User talk:Cyberia23/Archive/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The 'Verse map you submitted

Do you have (or have you created any further) info on the names of the planets you picture in your graphic of the 'Verse?

If so, could you e-mail me at lynnlefey@hotmail.com, or post the information to the 'Waves in the Black' messages boards?

I appreciate your time, and the system map looks very shiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.198.254 (talk • contribs)

[edit] KITT images

Ok! But in my opinion my photos (with the red scanner switched on and the dashboard) are more interesting than the pic taken at the Universal Studios. Wikis of many countries now show my pics, even if the car is only "a someone's weekend project". Arroww 00:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the clarification. --Arroww 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cloud 9 disaster

I'm not sure which edit you're talking about. Can you provide a link? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonial Defender

Hey. I've gone ahead and removed it again as while it may actually be a "Colonial Defender" it has never actually been identified on screen.. and for that matter you would expect it would do some defending at the least wouldnt you Template:Emot. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome a listing on the page if it had actually been identified on-screen.. only problem is it has'nt yet and that source they cited isnt exactly reliable.. and also it hasnt been seen doing any "defending" - so I cant imagine it being in future episode.. (unless RDM does a retcon) MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about merging Cloud Nine? Though I think Colonial One should keep an article though. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Do you use IMs like MSN or AIM? Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I responded to this on your talk page - but you archived it & never replied. (0_0) Cyberia23 09:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
o.O - never noticed you replied - well if you want to chat (about anything..) I have aim acct: FentonMatthew MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yes i did

the entire table was a copyvio. let's take this matter to the talk page Morwen - Talk 07:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serenity System Map Image

That's a pretty nifty piece of work =] what did you use to create it? [reply to my email address asteconnathotmaildotcom, this IP address is my work's one =] thanks ] 86.142.52.224 14:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode naming

Hi, Cyberia. There's actually been a lot of discussion about this subject at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and its talk page. The consensus of most of the editors there is that articles should be disambiguated only when it's necessary — that is, when there's no other article by that name. This is why, for example, Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down was moved to that location from Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down (Battlestar Galactica) — there is no other article that could be at that page. This is in keeping with the general disambiguation guidelines at WP:D, specifically WP:D#Deciding to disambiguate, which says:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

The argument you give (that using parenthetical phrases consistently keeps articles consistent and makes them easier to identify) has been considered in the debate at WT:TV-NC, but most editors felt that the "consistency" was a misleading virtue, since preemptive disambiguation actually makes articles less consistent with the general Wikipedia naming scheme. And the article itself should provide enough context to identify it. The category system also unites articles on a similar topic.

The Star Trek precedent is, in my opinion, a bad one; the editors at the Star Trek WikiProject have been informed of the discussion at WT:TV-NC, and it is likely that Star Trek episode articles will also be moved soon.

I admit that Resurrection Ship and Cylon resurrection ship are a slightly complicated case, but I think that since the episode is titled Resurrection Ship (with a capital "S") and the ship itself is at Cylon resurrection ship (with no capitals), it's sufficiently clear. However, if you and other BSG editors feel that it's better to have Resurrection ship as a disambiguation page, with the episode at Resurrection Ship (Battlestar Galactica episode) and the ship at Cylon resurrection ship, that would be OK too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been considered. See the extensive discussion at WT:TV-NC and its archives, especially here. Basically, the argument is that disambiguation isn't about identifying a subject unless there are two articles that might otherwise share the same name. So it's appropriate for "The Enemy Within" to be disambiguated The Enemy Within (TOS episode), since there are other meanings of The Enemy Within (disambiguation). But there's no need for Charlie X to be disambiguated, since only the TOS episode has that name. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Josiah means "some" editors.. 50% does not equate to "most" Josiah. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] canon

Oh please - that's utterly absurd - what on earth made you think that? Please look at Talk:Galaxy class starship, where I get accused of 'blasphemy' for suggesting that non-canon starships should be allowed there. Please look at timeline of Star Trek, where I have added details of the early Spaceflight Chronology and suchforth. Please look at Other Starfleet ship classes#Federation class, which I just added yesterday. Is this the action of a canon fascist? I expect an apology.

All I want is that stuff, from canon and non-canon stuff should be properly sourced. Most of it isn't at the moment. Particularly bad is where we claim information has been sourced from an episode, but it actually comes from Okuda. That's great to have that information, but it should be sourced to Okuda. Morwen - Talk 07:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am just amused that two people can interpret me wanting information to be sourced in two entirely different ways. Morwen - Talk 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kudos

Thanks for updating BSG pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhosh (talk • contribs)

[edit] ..

She put a reference to me on her user page as well, haha. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

HEH, Yeah, Morwen... just a stupid situation there - I've tried to not let people get to me here anymore, but every once in while someone comes along and really grind my gears (as Peter from Family Guy would say) :P Cyberia23 09:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You ever considered running for adminship? Phil Welch blocked me as well.. I had him overturned pretty quick though, hehe. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, originally I had the "This user is not an admin, and doesn't want to be" userbox tag on my user page - I took it down because I was thinking about applying. As of now though, with the Morwen fiasco recently hitting me, I think I'd rather lie low for a while and try sometime next year. Cyberia23 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've emailed you your reply Template:Emot. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number Eight (Galactica)

The "complex link" was to the specific subsection corresponding to the particular Number Eight copy which was the subject of the text. It seemed more useful to me than just linking to the Number Eight article itself.

Anyway on the original issue, while I'm fine with using "Sharon Valerii" for either Galactica-Sharon or Caprica-Sharon, I don't think the latter should be called "Boomer". To my knowledge, that name has always been reserved for Galactica-Sharon, and Caprica-Sharon was only called that by Helo prior to her identity being revealed. --Saforrest 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.A.S.K.

Just wanted to say thank you for adding the MASK episodes synopsis. Thumbs up! Did you make them yourself, btw? Caudex Rax 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I just summed up the synopsis entries from TV.com. Cyberia23 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I have reverted your changes per long-established consensus against "trivia" as undertaken by the Cleanup task force. If other Star Trek episode articles "conform" to bad habits, they need to be fixed, rather than return to bad habits. Your help in improving these articles is absolutely appreciated. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a difference in calling it "Trivia", "Notes", "Behind the scenes", "Misc info" or "Whatever". Since each misc entry deals with a particular subject you going to make title headers for them all? Your changes leave WNMHGB a tacky-looking hang nail compared to the rest - so YOU GUYS can go make the changes to the others since I completely disagree with it. Have fun since there are 79 more to go. Cyberia23 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Facts have been written out of bullet points and into prose, as they should be; details were moved into proper sections. This article now looks like the one manicured nail in the bunch. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but this is Wikipedia, not IMDb, and we're supposed to be working together toward an encyclopedic standard. We hope to count on you and everyone who contributes. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think myself and User:RadioKirk are on the same page here (the page in question being the manual of style). If you wish for Star Trek articles to continue looking poor and unprofessional, that is of course your prerogative. The "Quick Overviews" are just plain inappropriate. Rose (Doctor Who) puts pretty much any Star Trek episode article to shame. Morwen - Talk 19:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I insultcomment on your work (which hey, I didn't know was yours at the time). There is a difference. If you don't want your work to be mercilessly edited, maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place for you? If you want to write long, excessively detailed plot summaries, likewise. Morwen - Talk 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My thanks, you beat me to it. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, I would say the Trivia sections contain much which is not really trivia. Awards, production details and behind the scenes stuff, all this stuff is not trivia. The fact that the Grenubolons appeared in episode 35 with slightly different moustaches, that's trivia. Morwen - Talk 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I put this to peer review now, so let's see what we get out of it. Any help/comments welcome! I think it would be great if this could be pushed to WP:FA, it would give people an idea of what to aim it. Morwen - Talk 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amok Time and "every 7 years"

You're right and I should put that in. Thanks~ --Bluejay Young 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNDN

Yes, indeed! Thanks for noticing.

[edit] (Tyl.)

Sending a message to the talk page and just ordered my truck for a delivery.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh.. and 1x10 translates to: Season/Series 1 Episode 10 (THoG) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea It would of been easier to just type it hehe thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I only really remembered it because I'd been thinking about that episode :-D thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested to know that a user has set up a "WikiProject BSG" - I believe he is under the impression that he is in charge because he founded it, haha, has already set a few rules! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

It should stay as a seperate article there is no reason why it should merge other then it appears to repeat a slight amount of information from another article which in my opinion gives less credibility to the article merging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtocs (talk • contribs)

  • Talk:DY-100 class to merge with SS Botany Bay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dtocs (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Breaks

Yea.. Well I don't find it "difficult" I guess - I could edit with it.. I just get (can't think of the word..) - I just dislike them between headers and I also believe content shouldn't be seperated from headers.. also line breaks for most users dn't actually get rendered but on some browsers it shows up as whitespace, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overview

Hi. I've been, in some articles I've been trying to turn the "overview" part into a proper sentence. I did this at "Datalore" for example, turning

"Overview: The Enterprise heads for the Omicron Theta system, home of Data, where he finds and reactivates his brother, Lore, and encounters the Crystalline Entity."

into

"The episode establishes Data's backstory, with Data finding out who created him (Dr. Noonien Soong), an evil brother, Lore, and the Crystalline Entity."

Now, it appears you then re-added this overview, immediately after my version of it. this edit

I don't quite understand this.

We can argue about what sort of information about the story should be in the lead : personally I feel it should be explain major continuity events, such as the first appearance of a species or character, a death or otherwise of a character, that sort of thing, and also what style of show it is. (for example The Measure of a Man and Dax (DS9 episode) should be saying they are in the style of a court-room drama, it should note The Trouble with Tribbles and Let He Who is Without Sin..." as comedies, and suchforth. The 'Quick overviews' here seem to be a kind of summary of the teaser-trailer : the type of blurb you would get on the back of the episode, if episodes had backs. It's not especially important to the episode what the name of the planet is, if it never occurs again. In this case the planet and the entity are mentioned again so they probably merit mentioning by name.

But what I don't understand is having the same information in a different style two paragraphs in a row.

same thing has happened here. I've turned the overview into a proper sentence and stuff, and now we've ended up with two very nearly identical paragraphs. Morwen - Talk 14:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is concern about spoilers, then we need to move the spoiler tags up in the middle of the lead. I don't think cast changes - like the fact that "Skin of Evil" kills of Tasha Yar - really count as spoilers - that was another thing you removed with a minor edit. As I say above, I think that intros should certainly mention cast changes, major new recurring species introduced, that sort of thing, and I'd added those to a few intros. Also, when we were objecting to "Quick Overview:" a few weeks ago, I for one wasn't objecting to the word "Quick", but to the general style of these, which I consider encyclopedic. I would challenge the use of the episode summaries at List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes They rarely specify the type of show (courtroom drama/comedy/etc), do not indicate which are the main characters the episode focuses on, and other such things. I'd argue each episode which is based around the holodeck or the Prime Directive should state that in the intro, for example. Of course, this is just my thoughts on the matter, it would be good to come to a consensus on what an excellent episode article looks like. My favourite so far is "Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode)", although there are a few others. But the main thing there was asking you to please take care when doing that sort of thing - the two diffs i provided ended up making the articles look very strange. Morwen - Talk 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on this a bit more: TNG frequently used the trope that the Enterprise would be somewhere ostensibly doing something of planetary importance, whilst the A-plot was actually more personal. "Booby Trap" isn't really about a booby trap, it's about Geordi falling in love on the holodeck; the summary of "Clues" doesn't really tell you anything about the plot of the episode. Interestingly the summaries in the TNG episodes list actually seem to improve by my reckoning, as you go further down the list. Morwen - Talk 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, it looked like you were reverting me, as minor edits, without an edit summary.
All the more reason to try to make a model article, I would have thought. We don't have any written standards for how the articles should look at the WikiProject, maybe you could suggest some? Can't recall if the Dr. Who people do. Morwen - Talk 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we already have WikiProject, but it's not very active. Morwen - Talk 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As you have no doubt spotted, I have done the move (which didnt require adminness as far as I can tell). Your edits to List of Star Trek planets remind me of the referencing problem with it that I raised on the talk page. (vis that it is citing the episodes when the names are really from backstage sources). I'm pondering about how we could proceed to fix this : maybe focusing on the 'A's first or something.
By the way, one thing I'd like to see, just to prove we can do it as a project, is bringing up an article up to featured article candidate status. I think we should focus on an episode first, preferably one with lots of backstage sources - so probably either The Cage/Where No Man Has Gone Before or possibly The Trouble with Tribbles, since it seems easier to write about works of fiction in a style accepted to FAC than it does writing about fictional entities. There don't seem to be any featured Trek articles at the moment, and the efforts I've seen to nominate them focus on minutiae that are hard to write about. Morwen - Talk 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kat

Aye, cheers ;-) - I was going o do it.. but I couldn't bring my self to edit out their DOG Template:Emot. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy this weeks episode then :-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I must be the only one who enjoyed last weeks episode, heh. Yea, there was some nice shots of the ships.. I couldn't get many nice clear images though as the "camera" moved so fast and the clouds blurred things :-( - I do have a nice one of the civilian fleet/Galactica above the Algae planet though and an okay one of the 'Queen. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Trek page edits

Please read WP:MOS and WP:AVTRIV; we're not here to do things the way we "like" them—and, if you had any knowledge of my recent attempt to stop a few higher-ups from ramrodding through a new fair use policy that I feel is needlessly restrictive, you'd see my frustration, since I'm bound to both adherence and enforcement. As for fixing two articles and not the rest, I generally don't have that kind of time; I do, however, like to think I'm leading (if one can call it that) by example. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo

I believe he became a major when he returned to being CAG on the Bucket. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki says:

Galactica's air group runs exercises with the Viper pilots who settled on New Caprica and are thus out of shape. Starbuck deliberately breaks formation and collides with Narcho's Viper, forcing an end to the exercise and causing now-Major Lee Adama - who has resumed his post as CAG - to remove her from flight duty.

thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

An annon left an edit summary of "Rank returns to major because his command of Pegasus was a battlefield promotion, hence temporary" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikilogos

I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi please can I ask you you to reconsider your opposition and words on the talk about the Logo Variations for special days. You took up NPOV as a factor of contention which I think is off the point. In fact the Logo Variations are intended to increase people's interest in cultural and awareness days across the board. I feel you didn't read the entire thread where the issue of the definition of special days was discussed by highly respected wickipedians. Please read the thread, please understand that according to the proposal the Logo Variations will be agreed upon in a open consensus. World Aids Day, World Cancer Day, No Smoking Day are important causes and when Google adopt their own Logo Variations for such causes, their community feel entertained and glad that the monster is still in touch with the world. Thank you for your attention. frummer 03:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BSG

Hey. Will you be writing a plot summary this week for BSG or do you not have time? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool, I'd write one but mine aren't very good, hehe. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice work by the way on the article, have a good xmas :)! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the Cause (DS9 episode)

Hi. I recently exapanded the article for For the Cause (DS9 episode), and included several sources, but they do not appear on the bottom of the article as External links, and clicking on them has no effect at all. Can you help me out here, or recommend an admin who's part of the WikiTrek Project? Thanks, and if you celebrate Christmas, then Happy Holidays. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 06:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. Is this "code" a new protocol, or something? Is this what we have to do now? And if so, do I just type that exact text for all articles? Thanks again, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arlene as T'Pring photo

Did you ever think for one moment that your specific screen resolution and/or browser may be displaying the image differently? Perhaps not, which may explain your presumptive statement assuming that I had not 'watched where I placed the image'. Try thinking something through first, rather than looking at things as if the world revolves solely around your own experience. --MrEguy 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is too funny to pass up....

[edit] Adding images

Please watch where you put images within articles. Your adding of T'Pring in Amok Time placed the image right in the middle of a sentence and chopped the paragraph in half. I fixed the placement, but please be careful when adding content. Thanks. Cyberia23 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever think for one moment that your specific screen resolution and/or browser may be displaying the image differently? Perhaps not, which may explain your presumptive statement assuming that I had not 'watched where I placed the image'. Try thinking something through first, rather than looking at things as if the world revolves solely around your own experience. --MrEguy 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, thats it... my screen resolution... For a minute though, let me show you whats messing it up on my screen... I'll present the code from the history of the page...
T'Pring arrives accompanied by Stonn, a pure-blooded Vulcan, who is obviously her lover, and invokes kal-if-fee, her customary right to a physical challenge between Spock and Stonn. But instead, she picks Kirk to be her challenger to fight Spock. The duel pains Spock, and he asks that T'Pau forbid it [[Image:TPring.jpg|left|thumb|Arlene Martel as "[[T'Pring]]"]]because Kirk "does not understand, he does not know", but T'Pau allows it. She tells Kirk to decide, telling him another champion will be selected if he declines. Kirk accepts the challenge, thinking he can let Spock win — then discovers that this is a fight to the death.
Here, let me highlight the part in question for ya...
The duel pains Spock, and he asks that T'Pau forbid it [[Image:TPring.jpg|left|thumb|Arlene Martel as "[[T'Pring]]"]]because Kirk "does not understand, he does not know", but T'Pau allows it.
That is your edit according to the history. So yeah you're right, must be my screen resolution... Funny, it just looks to me like you cut image code right in the middle of a sentence. My bad. Cyberia23 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It also cuts into the text on my screen resolution, please be more careful next time MrEguy, you don't splice images in-between text like that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship Enterprise <- mine *rofl* -- some troll AfD the Enterprises! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should say, Brian, or MrEguy, or whatever your name is, please don't add image code to the middle of a sentence, because on my screen - resolution problems that I have and all, it cuts the sentence in half. Cyberia23 22:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I noticed it as well, it interrupts the text on my res. (1024) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sector (Star Trek)

Hello. I've been looking at this article and pondering what to do to it. It is presently very in-universe, recounting the Star Trek Star Charts explanation. This is fine; but it doesn't present any of the other explanations, or any real-world information about how sector numbers are used in Star Trek episodes, which caused the odd features in the system to be devised to explain them. (gah, that's a hell of a sentence).

Also there are one or two odd things in the article I can't even find in Star Charts: such as the claim that that system is 24th century. Further, I've noticed several sentences that have been taken word-for-word from Star Charts, and more text which has been restructured slightly but using the same phrases when there is no real need to do so.

Given all this, I'd prefer to start it from scratch again, drawing on information in the Encyclopedia, Star Charts, the TNG Writer's Technical Manual, Bjo's Concordance, and Joseph's Technical Manual. Does this seem sensible to you? Morwen - Talk 15:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i'll see what I can do. Thing is, with the Star Charts system, not only does it not really resemble reality, it doesn't resemble Star Trek, much either (and nor, for that matter, does the TNG Writers Manual system, which instead has sector 01000 at the "top" of the galaxy, sectors 17000-19000 at the "bottom" of the galaxy, and claims no sector number is <1000. quite a neat system although obviously nowhere near enough sector numbers to go around) Morwen - Talk 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rapture

Excellent work on the plot! and in answer to your question it's the "Ionian nebula" -- at least I'm pretty sure it is anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

-( -- I stayed up to 6am (1am American time) waiting for BSG, didn't come out till 8am :-P -- fell asleep at 8pm last night without realizing it. :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firefly 'Verse Map

Cyberia23, Do you have, and are you willing to share a higher-res version of your Firefly 'Verse map? It's absolutely gorgeous, and would be great for the campaign I'm fixin' to kick off. If so, please let me know at scorpienne at gmail dot com. If not, then kudos to you for your beautiful work regardless.

Thanks


Paige —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.15.11.233 (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Where do I see the map :-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It's under List of Firefly planets and moons.
Holy cow! How did you make that? Photoshop? (It's very good I must say) :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah mostly in Photoshop, and Macromedia Freehand. I'm planning on revising it to how it appears in the Role-Playing game more or less. Even though everyone seems to like this map it's unofficial and being critical of my own artwork I dislike it. Hopefully I can make a better one. Cyberia23 02:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I like all the colours and the way they blend, I just seen Image:STHeadingBearingIMG.jpg as well, you are very talented :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh boy

I'm pretty sick of the deletionists, thought you might like to know but someone has taken some episode pages to AfD, somebody said they believe it might set precedent to rid Wikipedia of episode pages! I thought you might be interested as you've written a fair few of the BSG pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Twist (Gilmore Girls)) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Reply here - people watching my talk pages.. conspiracy!! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm sick of deletionists too but it seems their attempts at deleting TV show articles always fails in the end and I don't know why they continue to try. Numerous times have they attempted to purge the Trek pages I worked on and they always lose in the end. I'll voice my opinion to keep. Cyberia23 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I know they really piss me off tbh - a lot of them never even write articles either! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I made a good point with my comment. Hopefully it will encourage more KEEPs for the articles. Cyberia23 02:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woh!

Did you just make that ? It looks very professional Template:Emot - you should consider working for ZOIC (You could design Battlestars :p) - I think your map is pretty awesome Template:Emot! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You're pretty talented imo, I very much like the bunny - I think this is the best image I've ever made. Do you do all your work in Photoshop? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Ohio home

Hi Jay i live in Cleveland too i am a hardcore Browns,Cavs,Indians,and Buckeyes fan, I live in Cleveland Hts and hang out on Coventy at the sportsbars —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.58.195.163 (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

That's cool, I actually live out on the eastside in Mentor at the moment - I might move out to Lakewood but thats still up in the air. I'm not really a sports fan though. I've been to the Grog Shop in Coventry a few times for bands but thats all I've ever gone out there for. Cyberia23 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek images

I have started on a mission to boldly go where no one... Wait, plenty of people have.

Today I started on a quest to beef up the image pages of Star Trek and put in necessary fair use rationales to avoid the wrath of the "anti-fair use trolls" (ok, troll is too strong of a word) that remove images from episode lists. Furthermore, the rationales are needed to go to a featured list and I'd like to see some these episode lists get there!

Please see Image:STEncFarpoint.jpg and Image:STNakedNow.jpg for examples. I'd appreciate any help as there are hundreds upon hundreds of episode images to do! Cburnett 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against fair use policing and I combat it where possible, I will try and help you as well! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Christ! They want all the images and the articles removed now? Guess it makes sense to attack us where they can. If they can't get the article deleted they'll go for the images. I'll try and add expanded tags to my images when I can. Cyberia23 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WP:RFAr

You have been listed as an involved party in a case against Philwelch. Follow the link above. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 16:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About User:Philwelch

His adminship was not removed, he came back shortly after blocking himself "indefinitely" (admins can unblock themselves) and continued his tactics of blocking anyone he disagreed with. His most recent inappropiate block was on February 1, 2007 when he blocked User: David Levy. Dionyseus 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I my self also felt bad about him leaving Wikipedia till two days later I was chatting in the IRC channel and Phil happened to be in there, he began slightly taunting me about "I" had "made" him leave Wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
His leaving was entirely his decision, so if he's passing blames then he's just a big crybaby and doesn't belong here in any position of authority. Cyberia23 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Frankly I don't like his abuse of power, and I find it's happening too often here on Wikipedia. It's made me seriously reconsider my position at times. I have to ask my self: Do I really want to be in an environment where administrators are allowed to run (almost) wild doing what they please and imposing their will on others. I've also seen it happening with the bureaucrats promoting their friends. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah... just another day on good old Wikipedia. Cyberia23 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:STMedusan.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 09:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch

Do you want me to leave Wikipedia? Philwelch 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Requesting your help with English to Chinese Translation

Hrm... I'm not sure how much help I could be here. In general, most non-Chinese names can be (and are) translated phonetically, however, there really isn't any standard for how this is done. You could pretty much use any character that sounds similar, so there might be half a dozen different ways to do a phonetic translation for a single name- I can't guarantee that the characters I'd use would be the same ones that the producers decided to use, or that they'd sound exactly alike. There is no inverse Chinese Romanization standard. Additionally, it's possible that the producers of the show might have even decided to try and translate the meanings of some of the names, which makes things even more complicated. In other words, there is no way for me to do a direct translation of the names and come up with anything uniquely meaningful in the sense that a Mandarin speaker could understand which planet was being referred to.

I think your best bet would be to try and grab a screenshot of the star charts in question, if possible. The exact characters used in the show can then be transcribed. -Loren 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said there is no set way of translating names. For an example in the opposite direction 香港 can be translated as "Hong Kong", "Heūng Góng", "Xiānggǎng", "Hsiang-kang", or even literally "Fragrant Port". I'll take a look at some of the links you've provided but I can tell you straight off the bat that while "丁香" means Lilac, "丁香伐丙" is total gibberish and doesn't even sound remotely like Lilac in English. -Loren 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomb of Athena

No problem. I'm quite the naturalist my self so I don't lighten images my self, hehe :) (Just looked at your Firefly planets as well - impressive work!) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh the ones on Fireflyfans.net? Thanks. Cyberia23 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea, generally quite a dark tone. They need to get out more! I keep wondering where all the aliens are, anyway I keep getting the feeling the storyline are paving the way for a big storyline, with little bits here and there. Right now I'm replacing the season three images with images from the UK as they air in HiDef here, for example The original Hybrid image from Sci Fi and the new one from UK. The quality and sharpness is much better imo, do you agree? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, its much better. You can see all the water drops and stuff. A friend of mine has a HD plasma TV, the thing is amazing. We were watching some HD channels and I was amazed that you can see every blade of grass in this one outdoor scene. Oh, I heard rumor of a supposed "comedy" episode for the new BSG, possibly airing as a webisode on Sci-Fi's website. **cringe** How can they make the show funny? Colonel Tigh gets a mysterious new eye but finds it's another artifact leading the way to Earth. Now that would be funny. Cyberia23 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Hera's stem cells regrow it for him :-D -- I personally think we need more action, but spread across the season, I also do not like what there doing to my ship either.. it's gona come soon they'll need to do repairs... ooooo! episode idea! "The Galactica desperately in need of repairs decides to jump on to the surface of the planet for an overhaul, days later with Galactica in no state to jump, fight or even launch a Viper the Cylons jump in, Adama orders the fleet to jump leaving the Galactica to fend for its self. With little hope of survival." (end part one of two... several month break ensues until part two, ep. 1 of season 4) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me vs. you

From your user page:

Cburnett probably harbors bad feelings about me, I can only say I'm sorry I was out of line and I felt stupid fighting over Star Trek - I can't believe I'm that much of a geek.

Don't sweat it. Live, learn, forgive, laugh, forget, and move on. :) I had to stop and think for a minute what it was about....the infoboxes? Cburnett 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exodus

Hey, could I get your opinion on something? Specifically this, an editor (and some new account that was registered in May and has made one edit and one to revert me... hehe) wants to include some "trivia" based on a screencap, while it's undeniably likely a good, is this unsourced speculation encyclopaedic in your opinion? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I removed it three times but then the guy brought in his sockpuppet to start adding it an added a screencap, the problem is that all we seen was a flash of green and so it's mostly "assumption" anyway, I'm not gona spend my time reverting the user who added it. I just don't have the energy to revert-war over something like that. Oh and on a side note, I've decided to start re-watching Firefly again ;-D thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea, arbitration sucks, has to be one of the *most* corrupt systems on Wikipedia, the only way you win one on Wikipedia is if you have friends in the right places.. and yea I'll probably revert the dude(ete) in a few days.. they annoy me though because it's this type of stuff why people keep trying to get episode deleted. A lot of these people who try and get episode articles deleted don't even contribute to any articles. I'm surprised they ain't been chucked out the air-lock yet! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You still watching Stargate any more as well? or don't you edit those articles any more? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, we've been airing the episodes over here first for a change so I've been watching live on the television :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea. For some reason Sky decided to start showing them early :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Agonizer

An article that you created, Agonizer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agonizer Thank you. SkierRMH 01:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remastered Trek

I believe the Sci Fi Channel aired it for a short while but I wasn't able to watch it *cries*, I've been watching to see if the BBC have picked it up but all they seem to concentrate in is Doctor Who. I'll probably watch it soon though, what are the new effects like :-P? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good (I might just have to go watch one now :-D) -- looks like they are still 4:3 though :-P? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Star Trek planets

oh, im sorry i didnt know it worked like that. Thanxs for clearing it up and adding a warning on there so no one else makes the same mistake. sorry again -- Paulley 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, yea dont worry i understand. Its a little bit out of my area anyway (im more vandal cleanup for pro wrestling articles and British wrestling in general) though i some how went from Stargate SG1 (which im really into lately) to the Animated Star Trek then to the List of planets... still tryin to figure out how i got there lol --- Paulley

Keep up the good work and don't let em get you down.

Anyplace I can see your work on the web other than here on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.204.71 (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You refering ot my artwork? I have an online gallery of some stuff [http:cyberia23.deviantart.com here] if you want to have a look. Cyberia23 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TWK

Have you heard of "AlistairMcMillan"? Check the talk page for The Woman King, appears now he's moving onto BSG episodes after Star Trek starships. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BSG Ships

I'd totally pay money for that :-D! Who knows, maybe they are, muhaahah! Would be really good for the articles, xD! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully they will stick to only 13 episodes in season four that have been ordered, if so maybe we'll get longer CGI.. probably not though :-( - If they just gave us one CGI intensive episode.. just one (wouldn't complain if they all are.. :-D) then I'd be very happy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is though too really enjoy the CGI you need to watch it in high-quality, I wish Sci Fi aired it in digital instead of analogue. When BSG does have its CGI shots though.. they are (in my opinion anyway) far superior to Star Trek (and I believe BSG is done on a lower budget). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leoben

Regarding these edits: I like your style. Would you mind looking at Kara Thrace? I'm not sure I agree with definitively calling the Raiders hallucinations, however. I think the episode purposely leaves it unclear, but strongly hinting that way. Perhaps saying that she sees them but there's no dradis, no other visual, etc. Cheers! CovenantD 06:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fleet

Hey Jay, just updated "The Passage" screen capture, here. Have a look just under Galactica's left flight-pod, I don't remember ever seeing that dinky little shuttle pod type thing before, do you? Looks like a type of landing pod type thing with that flat surface, or perhaps it's a malformed Dreadnought, hehe! Matthew 14:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I can see a bit of resemblance on closer inspection. What is Blake's 7 like? Any space battles? (I assume the CGI isn't good as it's British :-() Matthew 20:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Aww. Yea I watch 'Who TOS, if only we Brits had a big budge I bet we could make some cool sci-fi :-) Matthew 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I use VLC player to do my captures (plays practically anything you throw at it :-D!), just right click and hit "Capture", you might have to set it to JPEG in options however ;-)! Matthew 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That new shot is pretty damn good as well btw :-) - Yea, I had the same problem with Real Player (had to turn of layers as well - VLC doesn't use layers though.. and is less resource intensive.. which is good :-P) - Anyway, BSG soon.. getting excited ;-)? Matthew 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes I had User:Matthew usurped (Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations) :-)! and yea no problem, I just liked the way the flash formed, lol :P! If you watch the jump slowly it looks like it goes through several stages in the process of jumping. Matthew 21:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's pretend they were trying a new type of warpFTL drive!! You need to use an instant messenger, there's so much we could talk about, hehe :). Matthew 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha, quite true, I get quite a lot of people IMing when I don't want to be IMed, I've become quite fond of my "appear off-line" button, but yea, no problem :). Matthew 23:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work

Great work on the planet maps for Firefly. Any way we can see more of it??


All the best

varin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.115.38.20 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] BSG

Holy mother of frakking god, amazing ! Matthew 08:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I loved that song :-P! The thing is though.. I don't believe they're Cylon in the sense they're machine.. I get the feeling they are Cylon and Human with a bit of something else mixed in there, perhaps a link to create peace. At the end of the day though, Kara may not be alive, perhaps it was a hallucination.. I hope not though. Matthew 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'm of the belief Baltar is a man who doesn't age, and created the humanoid Cylons, and somehow "lost" his memory. I'm thinking he was once a "higher being" but choose to help the "lower beings" (think Oma Desala here), i.e. to stop them from annihilating each other, so he made them "compatible" in a sense.. but things didn't go peachy, I dono.. it's really complicated, that's what really making me look forward to new Bee-ess-gee, oh.. and have you heard about to BSG movie? Matthew 20:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I heard it's to do with Pegasus :-P! Matthew 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Interview with RDM. Fire up that main coffee machine.. err I mean main battery :-D! Matthew 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How come you removed Starbuck :-(? Matthew 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, do you use IE? I've tested in Firefox and Opera (not IE though.. I'm scared of IE..), personally I wouldn't want to lose it as the value it brings to the article is enormous to me, but I also understand the people who really "think" she is dead don't wana be "spoiled" (I just don't understand why they read past {{spoiler}}, :-P! Matthew 07:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just mad I have to wait so long to get answers to the dozen cliffhangers they left.... :) Cburnett 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I tried to delete IE one :-(, Microsoft need to stop being so competitive, they only make it difficult to un-install so they can keep there "stats" up. The curcly brackets were actually a template transclusion, they were supposed to "hide" the image behind a "Show" box type thing. I'm really looking forward to the movie my self as well, I'd really like to see the Scorpion ship yards, hehe :). Matthew 08:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing that does annoy me though is: they don't focus enough on the technological side of the Cylon enough, after all they are supposed to be machines, right - I'd really like to see an old style Cylon.. but enslaved (the bullet heads don't appear to have any intelligence) Matthew 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scare tactics

Hey I am missing some Scare Tactics episodes form season 2. Do you have them? MY e-mail address is:

chw12@psu.edu


Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.118.40.78 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reply

The maintenance tag stays until the problem is solved, not when you "have time to fix it". Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, vandalism happens. Revert the vandalism when you fix the plot whenever you do. A tag doesn't need to be removed due to the fact (the problem: long plot in this case) will be fixed sometime in the future. RobJ1981 07:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling me a hardcase doesn't help anything. As policies state: comment about content, not contributors. RobJ1981 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SpacePark

As the link I removed is dead, everything we write in that section is based on primary sources and somewhat influenced by opinion. I changed it because the former wording ("resembling a massive wheel connected to a long slender central hull at the axis") is wrong in that SP really is a massive wheel connected to a long slender central hull at the axis. And it really doesn't resemble Spacedock One, which is a station just like Space Station V, but is even bigger and doesn't feature a gravity wheel. But since we're at primary sources, can you remember any earlier or more remarkable (i.e. influential) depiction of this concept? IMHO, it can safely be assumed that each and every last fictional spacecraft that features a spinning wheel resembles only Space Station V, because it is the original depiction of that concept. And actually, it does have a central axis What kind of rewording did you have in mind? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to resemble and to be are two different things. The use of one of them, in this context, is wrong. It would be like saying "A tunnel resembles a tube through a mountain" when that's just what a tunnel really is. Have it your way, but Space Station V is not a weak example, it's the example. SP "resembles" SSV both in my interpretation and I'd go so far as to say this resemblance was the intention of the BSG designers, who are aiming for a mature audience which knows the single most important science fiction film ever made. Let's not continue here, please just go ahead and be bold, I don't mind. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a faux explanation from within the narrative. And yes, I do believe the designer/s were clearly influenced by 2001, that's why I wanted to wikilink those two. It would be sufficient to list it as a see also, but in my opinion in-line links are a lot nicer, providing a frame of reference for the reader. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Argumentum for fun: I remember watching an interview with one of the Star Trek: The Next Generation developers, where he was asked how the flux capacitor worked, and he answered: "Fine, thanks." You see, the diegetic explanation the BSG people provide for the design of SpacePark are not working within the extradiegetic level, the real life frame of reference. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
See also Technobabble#References_in_Science_Fiction. And although I despise userboxen, "This user also thinks that The Big Lebowski is the best film ever made." Seems we have some things in common, after all, so why not try and work on it together? By way of technobabble, did you know about the Sokal Affair? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BSG Fragged

D'you think? It sounds like a novel interpretation to me.  ; ) Seriously, I do think that that kind of comment, unless corroborated by, say, the production team, is sailing pretty close to the wind, by providing an interpretation rather than a description. (I know it's only a television show, but there is a genuine point of principle here.) Wooster (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KITT

That's cool but I thought it would be relevant to KITT's history as well.

[edit] Pictures

I am just trying to enhance the quality of the Battlestar Galactica articles. I will not add more than one thumbnail to any article. I am just trying to have the articles to be more descriptive and I think that One main picture and one thumbnail is not over doing it. Additionally, with a small picture, especially on long or two-part articles, it will seperate long lists of text and make the article more readable. Plus some of the ideas of the article cannot be expressed in mere words suck as Scar's scar, Galactica's computer system, Leoben being tortured, among other things. BUt thank you for the Tomb of Athena picture reference. If you find better pictures than that I have do not hesitate to replace them. Sith Penguin Lord 16:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sword of Fargoal

Hello. Thank you for your edits to Sword of Fargoal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). However, in the future, it's probably a good idea to make a handful of larger edits (and use the "preview" button to check your work), rather than making a large number of small edits. Otherwise, the article history gets cluttered enough that it's hard to see what you or anyone else did. Happy editing! --Christopher Thomas 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know - I been a Wikipedian for over two years. Sometimes I have to make changes and fix mistakes, sorry. Cyberia23 04:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm respectfully suggesting that you spend a few more minutes proofreading in preview mode, so that you can see and implement changes before saving, and don't have as many mistakes to go back and fix. --Christopher Thomas 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Mobs

The book in "Horizon" appears to be "Chicago Gangs of the Twenties." Watch the episode.

Chicago Mobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.235.66 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, but as you can see the book in the Original Series was titled "Mobs" not "Gangs" so it's title in the article should say Mobs. It must have been changed in Enterprise and retconed like everything else about about that show, or maybe it was just another book in the Horizon library about gangsters. Cyberia23 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


That's the point. The article says, "Travis did have a copy of Chicago Mobs of the Twenties in his quarters...." In fact, he does not. The book he has is "Chicago Gangs...." The article was factually incorrect. I had corrected it, and you have restored the error. There doesn't seem to be any need to speculate that it was "just another book in the 'Horizon" library about gangsters," since it is clearly not the same book that shows up in TOS episode, unless it was rebound sometime after "Horizon."

In any case, my edit was a valuable contribution, and I'd suggest you re-edit the article either putting it back as I had it, or elaborating on the apparent faux continuity.

Finally, since you seem to do much editing, you should try to remember that "it's" ALWAYS means "it is" or "it has." Just read it that way, and you'll always be right. Cf: "so it is title in the article…," and "so its title in the article…."

209.193.85.4 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Jason Petri

I see the mistake - I thought you were wanting to change the title of the book under "Plot" (and make it inconsistent to the original book title) not under "Notes/Trivia" where you were talking about Enterprise. I changed it back to the way you had it. Cyberia23 05:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squirrelly quotes

You are not the first person to complain about and revert Felicity4711's bizarre fixation on applying print typography to the web. You won't be the last. Keep up the good work. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-15 03:51Z

I would be happy to co-sponsor a requst for comment re: the "typographical quotes" issue. However, I do not expect anything productive to come of it. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-20 14:27Z

[edit] Scare Tactics

For crying out loud, can you honestly not see that scare tactics is fake? Don't sit there and tell me that I'm using Wikipedia to present my personal opinion. A child could see that the show's not legitimate. I mean, if you were writing an article on professional wrestling, and it was the seventies before they actually openly admitted it was fake, would you write the article as though it was real? It's not a personal opinion, the show IS FAKE. Did you notice that the article stated that the lawsuit would suggest that the show was real? Isn't that a personal opinion (not to mention wrong)? Did you notice how badly written the article was (I changed it to state that the show is fake but I didn't take the time to really improve the style)? That's because it was written by an idiot and that's why it seemed as though it came the perspective that the show is real. The FACT is that classifying the show as reality TV is misinformation. It is SOOOO obvious from watching the show that it is fake. That in itself is evidence. It's called video evidence.

If you had said something polite and reasonable like "though I agree that 'Scare Tactics' is clearly not legitimate, I'm afraid that unless you can provide a verifiable source, your edits cannot remain", I would have accepted your statement. Instead, you decide to scorn me for stating the glaringly obvious and act as though what I written is opinion. Have you even seen Scare Tactics? It goes something like this:

"Oh my God, Shannon Doherty and the military are here to ask me to test a plasma gun with flashy lights on it. This doesn't seem like a set up at all. Oh God, I blew up that guys house which was for some reason on the firing range, using a gun which gives no physical feedback when fired. Oh God, I'm in big trouble now."

Jesus Christ. Several INTELLIGENT people watching the show and coming to the consensus that it's fake should be enough evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holymolytree2 (talk • contribs)



[edit] Serenity RPG edits

I appreciate your help on the clean-up of the article. I mentioned my rational on the one edit I disagreed with in the discussion of that page. MrCrim 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Mudd's Women

Hi, Thanks for your message.

Just to let you know that I have found a good, small sized, low resolution photo for Mudd's women.

Tovojolo 08:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)