User:23skidoo/Archive4

Welcome to the Archive! Please do not edit this page.

If you'd like to leave me a comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please Click here.

Archive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

WP:FICT

After discovering User:Radiant! is the only editor of WP:FICT, I am illiciting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fiction. Radiant has been the only user using WP:FICT as policy (though I find NO DISCUSSION) on VFD. Cburnett 02:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Cburnett is mistaken. WP:FICT has a large consensus behind it (linked from there), I never claimed it to be policy, and I am not the only person using it.

• Regarding your speech there, I wholeheartedly agree. But what exactly is your point? WP:FICT is about the organization of articles on fiction, and could feasibly be grounds for merging some of them, but not for deleting them. Remember that merging is a form of keeping. Radiant_* 14:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Enterprise

I'll get around to taking a look at it soon, tomorrow at the latest - depends when I feel like it :) . I wouldn't say I'm the "keeper" of the Casino Royale article, I just like to keep it and all the Bond articles in check. I do this for a number of articles to which I have "good" knowledge of. I just added Star Trek and I've been keeping an eye on Enterprise for sometime even though I've only seen a handful of episodes. BTW, I graduated college in May 04 and have been unemployed ever since. Sucks. I wish Wikipedia would pay me (I kid) :) K1Bond007 04:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Runtime

UFO is 45 minutes [1]. They've added more minutes over the years for commercials (my Dad works for a television station). If a show is currently running, like Alias or Enterprise and the show is an hour long the runtime is normally 42 minutes. Thats just how it is. Thats what runtime means anyway. You don't count the commercials before a movie in the theater (although it would be nice.. a 2 hour movie is now like 3 hours...). K1Bond007 04:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett's admin nomination

I was nominated for administrator and I'd like to hear your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cburnett. Cburnett 07:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Starship Enterprise

Thanks for the note. I thought I had that page on a Watchlist but it turns out I didn't. And thanks for supporting my edit, that picture has been bugging me for ages. I could understand having a group shot, if it was a group shot from Paramount or one of their effects houses, but a badly rendered/composed image like that... ugh. AlistairMcMillan 02:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something he/she hasn't actually broken the 3R rule yet. You know you are allowed three reverts within a 24 hour time space, it is once you do a fourth that you are breaking the rule. Anyway, if he/she does break the 3R rule, then post a message on this page... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Hopefully he/she has given up now. AlistairMcMillan 21:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the 3 revert rule is more like an electric fence (as per reading an abcom finding; think it was the Charles Darwin article) rather than a "right". Cburnett 06:31, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Pathways "canon"?

Hey, I had a question for you about a comment. What do you mean by saying that Pathways isn't canon?

Just so you know, I actually meant to put the "seven years apart" on the previous sentence in the paragraph. It's been modified appropriately.

-Maree

Thanks for all the information! I’m sure I’ll be referring to the Project Star Trek format for a lot of my information. Let’s see if I get this right.... Maree 21:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Rank

It's not unheard of for senior officers to remain at their rank for many years. It would be considered unacceptable for a junior officer to have never recieved a promotion after ten years, especially when you are a brilliant translator who has taken command of the bridge, gone on dangerous away missions, etc. Hoshi and Travis's rank remain what they are because Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are thoughtless idiots who don't care about any aspect of continuaty regarding anything. I'm actually relieved that the show is over now, so B & B can stop ruining everything that Star Trek stands for. (Sorry, I'm not having a good day.) func(talk) 01:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek

I feel a bit sorry since I haven't been particularly active with any of the Star Trek stuff... but then again, I haven't been particularly active on the Wikipedia either. I do want to work together to make Star Trek an FA article, despite the fact that I denominated it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the revert on the Mr. Spock entry, I think I linked Leila to the wiki at Memory Alpha. Why wouldn't that work? Roygbiv666 23:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation

I didn't actively change the RAW article. The apostrophes on that page were non standard (something other than ') and most browsers automatically change nonstandard charactors to html code. Joe D (t) 13:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: References

Would "Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry" be considered a reference? -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

More on Star Trek

There are a lot of problems that I can see from the Star Trek article. It mentions Rick Berman in the An uncertain future for the franchise section, but doesn't explain who Rick Berman is. That's not how essays work... -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Would the solution for that not be merely to wikilink the name? I'm *sure* we have a Rick Berman page...
--Baylink 19:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: A Star Trek bloopers article?

I believe it has merit, but I believe we should attempt to finish the work on Star Trek first. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Infinite Crisis

Great edit on Infinite Crisis just recently!

Joeyconnick 17:49, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Hmm

Well I wouldn't sweat it. It's an Internet discussion board. As far as Wikipedia and IMDb are concerned, they're not perfect. That's kind of how I see it. This is why citing sources especially those from reliable sources is imperative for readers to take the articles seriously. Editors, in my opinon, should shy away from unconfirmed reports unless properly cited by a reliable source. Thats my feeling on that matter anyway. K1Bond007 00:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

History of Star Trek

What do we know about the history of Star Trek? -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I found "On the Good Ship Enterprise: My 15 Years With Star Trek (Starblaze Editions)" on Amazon.com's Marketplace for $.43. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The question was broad intentionally, by the way. As I said, we don't have an article on the "History of Star Trek". What we have is that each show has its own background. There is no article that is one continuous flowing story elaborating how Star Trek became what it is today. The fact that the current Star Trek article highlights each individual show does elaborate on some of the history, but not all of it. It doesn't tell the tale of fandom rallying to get Star Trek a third season or how a fan base built around syndication... It doesn't tell the stuff inbetween the shows. It doesn't tell us the events surrounding the shows, such as the Space Shuttle Enterprise. I may be a Trekkie, but I haven't read much into its history... I know a few bits here and there... but not enough material that can be sourced as a reference to make an article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

An outline is fine, some general sentences and paragraphs are great too. Basically, we don't need anything big, just a poor rough draft of ideas. You can highlight points as an outline and place it into the temp page, and I can develop it even further. Whatever you want to do, but starting on the right foot will allow someone else to come along to improve it as it is the nature of the Wikipedia. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Years in television

Hi there!

This is a message to all users who were at one point of time or another actively involved in editing the "Years in television" articles.

I have developed a new format, that I am currently proposing to apply to all "xxxx in television" articles. If you could take a look at 1976 in television/Temp and leave your comments/objections/propositions at Talk:1976 in television/Temp, that would be much appreciated.

Please note that the Temp version is by no means final. It is there to give an idea of the new proposed structure. Please do not be critical of the actual layout; it will most definitely not stay unchanged.

Any ideas you might have will be quite welcome. Thank you for your time.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes links

Please don't remove duplicate links. Tables (or any tabular data) are an exception to removing duplicate links because people generally look for a specific entry and do not want to hunt around to find the link. It looks like I'll have to redo the entire page because you weren't the only one to delete links. :/ Cburnett 07:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators is perhaps the basic starting page. The things admins can do that other users can't include: 1-button revert (rollback I think it's called), article deletion, article resurrection (admins can view the history of deleted articles), block/unblock users, protect/unprotect pages. So, admins do a lot of vandalism control and must do the final step in the various deletion processes (WP:VFD, WP:CFD, etc.). Just to be clear, I'm not asking your permission to nominate you (WP:RFA is the place this is done), just for you to indicate whether you might be interested. The current process requires either someone to nominate you or you to self-nominate. I've noticed some folks getting nominated who IMO don't seem to have been around too long (hence, my list). I thought it might be good to add to this list whether folks on it are even remotely interested. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:21, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Vanessa Blue

Yes, I speedied it for lack of content. Feel free to create an article if you can trace any actual information to include. Mgm|^(talk) 21:25, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek Barnstar

I hereby award you this Star Trek Barnstar for your dedication to the Star Trek articles on the Wikipedia.

Awarded to 23skidoo from AllyUnion for hard work in Star Trek articles.

-- AllyUnion (talk) 19:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrea Menard

It's not that it's culturally wrong to include Métis people in First Nations categories...it's just that it's redundant categorization from a Wikipedia perspective, kinda like filing somebody under both "singers" and "pop singers". Bearcat 03:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phantom Stranger

The reversal was purposeful. I wanted to include something strange about the Stranger... So, being playful, I just flipped it over and loaded it up. However, in the interests of protocol, consitency and rules, you could flip it over if you would like. Thanks.. Sunburst

TV spam

It appears to be promotional. The site is nothing special (in fact looks quite amateurish). Been removing them when I see them. Morwen - Talk 15:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three revert/Angelina Jolie

Hi, 23skidoo. I don't normally monitor the Angelina Jolie page but I've added it to my watch-list. On weekdays, I check wikipedia several times a day. On weekends, once or twice, so I should be able to catch that guy's link spam. No problem. --Yamla 03:33, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

Or, the shortcut for it is WP:VIP. And it's not just for admins, it's for everyone. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who -Quatermass

Are you certain the influence didn't come till later? I could have sworn Verity Lambert (first producer of Doctor Who) said the series was directly inspired by the Quatermass serials, which is why Quatermass is referenced in the 25th anniversary story, Remembrance of the Daleks. 23skidoo 29 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)

Very sure. Lambert in fact had a somewhat rocky relationship with Kneale, as they both appeared on a live BBC Two debate show, circa 1965, to talk about science-fiction, and he gave her rather a hard time about what he perceived as her awful programme. Quatermass *is* mentioned in the original 1962 Script Department research report on the possibility of launching a new sci-fi series, but only in passing "with most science-fiction, and even with Quatermass, more people watched it than liked it". If you look through the marvellous "Production Diary" section of The Handbook - The First Doctor by David J. Howe, Mark Stammers and Stephen James Walker (reproduced in the more recent Telos Publishing reprint of the entire handbooks series) Quatermass doesn't get a mention. Of course, there *was* a Quatermass influence - often a very heavy one - in stories later in the history of Doctor Who - Spearhead from Space, The Daemons, Image of the Fendahl and so on and so forth - but Aaronovitch's throwaway line in Remembrance is just an in-joke really, the same as the television announcer just cut off before he introduces Doctor Who itself. Besides any of which, if we're going to list actors who've appeared in Quatermass and Doctor Who, then we've already got Duncan Lamont, Andre Morell, Roger Delgado, Kevin Stoney, Julian Glover, John Scott Martin and doubtless several more before Tennant ever came along and did it. Angmering 30 June 2005 11:14 (UTC)

Coronation Street cast

No it's not protected, the original poster ballsed up the listing and it's upset the wiki formatting of the vfd page, seemingly permanently even though I have tried to rectify it. Go to the article itself then click the link for the vfd discussion and you should be able to place your vote. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Removal from the Order of Canada

I am not sure if anyone told you, but the nominator of the article for merging retracted his vote, changing it to keep. For some odd reason, the VFD is still up. I wish to ask you if you want to relook at the article and see if you wish to change your vote based on the expansion of the article. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)