced with reputable sources. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you can included unsourced or badly sourced information as long as you mark it as such. AlistairMcMillan 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
There are three different models of the Nebula that were created by Paramount. The Phoenix, the Sutherland, and then for Generations they created the Faragut model. To the untrained eye, the Sutherland and Faragut model look identical, and I missed the changes. Alyeska 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
What is your source on this? I'm pretty sure there was just one Nebula model that was updated after its initial appearance in The Wounded, then updated again for the "big screen". I really don't think they had three separate models. AlistairMcMillan 01:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank heavens you admit to having an untrained eye! Garglebutt / (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You said above that an untrained eye would consider two ships to be identical then confirmed you didn't see the difference - quod erat demonstrandum. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears that they did infact canabalize/alter the previous model for the purpose of making the new one. The phaser counts never changed on the models, though on the Faragut the lighting was absolutely terrible and difficult to spot two phasers making for the confussion between a 5 or 7 count. I got swayed on the 5 phaser count issue at one point, but your rather "pleasent" response to me in the Nebula thread highlighted the issue of the terrible lighting spotting the 6th and 7th phasers. However, the Sutherland and future updates did have a different pod, one which does have an observed torpedo launcher whereas the Phoenix does not. Alyeska 02:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

About the merged starship pages. Firstly please don't accuse me of doing things that I have not done. I only restored the redirects that you reverted and pointed the template back to the merged pages. In the six months since I merged the pages, a large number of edits have been made by many people to those merged pages. The redirected pages haven't been touched in that same time. So the versions you restored recently are out of date. And please don't complain that I didn't seek other people's opinion, when you never felt the need before you performed your reverts. AlistairMcMillan 18:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And it is not "renigging". The word you are looking for is "reneging". "Neg" as in "negotiate". AlistairMcMillan 18:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSD

Some asshole is trying to ram the star dreadnaught bullshit in there. If that title were so official it would be all over the SW official site or at least somewhere on it. It's not though its in a book written by fans. one of the consultants was a guy who swore the name was Imperator and that the globes were sensors. LOL I regard the book as inacurate, anyone with brains I would think would also regard it as incorrect. (TracksZ06 07:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC))


Curtis saxton doesnt know shit end of story. they didnt ask him to do shit one of his pals who wrote the book did.TracksZ06

Dr. Curtis Saxton holds a PhD in astrophysics; I'd say he likely knows a good deal more than you. Rogue 9 09:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That is uniformly a lie. Curtis Saxton did write in both of the recent ICS books published and was also used as a technical source in another recent publication. The fact that Saxton openly admits this and is frequently talked to by SW sources tells a great deal about his skills. And as Rogue 9 pointed out, Saxton has a PhD no less. Don't go ignoring what Saxton says just because you don't like it. Alyeska 21:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korelev

There is no proof that the Korelev is a Daedalus class. It is not even known if the Russians have the plans for the Daedalus class. There are three possibilities regarding it: 1: It's an BC-303 class 2. It's a Daedalus class or 3. It's a whole new class.

But it will not be known until it is shown on or mentioned on the show. So please stop with the speculation. Unless of course you can show me official proof other wise.

-MarineCorps

Already added a edit summary for the russian ship. Thanks for the info. MarineCorps 02:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SDNet.gif

Hi Alyeska. I see from above that you have already had problems with this image in the past...

Basically, any image which is being used under fair use can't be used on user pages - only in "main space" articles. So if this is a copyrighted image for which fair usage is cited, you can't use it on your user page. I'm sorry if that's not what you were hoping to hear.

You mention that you weren't notified, but if you had added the image to your watchlist you would have seen that it was tagged in January as an orphaned fair use image. However, even if that had been the case, you still wouldn't be able to use it on your user page.

Unfortunately the deletion can't be reversed, as once images on Wikipedia are deleted, they're gone. CLW 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, when images are speedy deletable, there's no need to notify people. That's the whole point of the speedy deletion process. If people tag and source images correctly, use images correctly and add images they care about to their watchlists, there won't be any problems. If you disagree with the speedy deletion process, you may wish to take this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). CLW 17:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop taking it out on me if you disagree with the workings of the image deletion process. Part of the process is to remove links to the image - that's what I did. Again, if you disagree with the process, take it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Please stop getting angry at me, when I've done nothing wrong. CLW 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No, if people were notified before images could be speedy deleted, the backlogs would never be cleared and even more server space would be clogged up. Again, add images which are important to you to your watch list - that way you will be notified when they are tagged as due for deletion. By using an image tagged as fair use on your user page, you've violated policy, so I'm not sure why you're continuing to berate me. You can continue to complain about my actions on my user page if you like, but I really don't think that I have anything more to add from my side since I wish to remain civil and will not allow you to provoke me any further with your unfounded complaints. CLW 18:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kvasir

Has the show ever mentioned Kvasir being an engineer aboard the Odyssey? This was being discussed on the talk page. Please give a reason for your editing. Feral Mutant 18:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Were you the person who restored the bit saying he was the engineer on the Daedalus page? Feral Mutant 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robots

Hello, I see that you have pointed Robots to Robots (film) rather than Robot. I disagree that Robots (film) is the more natural target. If you check Special:Whatlinkshere/Robots, you'll see that most of the incoming links expect to point to robot. The hatnote at the top of Robot that points to Robot (disambiguation) (where Robots (film) is listed) would serve the purpose of pointing the reader in another direction. — TKD::Talk 04:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with your solution. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 05:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate-tech.net ??

Any chance of getting a mirror of the site before it goes away completely? I just found a reference to your site, and wanted to check out what sounded like a great reference, only to find the goodbye message, and no content.

Please let me know via my talk page. Kythri 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the shutdown of the website? Kythri 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] promotional images

Images that have been released for promotional purposes should be tagged with {{promophoto}} or {{promotional}}, not {{norightsreserved}}, because we've had no explicit release of rights, and the company would probably object to the use of their image in an unflattering way, for example. No rights reserved means that no one would be able to stop me from pasting it on the front of a t-shirt with the goatse man on the back. Night Gyr 01:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cx4

Stop posting on my talk page. Your obsession with a TV show for children and the pistol-caliber firearm used as a prop in said show is noted.

No. E. Sn0 =31337= 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've cooled off, are the changes made to the page enough of a compromise? After reading about inclusion of media information in firearms pages, yes, I was wrong. A media section has been added. The wallpaper you chose is not free domain. Beretta has released it for individual use. The picture I have posted had much the same options and view angle. Also, it has the added benefit of being free use (I have released all rights). Ajaka

[edit] Daedalus

What is wrong with the text being viewable, who cares if it's a spoiler! Plus, as I'm sure you've heard WAY to many times, it's in violation of WP:SW. There is no reason to not show it immediatly, just use a spoiler tag. American Patriot 1776 23:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If this discussion has already happend or is ongoing in another location, would you kindly direct me to it? Thank you. -- the preceding unsigned comment was added by AlistairMcMillan
See WikiProject Stargate. Armedblowfish 14:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Alyeska - don't feel bad, Wikipedia appreciates and still wants your contributions, this is just one issue we're sure you weren't aware of when you made the text white. Armedblowfish 14:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not welcome

Please read WP:OWN. AlistairMcMillan 01:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Battle Group Omega

hello Alyeska, i noticed you have had difficulty with your Star trek pages. i am only new to Wikipedia and have attempted to create a few star trek articles myself. However i found they have have all been nominated for deletion due to lack of 'notability'. pherhaps you could visit Star Fleet Battle Group Omega. I would appreciate any opinion you have on the matter. Cheers Wiki ian (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, they say no-body owns these pages, but with how they act, it seems like they own them. If i recreate the Battke Group Omega Page will they delete it again?

maybe you could also be kind enough to give your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Aries (NCC-45167). Thankyou again for your support. Wiki ian 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] solution to spoiler problems

See Template_talk:Spoiler#CSS_class_good_solution_to_complaints. Armedblowfish 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fyi

User_talk:TheCoffee#Slow_learner? Gzuckier 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo pages

See:

The first page you asked for was a redirect that had been in place since February 2005, and a disambiguation page right before that; not sure what version you wanted. I'm going away for a week now, if you need further assistance someone else will be happy to help you. Thanks. Grandmasterka 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Space Carrier vs. Battlecruiser

Actually, it has NOT been discussed (or at least not by me). The Daedalus itself may have been referred to as a 'Battlecruiser' by Mckay in mid-conversation, but in fact it is officially called a 'Deep Space Carrier'. If you watch season 9 episode, 'Off the Grid', you can clearly see its designation along with its registry number PB3865, on the background monitor in the conference room aboard the Odyssey. The Odyssey is the same class of ship as the Daedalus, and therefore it stands to reason that BOTH are 'Deep Space Carriers', not 'Battlecruisers'. -Seastallion

If this has been discussed, then please direct me to where, so that I may review all sides of the discussion for myself. I'm a long time Stargate fan, and a regular in the Gateworld sci. & tech forum, where this has also been discussed at length. Even the Gateworld Omnipedia (which has close access to the creators of Stargate) specifically states that these ships are called Deep Space Carriers. Seastallion 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Seastallion 15:25 21 Aug. 2006

Okay. I've looked at the discussion on it, and it was NOT at all resolved. The very last comment on the matter was that the designation of 'Deep Space Carrier' SHOULD at the very least be included in the article. Did you even see that? Or are you simply going to ignore it? I am in complete agreement with that person. It should NOT be ignored, yet you deleted my edit in which I tried to compromise with you. I will suggest to you again that we change it to include both designations, because their is sufficient evidence from the show to support it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't so. The FACTS of the show support the designation, and therefore it is deserving of inclusion. Also, YOU are not the only long time fan of the show. I think it is very cool that you helped run a website about Stargate, but that alone does not make you the final authority on all things stargate. ANYONE can run a website and say anything they want, but that doesn't make it so. For you to ignore a detail as I've suggested above is not professional (if that is what we're attempting). I suggest once more; we should change the designation to the BC-304, as Battlcruiser / Deep Space Carrier. This is fair, and if need be than we can add a note about it. It is not right that a vital detail be ignored as specifically seen on the show. It is not a matter of speculation, it is a matter of what is on the show. Therefore, it should be included. Seastallion 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That the current designation of the Odyssey (and indeed ALL Daedalus class ships), is currently 'in question' is NOT a Point of View. It is a fact. I am not the only one who with the 'view' that the Odyssey's designation is 'Deep Space Carrier'. Just as YOU are not the only one who ignores it in favor of 'Battlecruiser'. It is VERY much in dispute. Also the fact that you have it designated specifically as a Battlecruiser in the BOLD title section of the article, is also VERY much a violation of 'Point of View'. MY motives are to be 'accurate', which is why I at least agreed to comprimise with you, but apparently even THAT is not enough. I was content to simply allow a small note in the main article, rather than push a major change. Wikipedia does NOT belong to you. It is SUPPOSED to be a collabrative effort. Which means, that the TV show's reference to the Odyssey as being a 'Deep Space Carrier' (which IS factual) ought not to bother you. I have to wonder about YOUR motivation in consistently ignoring this fact. Seastallion 21:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate site...

Is it actually back or completely gone?

I ask because of some weapon spotting I recently did...

http://members.cox.net/cjarmstrongjr/

Something, IIRC, you were interested in on your site. Deathbunny 06:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SonicBlue

Sorry I didn't were to put this. I didn't know it was your personal Halo weapons page I thought it was a glich in my computer beacause it was the only one there.SonicBlue 14:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daedalus class NOT 304 class

Alyeska, I did NOT miss when Landry (on multiple occasions) called it a 304, but it's not a 304 class, it's Daedalus class as stated by senate in "The Ties That Bind", calling it a 304 class ship is wrong. It's the hull numbering or whatever you call it but it's class name is Daedalus

Faris b 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that exactly, what I meant is that you should not go and change every mention of the word Daedalus class to being 304 class, the way I can put it simply is that it's a Daedalus class ship and it's make for the lack of a better term to explain it is 304. I know those aren't official terms but it's the best way I can put it.

Faris b 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since you want to blame the Cabal...

Why not appeal to Jimbo? --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

INVOLVING JIMBO


I'd like to add some additional recommendations for people who'd like to appeal such cases directly to me (Jimbo).

First, it's very important that you write me a minimum of six pages of text explaining and defending the version that you prefer. The more tedious details, the better. I'm specifically keenly interested in the names of obscure rivers in Germany Poland Prussia. Also, be sure to write to me about the shape of Bigfoot's head. I really am the person to make a decision about that.

Second, everyone knows that I make it a routine practice to force articles to read exactly the way that you like. I also ban longtime users and sysops whenever I feel like, just based on the say-so of people just like you. So be sure to ask for that.

Third, better yet, don't ask for it, demand it. Threaten to leave if I don't comply within 24 hours. That always works.

Fourth, if you happen to know that I'm personally politically sympathetic to your point of view, feel free to call your opponents names. For example, since I'm generally sympathetic to Israel, feel free to call anyone who has written anything critical of Israel a "Nazi." I'll get so excited that I'll probably ban them. Heck, I might even write new code in the software to only let you and people you approve edit the pages!

And finally, if for some insane reason I don't act on your wise proposals, tell everyone that you know that Wikipedia is all a scam to make money. It's a tool of capitalist oppression. It's a liberal playground with no standards. It's based on the principles of communism. It's collectivist. It's individualist. It's useless. It's the most important thing in the world, except for me screwing it up. That'll show old Jimbo who he's messing with!

Jimbo Wales 13:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alyeska/Battlefield 2 Ranks

Please do not remove Miscellany for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Miscellany for deletion pages, as you did with User:Alyeska/Battlefield 2 Ranks. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm following -- and quoting -- policy; you're not. Go to the MFD page and make an actual argument. Stamping your feet is not an argument. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User pages

I told you to sod off. That is my private page. Removing unwanted edits by someone else is not vandalism by any stretch of the definition. These pages were allowed to me by MULTIPLE admins. Community consensus means sod all for my private pages.

From Wikipedia:User page:

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:
* Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
* Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
* Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.
* In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.

Any questions? --Calton | Talk 06:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing User pages

[edit] Removal

If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you "get away with it". Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it.
If you do not cooperate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate).
In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy. Please do not recreate content deleted in this way: doing so is grounds for immediate re-deletion (see criteria for speedy deletion). Instead, please respect our judgement about what is and is not appropriate.

--Calton | Talk 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

  • Please don't use personal attacks, as you did here. It generally weakens your argument in the eyes of other editors. I'm not going to use any warning templates on you, but I hope this doesn't continue. I recommend you strike your remarks and/or replace them with something more addressing the user's concerns. I would like to add it is well within Calton's right to nominate user pages for deletion. Wickethewok 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Mfd tags

  • Process/policy will be followed if you stop removing these tags. You severely hurt the case against you by being blocked. If you are blocked for disobeying such a simple policy as "do not remove deletion debate tags", its no one's fault but your own. Consider this your second warning. Wickethewok 06:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Attention" box

Free clue: making up arguments out of whole cloth is less than convincing, also. Try actual arguments instead of pulling the Paranoid Card. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Deletions

Hey, I just wanted to say that I totally sympathize with you in the wrongful deletions of some of your articles. I myself had also had to deal with these assholes who have also deleted my articles. I just wanted to support you and if I can help in any way leave me a message. --Treva 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpages should not link to mainspace articles.

Hi - I've removed the categories from your userspace pages - pages in userspace should not link to mainspace articles. --Charlesknight 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Further - clearly you have put a lot of work into those articles - is there not a halowiki where they could be put to good use? Surely one must exist? --Charlesknight 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other users. You need to stop making them unless you want to get blocked from editing. I'm referring to your recent post on Calton's page; posting relevant Wikipedia policy for your information, as Calton does, is an appropriate action, it's not "hiding behind policy". Please study those policies instead of lashing out at the person pointing them out.

I would also be interested to understand the logic of why you choose to have an attack on the project on your userpage, at the same time as you spend time here. It doesn't make sense to me.

I've removed the attack against User:AlistairMcMillan from your userpage. Don't put anything like that on any of your pages again. Please edit civilly in the future altogether, even if you feel riled by other editors or indeed by the project itself. Count to ten or something, and please remember that everything you post on Wikipedia stays on Wikipedia, available through page histories. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Telling the truth is not a personal attack. Furthermore, you are not welcome to edit my personal page. What I have posted about Allister is very much the truth. And for your information, Allister vandalized another persons main page accusing that person of being a sockpuppet of me. Stay out of things you are not involved with. Alyeska 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Funny how your making my argument for me by blocking me from editing my own user page. Alyeska 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant. You make an accusation against me without actualy looking up the history, and when confronted by the person you've made the accusation to you just try to silence me by locking my page from editing and refuse to discuss the issue. Alyeska 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to stop telling experienced users that intervening against your policy violations is not their business, because it is. As a Wikipedia administrator, I am involved with any policy violations I see on the site. So are other experienced users: Calton, for instance, knows more about policy than many admins, and obviously a whole lot more than you do. Since you ignored my civil request to not restore the personal attack on your userpage, I have removed it again and, this time, protected the page from editing except by administrators. Please let me know when you're ready to keep your userpage reasonably civil (it's far from polite as it is, either, but not restoring the attack against Alistair is the only thing I'm insisting on at this point in time). I won't take the trouble to post links for you about the userpage policies you're violating, since Calton already has, and you don't seem to have bothered to click on them. Please read his links, they contain all you need to know about the amount of control you have of your userpages. I also urgently invite you to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please don't make the editing climate here unpleasant for other people. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Fancruft

Please see Wikipedia:Fancruft which makes it clear that fancruft, crime or not, does very often qualify as deletable, generally under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For someone who likes to quote what he sees as the rules to others, you seem remarkably ill-informed about them yourself. Badbilltucker 23:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent conduct is frankly intolerable according to wikipedia policy. Your recent behavior, however, as indicated above, indicates what a low regard you have for that policy. Please do not further aggravate others with other insults and improper behavior. Regardless of your own opinions regarding fancruft, there is no reasonable basis to believe your current behavior is even remotely acceptable. Should you persist in it, definite actions may have to be taken. Specifically, to spell it out to you, you have no right to alter what others permit to keep on their user pages. Do not attempt further actions of that sort. Badbilltucker 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I had read your revision to your own userpage before I posted here. Please do not attempt to misimpose regulations as you did on my user page, unless, of course, you can somehow prove to someone that they somehow further the interests of wikipedia. Being clearly insulted by you regarding your own repeated and perhaps continuing disregard for rules of decorum is something I cannot believe qualifies as furthering the interests of wikipedia. Badbilltucker 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page rules as per Zoe

FYI, I am not trying to pick a fight. And this is the reason I keep recreating this section of your talk page.

You may not control who does and does not post on your Talk page. If you report Calton for vandalism for making perfectly legitimate comments on your Talk page, I will block you for 24 hours. User:Zoe, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Zoe made it clear that we aren't allowed to dictate what does and doesn't stay on our talk pages. Alyeska 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nooo, she didn't—how did you get that from that? Zoe made it clear that you don't control who posts on your talkpage. You do control what stays on it. This issue is much debated,[5] but there's current strong consensus on the administrator's noticeboard that you can remove anything you want from your talkpage, at least provided you're not a mere anonymous vandal. It's rude to remove people's comments without responding, but it's up to you if you want to be that rude. It's quite inappropriate to try to force other users to keep keep something on their pages, or to force them to archive. (The History is an archive in itself.) Please see "User space harassment" in Wikipedia:Harassment, and several threads recently on the noticeboard, e. g. this and this. Templates about not removing warnings, and block threats, are for anonymous vandals, not for cases like this. Avoid unhealthy fascination with other users' talkpages, and just refer people to this post of mine if they say you can't remove stuff from yours. Alyeska, I understand that you may have been told the opposite, even by admins, but this is the real thing, as you'll see if you check out my admin noticeboard links. Wikipedia policy is very confusing and sometimes seemingly self-contradictory for new users, and to make it worse individual admins aren't always caught up in the most debated areas (it's pretty much impossible to be always caught up about all of policy), because policy evolves organically: it's what we actually do, by consensus, it's not commandments handed down from above. The policy pages are constantly edited to reflect practice. Good luck with your editing. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

That might have been her intent, but don't see that in her text. Alyeska 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Look more closely. Zoe says "who does and does not post," you say "what does and doesn't stay". I honestly don't know how you can escape seeing the difference. And pretty please click on my links. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Since the only way to control who does and doesn't post is by deleting their content, I saw that as one in the same. Alyeska 02:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstructed discussion with Badbilltucker

Please see Wikipedia:Fancruft which makes it clear that fancruft, crime or not, does very often qualify as deletable, generally under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For someone who likes to quote what he sees as the rules to others, you seem remarkably ill-informed about them yourself. Badbilltucker 23:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see User:Alyeska where I clearly state my opinion on the subject as contrary to the Wiki polcies. Your message is insulting and unwelcome. I know what Fancruft is and I put it on my user page quite intentionaly. Your message to me only strengthens my opinion on the subject. Alyeska 23:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that you, of all people, can criticize others for being insulting, considering your own recent comments. LOL Badbilltucker 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of that being? Or are you just trying to stir things up and try to encourage worse behavior? Your original comment to me was absolutely worthless. It was insulting because its clear where my opinions stand. The fact that I linked to the page in question should also make it very clear that I know the accepted policy. And since you made a point of mentioning my recent history you also know how I vote and talk on the issue. And with all of this knowledge about my position on the subject, you send me a message anyway. You do the math. Alyeska 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent conduct is frankly intolerable according to wikipedia policy. Your recent behavior, however, as indicated above, indicates what a low regard you have for that policy. Please do not further aggravate others with other insults and improper behavior. Regardless of your own opinions regarding fancruft, there is no reasonable basis to believe your current behavior is even remotely acceptable. Should you persist in it, definite actions may have to be taken. Specifically, to spell it out to you, you have no right to alter what others permit to keep on their user pages. Do not attempt further actions of that sort. Badbilltucker 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had read your revision to your own userpage before I posted here. Please do not attempt to misimpose regulations as you did on my user page, unless, of course, you can somehow prove to someone that they somehow further the interests of wikipedia. Being clearly insulted by you regarding your own repeated and perhaps continuing disregard for rules of decorum is something I cannot believe qualifies as furthering the interests of wikipedia. Badbilltucker 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of my behavior may very well be well grounded. However, your final statements I find most interesting. In effect I am doing the opposite. I am trying to prevent other people from altering my personal pages. These are not Wiki pages, these are user pages. Fancruft doesn't come into play with these. And I do not take kindly to be accused of modifying others user pages. I have never done that nor will I. What I did is revert your blanking if our discussion on your talk page. As told to me by multiple Administrators, a user is not allowed to blank their own talk page. If you check the BF2 ranks MFD page you will even find an administrator threatening me with a block because the Admin wrongly assumed I was threatening to revert edits in my talk page. So kindly knock off the threats. As to my behavior, I consider it justified seeing as certain individuals have seen fit to make personal attacks against my interests on Wikipedia. Calton went so far as to create a hit list to have every one of my user pages deleted regardless of circumstances. I take personal attacks rather personaly. My behavior is my own decision and I don't take such overt criticisms kindly. If you check my edit history you will note that I do not troll Wikipedia and that I make a point of trying to better it. I just have zero confidence in Wikipedia and have a poor opinion of Wikipedia policy seeing how it has been selectively used against my interests in the past. I consider my lack of confidence in Wikipedia policy well founded and I find it further insulting that people question this without researching the history behind it. I am not questioning your presence on Wikipedia, and I am wondering why you are questioning mine. Alyeska 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I am not trying to pick a fight. And this is the reason I keep recreating this section of your talk page.
You may not control who does and does not post on your Talk page. If you report Calton for vandalism for making perfectly legitimate comments on your Talk page, I will block you for 24 hours. User:Zoe, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Zoe made it clear that we aren't allowed to dictate what does and doesn't stay on our talk pages. Alyeska 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above, there is no question of your repeatedly reinsering things into my userpage after I had once, within the bounds of etiquette, deleted them and other parties did so subsequently, as a view of my userpage will clearly prove. I can only interpret your statement about "being accused" of things as being an objection to "being accused" of the facts, which causes me to wonder about a number of things. Badbilltucker 02:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And as you well know, I was under the wrong impression to the rules, and I apologize for the interference. Alyeska 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem about mis-posted talk.

However, I wish to point something out, and I hope you take it in the spirit that it is intended. You cannot win this fight. Calton is a snark, but he's a snark who very simply never does anything outside of policy. I don't like the way he acts sometimes but the man is a relentlessly dedicated contributor and editor with a philosophy that (excluding user pages) pretty much matches my own. The more you get into a contest of wills with him, the more emotional you will become over it and eventually you will say something that is clearly offensive and get banned.

I don't want that. You shouldn't either. As frustrating as Wikipedia is, it can also be very rewarding. My personal interests are in mainline Christianity, in the game Neverwinter Nights, in the Chinese Communist party that murdered my parents, and in Scientology which I despise. I never let myself edit, vote for deletion, or even interact with those pages, because I know the potential is there for me to become emotionally involved, and that leads to some admin who's having a bad day going upside your head with a banhammer. I never edit what I am intensely interested in -- I try to find new interests.

I implore you to let this drop. Copy it to your hard drive, and work on it off Wikipedia. There are others here who would be happy to do that with you. Don't get worked up over it because unfortunately the policy about user pages is so vague that people have been hardbanned over them. There is more here if you find it. Either way it goes, good luck. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spacebattles.com

As per your request, I saved a copy of deleted Spacebattles.com to your sandbox. This does not change my position that keeping deleted articles in userspace is wrong. Regards.--Húsönd 01:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please clean up your userpage right now

It seems I have to ask you to fix your userpage again. Please remove the paragraph about Ubisoft here,[6] or I'll protect your page, and this time I'd just as soon leave it protected. Bishonen | talk 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Why? What rules does it violate? All I see is a strong opinion on bad practices of a game company being censored just to create conflict. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Rogue 9 07:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stream International

Since when do we need to issue warnings to remove spam? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See CSD A7. There was nothing in the article to indicate notability, it was all ad-speak. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for nothing

You're welcome, just kidding. Anyway, excuse me for NOT wanting to start an edit war. Plus I thought you said you didn't check that page because of things like that.

You know, this is really the last message one wants to read when they wake up as the first thing.

Faris b 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Daedalus class battlecruiser. Please be more careful to engage in discussion or dispute resolution rather than an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you believe you should be unblocked, you may add {{unblock|your reason}} to this page and another administrator will review the situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P22

Apparently the consensus on the P22 talk page is not to include the shootings in the article.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 18:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically the only reason to mention the shootings, would be if the status of the P22 gets changed (like being banned or something, and how can you ban a 10 round .22 caliber pistol?) or there is a new gun control act or something directly caused by the P22. --Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 18:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrarty, the consensus is not "apparant" there. Thanks for trying to keep mention of this gun in the article. It clearly belongs. This was the deadliest mass shooting in American history. A similar discussion about whether to include a mention of VT is going on at Glock 19. You might want to contribute there. MiFeinberg 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Rule

Not sure if you are aware of the 3RR rule. Thank you. Yaf 21:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long time no see

Man this Wikipedia thing's an addictive substance, innit? :D  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 21:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walther P22 dispute

An article which you have edited, Talk:Walther P22#Request for Comment: Walther P22 – is involved in a dispute requiring inputs from editors to develop a consensus for editors to follow on whether or not mention of the Virginia Tech Massacre should be mentioned in the firearm article, or if mention in the VT Massacre article of the firearms used, with a link back to the Walther P22 article, is adequate. Thank you. Yaf 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks Alyeska for coming to my defense. Appreciate it. MiFeinberg 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I get carried away with this stuff, I really do have better things to do. I lodged a complaint against CINEGroup. YOu can weigh in here if you want. Thanks again. MiFeinberg 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: Personal attack on Talk:Glock 19. TWINKLE

[edit] April 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Glock 19. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, judging from your talk page, you have problems with civility and policy. My advice to you is to learn both of those, quickly, if you wish to continue editing on wikipedia. At the moment, your edits are not constructive. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yawn.Alyeska 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walther P22 disputes continues

Hello. The discussion of whether to include a mention of the Virginia Tech massacre at the Walther P22 article continues. Earlier, a compromise was reached to include a mention of the Viriginia Tech massacre in a "See Also" section of this article, but now that idea is being debated. Care to weigh in? The Walther P22 is being discussed here. Griot 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

You were pretty cool with how you handled the Star Trek specs debate awhile back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.164.212.246 (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

That AM guy didn't think so. I've let that issue slide. Last time I posted on it was more then a year ago. Alyeska 23:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your message

Thank you for your comments Alyeska .I respect your right to your opinion.I do not know which case you refered to but generally I do not want to duplicate arguements.I vote only if I agreed with the comments with that of the nom or the other user if not I put my own comments .I would greatly obliged if you tell which article are you refering to.You can reply here i will come back and check it.Anyway Thank you for your feedback.Harlowraman 04:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

I have initiated a deletion review of an AFD which you were involved in. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Balancer 04:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] friendly mention

I know you're interested in firearms, and your userpage says you have an AR-15. [7] That's my new baby... I haven't had it sent to my FFL yet, but it'll get put through its paces soon. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Here:⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Image:Swatjester_AR15.jpg


Responded on my talk. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek versus Star Wars

I'm confused as to why you're blanking this. As a redirect, it serves to point users to the correct article as opposed to a blank page; plus, if the article is deleted yet again, this page can be deleted by association when the deleter checks "What links here." As a blank page, it serves no purpose. I'm not going to revert your edit again, as I find that rather rude; instead, I ask that you replace the content that you removed. Thanks. GlassCobra 05:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware; I was one of the ones that cast a delete vote for the page, as a matter of fact. Actually, I think that this particular incarnation of the page has been created in error and will probably be deleted again soon. My point is that rather than just have a blank page that serves no purpose whatever, keep it as a redirect so that it can be deleted when the article is deleted as well. GlassCobra 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You might be right about Beretta Cx4 Storm but pushing the envelope on WP:3RR isn't the right way to go about it. An an edit war isn't going to do either of us any good. Please see Wikipedia:Reverting and sleep on it. G'night. Canuckle 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Halo2-1.JPG

Sorry, but, since the image above includes significant copyrighted elements of a game and operating system, you cannot turn around and release it under a copyleft license. — TKD::Talk 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your not sorry at all. Your intentionally trying to get my image deleted to spite me. Alyeska 02:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't construe this as a personal issue; it's not. The image has a copyright issue that needs to be addressed. Copyrights are a serious issue for Wikipedia. — TKD::Talk 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Halo2-1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Halo2-1.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack

Please refrain from personal attacks. I've removed the following from the Glock pistol talk page: Personal attack. --Asams10 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You followed up your personal attack with a threat here. This was after you'd read my warning. These actions are not acceptable. --Asams10 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)