Quantcast User talk:Gvsualan/archive - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki
Recent changes Random page
GAMING
Entertainment
 
Star Wars
Star Trek
Transformers
 Muppet Wiki
Digimon Wiki
Marvel Database
See more...

User talk:Gvsualan/archive

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Log buoy

Looks like someone's messing around with MA. This article is meaningless. zsingaya 22:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can in this case. The following all link to this:

So it either needs to be rewritten or redirect, perhaps condense the Log buoy, Data recorder and Recorder-marker into one? --Gvsualan 22:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OT: GVSU

GVSU wouldn't happen to be a reference to Grand Valley State University, would it? That's about a half-hour south of where I live. --Short Circuit 05:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's where I went to school. --Gvsualan 05:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Hi, if you want to control a bot, just drop me an email or read the pages linked from Memory Alpha:Bot -- Kobi - (Talk) 16:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resizing images

I'm grateful that you've resized the images I've uploaded. I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to editing pictures. Any tips for doing so, to avoid you having to clean up after me? Tough Little Ship 21:25, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • No big deal. The size of the files (space used) you have been uploading have been just fine, its just the size of the (viewable) image that seems a bit oversized. Basically I just do it with the standard MS Paint program that comes with my Win XP. Typically, I reduce the images to 80% their original size, but sometimes down to 60%, all depending on the degree of detail required to keep the images value. --Alan del Beccio 21:31, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll (hopefully) remember that in the future. Tough Little Ship 21:32, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deep space nine

why did you remove the ds9 show info? the current page is a stub with a list. -67.181.63.245 03:51, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • If you are referring to the removal of your Wikipedia import, it constituted a copyright violation, which was clearly discussed on the talk page and clearly stated in the summary field when the page was reverted. --Alan del Beccio 08:47, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • how is it a copyvio if wikipedia is free information? you are illogical sir. 67.181.63.245

[edit] Violations

Hi,

Sorry about the violations,

I was not aware that Star Trek.com and Paramount would have A problem with A fan-based website and information posted on these, though i should have known.

One thing I would like to know. Am I allowed to create an article in my own words based on findings on other websites? Since I don't have the DVD's (nor the money to buy them) in order to watch episodes and thus take notes. Yet, I would still like to contribute to this website.

Kind Regards,

Xedos

  • As long as it is canon, and you don't copy the work of others, I suppose that wouldn't hurt. We don't need anyone coming after us accusing us of "stealing" their work. --Alan del Beccio 08:51, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irina Karlovassi

I apologize, thanks for fixing it. I don't know why that happened; I intended to add the pic I uploaded and a note about her being from the 20th century, I don't know why it blanked. - AJHalliwell 00:13, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Production numbers

Quick question: when adding production numbers to the tables of episode articles, should it be posted numerically (i.e. 027, 028, 029 and so on) or the way the producers/studio labels them (i.e. 201, 202, 203 and so on)? --Shran 05:42, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not really sure, I suppose since it is "production number", it should be given the production numbers "(i.e. 201, 202, 203 and so on)". But I'm not sure if that would get confusing since the production number does not always correspond with the order of airing numbers "(i.e. 027, 028, 029 and so on)", that the articles are otherwise organized by. --Alan del Beccio 05:45, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. I think if we wanted to be official, we should label the production numbers the way the studios labeled them (201, etc.), but for the sake of simplicity and clarity, I think we should update them to proper numerical form (027, 028, etc.). Thanks! --Shran 21:41, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks For The Welcome

Thanks For The Welcome To The Website... I look forward to making future contributions. Memory Alpha is a wonderful tech resource and I enjoy spending time studying the information on it. You have made wonderful contributions to the site as I can see. Very excellent work if I may say so... Keep up the good work. I'll see you around.

[edit] Re:

Yeah, I got it about the instant I hit the save page button to revert it. I was like, "I really don't believe his name is Harry John--- wait a minute!!!" :P --Shran 08:07, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) I just did a boo-boo... now the dirty name is on the recent changes list... sorry! :( --Shran 08:09, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Again, sorry about the whole name on the recent changes page thing. It's early morning and I'm not thinking straight :( --Shran 08:22, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • No prob, I got it straightened out, as I'm sure you've seen. --Alan del Beccio 08:33, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I know, that's why I felt I had to apologize again, since you had to delete the page then re-add it. --Shran 08:37, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hmmm... It said I had new messages, but they were about vandalism and blocking. Then I realized I wasn't even logged in! There have to be other cases of multiple people on the same IP - is it possible to prevent an address from anonymous editing? I'd support that since if I ask the "vandal" to stop you'll get ten times more in response... You know how it is. --Schrei 08:51, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: hey...

(Re- hey harry) 
Harry, eh? You're not gonna let me forget that, are you? :þ Anyways, sorry about the humans article, all I did was changed an "a" to "an" (i.e. "an African-American", rather than "a African-American"). I'll go ahead and re-do it. --Shran, a.k.a. Harry 05:20, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh

I couldn't type fast enough and then you already had disconnected. I only have the Concordance as reference. There it is stated under music - Welsh ballad: "Scotty dreamily sings in Welsh when he is supposed to be commanding the ship (The Lorelei Signal). Scotty hums the same tune when under the influence of Mudd's love potion (Mudd's passion)". --Jörg 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Ello...?

Hope you're coming back soon, man. Catch ya later.

Oh, and put up an e-mail address, will ya? :P --From Andoria with Love 00:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You got it, you had it and you emailed me at it. I'm leaving a link to my Wikipedia talk page (since I am on there almost daily) if people still want to get ahold of me.--Alan del Beccio 22:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I realized I had it about a week after I posted the above. I wanted to wait a while to e-mail you, though, in case you had seen this. Didn't wanna come off as a pest, ya know? :-P --From Andoria with Love 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Hey Alan! Cool to see you're back! :-) --Jörg 10:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorta, but not really. Just thought I'd drop in to rattle a few cages. --Alan del Beccio 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Covers

And he says this as I finish another batch of 5-6. heh.  :)

There are 22 images left to shift into that subcategory. My next vague plan was to create the Biography cover one and shift the various bio books into that category. I think that there's one cover image that needs to stay where it is (the Klingon Hamlet one), and the rest are split between bios, magazines, and comics. Of course, we don't currently have a magazine subcategory, but that might be worth adding down the road. Go ahead and bot it though. That'll make life a bit easier. -- Sulfur 03:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And as a further followup, it looks like the magazines are all considered "reference books". So I guess that we can shift those into that relevant category. -- Sulfur 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, further update here, the images in Category:Memory Alpha images (covers) are all to go into the Category:Memory Alpha images (comic book covers) section now. There are (by my count right now) 20 images in there right now. -- Sulfur 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Categories

I've been (as you've noticed) playing with image category stuff over the last few days, and noticed something odd this morning. If you check Category:Memory Alpha images (insignia), you'll note that it is in the category of Category:Memory Alpha images, but in that super category, that particular subcategory isn't shown. The same holds for starships, planets, and individuals. I've checked all of the category pages, and they all seem to be correct to me to show up. I've also fixed it so that the Bolians and Ferengi categories are properly underneath the individuals category, but just can't figure out how to get things to show up properly in the main images catgory. Any clues as to what might be going on there? -- Sulfur 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't tell. From what I see it should be there but its not. As I recall we had this difficulty before and it seemed to work itself out. --Alan del Beccio 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Found them. Not sure if this link'll work perfectly or not, but the 4 image subcategories that don't show up on the first page of Category:Memory Alpha images show up on the last page [1] instead. Strange that. -- Sulfur 14:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DelBeccio-bot strange behavior

DelBeccio-bot added an extra [[Category:Memory Alpha images]] to several images this morning.

--Bp 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it didn't recognize the format of the existing Category tag: [[Category: Memory Alpha images]], with a space after the colon. -- Renegade54 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Evidently. Either way its not really an issue.--Alan del Beccio 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well you can just send the bot around to fix it again. I was just bringing it to your attention. --Bp 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • There really isnt anything to fix that would really be necessary. Having duplicate category insertions doesnt affect anything, nor should it be anything anyone has to go out of their way to fix. --Alan del Beccio 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a hostile mood tonight, could you tell? ;) In any case, his additions are obviously bogus and, even if they weren't, completely unnecessary. It's an obvious case of "Bermaga"-bashing. --From Andoria with Love 06:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki sorting

I noticed the sorting of interwikis is broken with your bot, see [8], [9] -- does your bot use the most recent memoryalpha_familiy.py (version 1.7, 2006-05-23)? -- Ⓚⓞⓑⓘ 10:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No, Im using an older version. I was, however, not aware that my bot was doing interwiki. --Alan del Beccio 14:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle cruiser images

I uploaded some images of the interior of Kohlar's ship and of the D7 firing to User:Gvsualan/images saved for future projects, I also put a pic of the K't'inga from "Unification II" there, might be useful for the relevant article as well. Let me know if you need anything else. --Jörg 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I was able to place the Unification cruiser, in Unnamed K't'inga class starships. Any chance you could line up (cap) all the other ships from the "grave yard" so that they could be placed in their respective homes -- I'm attempting to do with unnamed starships like what was done with unnamed Romulans etc. --Alan del Beccio 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Alan! I've assembled screenshots of the Qualor Depot scenes from Unification I+II. If you want, I can send them to you via e-mail and you can have a go.--Jörg 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I couldn't seem to get the file to download for some reason. But then again, I'm not using my own computer at the moment. If I get a chance Monday I will give it a try again. --Alan del Beccio 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I can send it to you again, as a rar-file if you want, or you can come over to IRC and we can find another way ;-)--Jörg 14:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Its more than likely this computer. I'm fairly handicapped with it at the moment, hence why I am doing simple tasks at the moment. --Alan del Beccio 14:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Hey Alan! Did you manage to get the pics? --Jörg 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Yessir, I did. I do have one question: there are two Miranda's shown from different angles. Were they the same two ships in both shots, or four total ships, or it can't be determined? --Alan del Beccio 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Mhh, tough one, it could be the same two ships. The Enterprise is flying from the previous location of the T'pau to the location of the Tripoli between those shots, but then it tales position somewhere in the depot and plays dead. It would say that because in both shots a Batris-like ship is seen in close proximity of the two Mirandas, there's only two of them. --Jörg 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Sorting

The question I have then is... since a lot of these do require looking at the image to figure out what it is, how would the bot sort them? Would you want a list of images that would be, say "TOS novel covers", "insignia", etc? I'd be more than happy to continue going through the images and making notes of their names and categories for something like that. Just let me know what you need. -- Sulfur 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I actually do it "manually" with the bot, that is I have to confirm each move, by selecting which subcategory it goes to. For example, I did the "Memory Alpha images (individuals)" to Humans, Romulans, Cardassians, etc. sub-categories all at once by having my screen open to Category:Memory Alpha images (individuals) page, and visually looked at the gallery, while I manipulated the bot from its' DOS-based program. The biggest advantage being that what the bot does doesnt appear on the recent changes screen unless you choose to see all bots. --Alan del Beccio 14:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting (the way that it works that is). So, if I do give you a list of images to sort (so to speak), you'd have to walk through them all manually and do that? The reason I ask, is because I already have something of a list that I was working from, and I could just simply pass that along. After all, the Category:Memory Alpha images section does need a pretty hefty cleanup. There are lots of individuals, covers (well, very few of them now), insignia (ditto), and starships (amongst others) still in there that should be sorted into the subcategories for better use and all. -- Sulfur 14:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've got a gallery of images that need sorting into categories. I've created a gallery of them at "User:Sulfur/Images to Sort". Probably not complete by any stretch, but should get a bunch more things sorted properly, and make the root category a bit easier to deal with as the individuals slowly get sorted properly too. If you could (when you've got time) hit these up with your bot so that it doesn't fill up the recent changes as I was doing before, that'd be fab. -- Sulfur 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Gvsualan

Thank you for welcoming me to MA. I would like to say that All my life I wished for someone somewhere to put all things startrek on the net. MA did that. I would like to say thank you to everyone that had anything to do with its creation. Where else can you go after you just watched startrek to research what you just saw. How many times have I looked up something just cause for years i thought I was right but then I read only to prove I was wrong. I can now call myself a real trekie or trecker if you will. If you get the chance could you pop by my userpage and let me know what you think... It's Fan fiction but I like it. Thankx

Captain Wall::: 11:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet enlisted personnel

Thanks for categorizing them, I was going to ask you, but I didn't know if you were up to it or not. Unfortunately, it seems you categorized (at this moment) 37 under Category:Category:Starfleet enlisted personnel, but it should be easy to fix. Although you probably realized it by now, I just thought I'd give you the heads up in case.--Tim Thomason 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image copyrights

You know, i got kind of an oddresponse last time i talked to User:Aholland a few weeks ago. he, in all his infinite wisdom, now believes that images from publications can be included in our database, based on his comic strip article. He had previously overridden my decision to include pages of the ST:TM that were featured onscreen, as he didnt feel the pages (and likely other behind-the-scenes sourced) pictures were "canon" enough. just to let you know, if we need to regroup after youve called the non-screenshot pictures into qustion at IFD -- Captain M.K.B. 23:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm in agreement with you in regards of the ST:TM images, seeing that I took part in uploading (if not at one point scanning) those pictures myself. So far only the one scan has been found and posted (last I checked) for IFD. Other than that, I noticed Cid mention something of the sorts about using the 'Ships of the Line' calendar image of the 'Enterprise-J @ warp' because it came from "a product that people are supposed to pay money for" and that that is not "fair use".[10] Following that line of reasoning, I posted those other images scanned from similar sources for IFD due to similar (or potential) fair use issues. With that said, I would rather not see them go because many of those images are better than any screenshot we will ever see (i.e. Norway and Sabre classes). But since the hand has been dealt I figured we might as well put all the cards (questionable image sources) on the table and get this behind us. --Alan del Beccio 11:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding reviews to episode pages

I thought that it may be nice to write episode reviews, a little bit like on startrek.com .

I would be happy to write reviews for all the episodes I own on DVD (TNG S4).

Would adding such reviews violate any existing rules or laws here?

Evangelis 21:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • In a way, yes. We are an encyclopedia, not a chat or forum website. Like wikipedia our articles should remain neutral. That is why we dont include nitpicks in our episode summaries. --Alan del Beccio 04:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bot work

Would you be able to have your bot add template:realworld to everone in the performers, writers, and production categories? -- Jaz talk 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Jaz and I were working on that. Eventually the bot Morn (I don't know who that belongs to) did it. Was done a few days ago ;-) --OuroborosCobra 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
that's Kobi's bot. --Alan del Beccio 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:deleting images

Hmmm... I thought that had already been taken care of, but you're right, I should have checked on it myself before deleting. I don't think this is the first time I've made this mistake... anyways, I don't the "what links here" link in the toolbox to the left works the same way for images, which list the linked pages on the bottom, so how can I find whether a deleted image page links to an article? --From Andoria with Love 04:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you're speaking in tongues. --Alan del Beccio 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
With images... the list of pages which use particular image... is located at the bottom of an image's page. "What links here" doesn't work with images, at least not with me. So how can I find out what articles still have a deleted image on them? --From Andoria with Love 04:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, click on the dead image link and it should say if anything is still linked to it. If it only gives you the option of editing the image page remove the &action=edit from the address bar and that should work. Then again, it is completely possible that is the only page that was not unlinked. --Alan del Beccio 04:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"What links here" only works if you have a link to the image, rather than an inclusion -- go to Image:tng_chief.png to see... User talk:Gvsualan will be in the "what links here" but Starfleet ranks will be in the "used by" column on the page part.. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
... or maybe not. is this a disabled feature? -- Captain M.K.B. 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it only works on article pages showing images link to it. Otherwise the pages linked to images appear at the bottom of the image page under the

==Links==

The following pages link to this file:

[edit] Gnarly

Bitchin!!
Bitchin!!

This is just what I was looking for! -- Captain M.K.B. 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe Stupid question?

Thanks for the welcome message.

I have a question. I cannot start or edit a page when i use the "edit this page" link at the top of each page. Every time i click this link, my browser asks me to save a file called index.php. the only way i can edit is if the article has an edit link attached to a subheading or if the "+" button is on top of the page like this one. As a result, i can't even make a user page. Can you help? --Captain MAJ 01:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

MA has been a bit buggy tonight, Captain MAJ's problem might be related. Bp and I have been having problems sporadically throughout the night. --OuroborosCobra 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have been having this problem on two different computers w/ different IPs for about two weeks. I can't post it in Ten forward for the same reasons listed above, as I would have to start a new thread. --Captain MAJ 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
well, starting a new thread is what one would normally do anyway...either way I'm not sure I understand your problem, since I have had no problem natigating this site on either Mozilla or IE. --Alan del Beccio 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
When I try to start a new thread or begin an article or do anything using the "edit this page" button at the top of the screen, the computer wants to open or save a file called index.php. If i do, nothing happens. It's very strange. --Captain MAJ 12:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This may solve your problem - go to your Preferences (top right when signed in), select the Editing tab, then make sure that 'Use external editor by default' and 'Use external diff by default' are unchecked, ie, the box for those options is empty. People who have had the same thing on Wikipedia have been directed to that as a solution. -- Michael Warren | Talk 12:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That works now. Thank's to all for the help, and look for my User page soon! --Captain MAJ 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumb and Px size

I thought that we didn't need PX sizes when an image was marked with thumb? That's why I removed them from the Unnamed Ferengi page. Is there a reason you put 'em back in? Did something change? -- Sulfur 02:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Lists, unlike everyday articles, of unnamed characters have always been at 150px ever since we created the first (to my knowledge) unnamed species list-page (unnamed Romulans-- prior to the page's later disambiguation) last year-- actually 180px was used on many pages and those too eventually creeped down to 150px as well. The reason for this, aesthetically speaking, was to condense the size of the page (or individual entry) so that the images don't overtake the text, as there are, in many cases, very little supplimental text for the unnamed characters. Typically large image and small text equals large gaps between entries, which simply "looks" bad. --Alan del Beccio 02:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. I figured that I'd check to ensure that I hadn't missed something along the way before making any further thumb|px "fixes". -- Sulfur 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading pre-existing images

No problem. BTW, this is a cool site! {{SUBST:User:Adamwankenobi/sig}} 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible issue on Shelby

There may be a possible issue forming with an anon on the Shelby article. He seems to be trying to enforce a wikipedia policy on us, even though we are not wikipedia. I have reverted twice, but I am not going to do anything else. It is possible I am wrong (although I am pretty sure I am not), and even if I am right, I don't want to be party to an edit war. As it is, I may already have done too much. I apologize if I have. --OuroborosCobra 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure it belongs there. As an encyclopedia, we really shouldn't be drawing a conclusion like the sentence in question draws. We stated Ron Moore's side of the issue, we stated Peter David's side of the issue and we threw the canon-ball in the court as well, thats all that it needs. In the end its up to the reader to decide. --Alan del Beccio 05:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I feel that my last edits were a good compromise, but I'm always open to refinements. I still think its important to a). keep the two Shelbys separate and b). explain both Ron Moore's original intention and Ron Moore's later intention. There isn't a lot of need to use the article to explain the New Frontier side of this, except to note that it is what originated Ron Moore's later opinion, at the behest of Paramount Pictures. It is a significant example of off-screen sources influencing the decisions of the production.
    • Since I'm being accused personally (another user is sending various messages about "Captainmike is wrong" rather than "add my viewpoint into the article differently". He needs to work on submitting info rather than arguing it. I'm bowing out to allow others to work on it, this is called for by the protection policy. I shouldn't be involved anymore now thats its gone personal and i stopped the situation. I am doing this to prove that i can follow policy. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October

Sorry about the spamming of creating things there. I created a couple of the dates, and then realized that it shoved October dates to the top 10-15 items on the wanted list. Doh. So, I figured better to create the entire bunch and clear them all off of the wanted list than otherwise. Regardless, we now have an entire month of the calendar dates done. -- Sulfur 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learn to read.

Perhaps, if you're going to accuse someone of failing to start a discussion, you should check the relevant talk page before you embarrass yourself. I raised the issue in September 2005, and for 8 months no one offered response or reply. You might also notice that, after I restored my edit which had been reverted without explanation by another user, a fellow admin has since joined the discussion to agree with me and back up my edit.

Get your facts straight next time before you jump on an anonymous user and assume he's wrong simply because he hasn't bothered to register for an account. I'm restoring my edit once again, and I'll repeat this for you since you seem to be impaired: I've explained my edit. If you object to my reasons, then perhaps you should practice what you've preached and do exactly what I've done, exactly what you accused me of not doing — participate in a civil discussion on the talk page and attempt an intelligent argument.

  • I would thank you to change your tone and address me in a civil manner or I might take this as a personal attack. Regardless, you never signed your original comment, nor any of your other comments, its awefully hard to trace who says what and when with all this randomness...--Alan del Beccio 04:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24.218.67.134

Remind me again, why do we keep adding the welcome message to that anon's talk page? :P --From Andoria with Love 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Because we want to encourage users to register and not encourage users to blank their talk pages, the latter of which (I believe) we have a policy on. --Alan del Beccio 05:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wil Wheaton article

Someone might want to delete some of the edit history from the Wil Wheaton article. There is some stuff there that should be removed. I might be making to big a deal out of this, but, it just doesn't seem to me like something we want in that edit history. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I appreciate your help!!

Thanks for helping me with me "Multi-spatial shield" article!! :D I am new to this sort of forum, and doing the post for the first time was really bad, I know. I have since added some pictures to the article. let me know what you think.

Thanks again,

James

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for deleting "Talk:Multi-spatial shield", I forgot to put it up for immediate deletion along with "multi-spatial shield". --OuroborosCobra talk 22:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnamed ships

Hello, I noticed you working on the lists of unnamed starships and there is a lot of overlap when dealing with ships in fleets, mostly during the DS9 war. I wonder if it might be better to have pages for the fleets and links on the unknown ship pages back to the pages dealing with the particular fleets. Any thoughts? Jaf 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Jaf

  • Wow, I was actually hoping for an "'at a boy" when I saw the talk topic, but I was wrong. Anyway, it is always inevitable that there will be some overlap when dealing with multiple things appearing at once, however, the point of organizing the ships by class is to identify as many ships of a class (as mentioned in the "appearances" of said starship class page) in their own topic page. Redirecting users here, there and everywhere to see all of the appearances of all unnamed Excelsior class starships seems much easier when they are all together with their sister (class) ships, verses a mix-match with a little bit over here and a little bit over there. --Alan del Beccio 04:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Overlap is not inevitable on a wiki, just lazy. There is no reason that the information shouldn't be compiled in one place. Jaf 04:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Jaf
      • No, that is lazy. Lumping everything together robs those ships of their individuality. They should be (and are currently) treated as if they had their own names, and some of which, actually have details that fortify their individuality. Otherwise, what you suggest would be like removing all information from Star Trek Nemesis in the articles for the Intrepid, Valiant, Galaxy, Aires, Nova, Hood, and Archer and placing it solely in the Star Fleet Battle Group Omega. That robs those ships of their individality just as much as it does from the unnamed starships that have been individualized. --Alan del Beccio 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, how about the other way, create the fleet pages and direct the user back to the ships involved? Jaf 12:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Jaf

[edit] Restorations

Is it okay if I restore the other previous revisions for some of the pages you deleted? Up until and excluding the vandalism, of course. --From Andoria with Love 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually most all of those that you just restored were edits made all within one minute of each other, so if there were 5 minor edits in 5 minutes i would restore just the last edit or only the edits that actually said something in the edit summary, otherwise it just takes up more space in the database to have 10 more revisions restored that only minute edits at best added as consequence of someone not using the "show preview"-- that is, if one remembers that each individual edit to a 10kb page duplicates that 10kb page each save, even if it is just one word change in the edit. --Alan del Beccio 19:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, ok. I guess I should have gone with my first instinct and just waited for your answer (I thought you would have said "go ahead" :P). Shoulda known you had a good reason for it. I'll stop now, though. I'll remember that in the future. Sorry about the restores. --From Andoria with Love 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't add to an archived discussion, but I just saw that this discussion is being linked to, and it is just so wrong on so many levels. First, if a deleted edit can be restored in the first place, it obviously already has to be saved somewhere for restoration - meaning that restoring it won't alter the amount of database space used. Second, and I have seen this idea floating around several times already, I'm relatively sure that a minor edit to a 10KB page won't mean a duplication of all 10KB when saving. Third, and most important - even a minor edit is still an edit that needs to be attributed to the contributor who did that edit, so randomly deleting individual edits (non-vandalistic, no copyright infringement) from a page history should be a big "NO" for everyone. -- Cid Highwind 09:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek vs. Star Wars comment

Yo, Alan. Just a question regarding your comment on the Vfd regarding the Star Trek versus Star Wars page: I did initially remove the content of the article and moved the discussion at Vfd to Possible copyright infringements, but according to the user who posted it, material at Wookieepedia is under the GDFL copyright license. Since I have absolutely no clue about all the things which copyrights restrict, Does this mean it's still a copyvio here on MA? --From Andoria with Love 04:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tret's Species

Re: i'm perfectly capable of fixing my own links after moving pages if I'm allowed to finish one job at a time

Yeah, but the problem initially arose as I was working through those and fixing the links in the first place to at least make them correct. When I started, you'd last done anything with those pages about 30 minutes before, so when I saw the broken links, I started to change them, and as I was doing so, that was when you starting moving the pages and changing them around. So, we ended up working at cross purposes for a few minutes there. -- Sulfur 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, when doing what I was doing, you can really only do one thing at a time, esp. when you are going back and getting quotes, screencaps, etc..and hence why it looks as if I am inactive at times. This stuff happens when you multi-task an entire episode and when you make contributions that go above and beyond the cosmetics. Also, my original point being: if I break links in a delete or page move I will correct them, it's all part of the job-- otherwise it become rather difficult to work when you get edit conflicts while doing site/page maintenance. --Alan del Beccio 02:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Life span

Nice work on the Life span article! -- Renegade54 20:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies page separation

Heya, Alan. Would you care to do the honors and split up the Star Trek parodies article as you suggested on the Vfd? I'm not 100% sure how to do it myself, and after last night, I dare not attempt it. But I do think splitting it up really is the best way to handle the increasing length of that article as well as the Star Wreck page. --From Andoria with Love 00:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(Continuation from above) Actually, would it just be okay if the article was split up simply using copy and paste? If so, I can certainly do that, but if several merges are required, then I'll leave to you. --From Andoria with Love 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think cut and paste is fine in this case as long as the page remains a "hub" and as long as we are not deleting any history...have done similar stuff in disambiguating pages in the past, including Unnamed Romulans, etc. --Alan del Beccio 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, i have already left one addition split off from the hub, via a disambiguative title -- "Star Trek parodies (Star Wreck)" seemed large enough to carry its own. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Re@Alan – Alrighty, I'll get on that then. Thanks! Re@Mike: Can't that be moved to Star Trek parodies (literature)? (reply on my talk page please) --From Andoria with Love 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solar System Poster

Hi Alan! The Solar System Poster arrived today. If you are interested in what is depicted, join IRC or contact me per e-mail (the address is all over ex-astris-scientia). Just wanted to let you know ;-) --Jörg 19:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC and I'll explain! ;-) --Jörg 23:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image citations, etc

That seems highly ungrateful! I went out of my way to provide this site with screencaps. It's the last time I'll be doing that, that's for sure! What's to stop you from adding the citations yourself if you see it as such a high priority - pure laziness? I'm no longer interested in Trek, anyway, and only continue to contribute here to help out without watching any of the old, boring series again. There are far more members of this site who are obviously interested in Trek and have more time in their days. Sorry, but I do neither. --Defiant 00:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that laziness is hardly true of you. However, frankly, I couldn't think of any other reason why you didn't just add the image citation, etc. to the image yourself instead of making the extra step to contact me about it before the information was added to the image page, adding an additional step in proceedings and wasting time by doing that. Honestly, much of my above comment seems pretty silly - it's not the purpose of this site to provide users with gratitude, nor do I expect that (most of the time). I guess I was just tired, my apologies. Had I not been sleepy, I would not have been making such irrational statements and certainly would not have expected gratitude. I agree that you do go out of your way to provide valuable contributions to MA, keep up the good work. :) --Defiant 12:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gas giant

Hey, Alan. Great job with the gas giant article. I was wondering when someone with the capabilities would step up and fix that up. That's one less pna to worry about, woo-hoo! Again, well done. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scrolling lists

What is the purpose of the scrolling lists for appearances ? In my opion they are the perfect way to 'fuck-up' an article. (excuse the language) Personnally, I dislike to scroll within a page in which I am already scrolling, it makes reading an article very confusing. I compare this to like being forced to read a page fullscreen because someone thought that's what I would liked to do. An article reads much better without sub-frames in which you need to scroll to read its contents. Just my opinion. -- Q 13:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, profanity of that sort is out of place on my talk page, and as well this site as a whole. With that said, simply put, scrolling lists help immensely in condensing space. It is equally unappealing to be forced to look at a ackwardly listed collection of episode names, especially when they take up a large chunk of the article. The alternative is to create a separate page, as was once done with the "list of Klingon appearances", after which, it was decided that having the scrolling list kept the list within the main article, and condensed the total space that was otherwise occupied by the list in question. --Alan del Beccio

Well, I personally like a balanced page (text, pictures, whatever) then one with scrolling lists in them. In my opinion those lists disrupt a page text flow and distracts the reader. Then again, if the communitiy has decided to use them who am I to contradict them. -- Q 17:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We're moving away from the scrolling lists and towards the collapsible tree lists. See TNG recurring characters for an example, or Lorine Mendell. -- Renegade54 17:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha, that can be discussed elsewere ( not on Gvsualan's talk page because then he would probeably put his phaser on kill setting:) ) when necessary -- Q 17:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background Information vs Behind the Scenes

So, with your latest edit on "Arena", are you intending to change all of the "Background Information" sections to "Behind the Scenes" now, or was that something of an accidental change? The reason I ask is because that episode kinda sorta stands out with different section titles now, and secondly, because changing something like that should be dealt with in a consensus form, no? -- Sulfur 11:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, and hello

Wow, that was quick! I edited off and on at Wikipedia for at least six months before anyone noticed me. Thanks for the informational links; I'll look them over to see where (or if) they differ much from Wikipedia's. I probably won't be a regular here, though; I just happened to spot an error while looking something up, and I hate to edit anonymously... -- CWesling 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for welcoming me aboard and also for the valuable tips. I'm slowly learning! Best wishes, Ol' Horta Face 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me but I already have an account. Trueblue9999 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FL 940

As others have noted, "Boy, you're quick." My self-imposed PNA was/is explained in the Talk page. Thanks for the help on my modest addition. As regards this message, though, I would just as lief as sent it personal. Ever heard of Gmail? Go Tigers ('07) and good luck on your midterms. --GNDN 06:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)(Idiot MI Lawboy)

  • That is about the most gibberish in one swallow I have ever consumed. --Alan del Beccio 06:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, sport. --GNDN 07:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll add this, though. Your comment about my "giberish" might have been heartfelt or sarcastic. Either way, it was unwarranted. I have a certain amount of knowlege of TOS that I am happy to share with this endeavor, subject to the Wiki constraints. What I have contributed has either been supported by on-screen evidence or submitted with self-admitted reservations. To receive a response such as "That is about the most gibberish in one swallow I have ever consumed," is both insulting (to me), and counterproductive (to MA). Perhaps, Mr. Del Becchio, you should consider linking to an off-site email account to prevent gibberish such as mine making it to the MA screens. As for MA, you might moderate your tone so as to avoid the numerous vandals (such as the recent AIDS situation). A great many people have been following Star Trek (and science fiction), for a some time. I, for one, appreciate your contributions. Others, though, might be so put-off or angered by your editorial that untoward comments are added to MA. We all could benefit from a curtailing of the less-than-necessary exhibition of your obvious rhteorical skills. --GNDN 07:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (That's right, I signed it).
Seriously, did you read what you first wrote me? What you said makes very little sense to me: "I would just as lief as sent it personal." Additionally, "Ever heard of Gmail? Go Tigers ('07) and good luck on your midterms." Where is this coming from? Finally, I really don't feel it is necessary to make a "public issue" (aka forum post) regarding a misunderstanding and or overreaction. Seems we could be a little more adult than that around here, considering vandalism has about zero to do with these topics and your forum post. --Alan del Beccio 08:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at my submission at Ten Forward. If you would take the time to set up an e-mail address, this whole contretemps could have been avoided. As for the obvious Michigan references, maybe an adult could have surmised that these statements were made by one Michiganian to another whom made a point of his residency and educational staus on his user page. Once again, this matter would not be public if you had an e-mail account. Your edits were welcomed and warranted, sir; my comments on same were made necessary by your own choices. After al, you called me out. --GNDN 08:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Here are some simple thoughts for next time. A) Request my email if you wish to talk to me personally, or request to talk on IRC, not start a pubic forum about how I am responsible for vandalism or how you misread my comments; B) I got the Tigers reference, but the Gmail thing and midterms is about totally random, because I really don't see a clear statement from you regarding your residency that would have made me go "ah!", nor am I even in college anymore; C) I still don't know what "I would just as lief as sent it personal" means. See my point? Gibberish. --Alan del Beccio 08:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't clear on the meaning, either, so I looked it up: lief -- Renegade54 20:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image uploads

Hi Alan. I hadn't really made that clear in my earlier description of the situation, so just for your info - contributors from other language versions can't control which version they want to upload an image to. As I understand it, one of the upload pages just works as expected while the other one uploads any image to "en", without giving the contributor any way to choose. So, asking those contributors to take care of where they upload might be a little misleading to them... -- Cid Highwind 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So once they upload it, can they tell where it went? --Alan del Beccio 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess they are redirected to the english image description page in that case - but I'll get back to you if I know for sure. If that's the case, though, it might still not help someone who doesn't speak a word of english. By the way, this seems to be one of the top priority things to fix at the moment, so I hope we won't have this problem much longer. -- Cid Highwind 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In which case can we just immediately delete images that have quite clearly come across the language barrier? --Alan del Beccio 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that, personally, unless one of those images happens to be so good that we really want to keep it - unlikely, though. ;) Most of the images would just end up as orphans, anyway. -- Cid Highwind 23:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, the proble is the "miniupload" image upload page that one gets by clicking the "Insert Image" button on the edit page near the toolbar. It is hard coded to always POST to "/en/wiki/Special:MiniUpload". Unlike the normal image upload page, when the miniuplad is finished it simply closes the popup and adds the image wiki code to the page the user is editing. When the user clicks Save or Preview, it looks like the image upload failed to work on other language versions, the image is there but it is red linked. There is no obvious sign to an MA/de user, who is ignorant of the problem, that the image has been uploaded to MA/en. I think the users might believe that this is how it is supposed to work, that the link only produces the code and they still have to click the red link, which takes them to a normal upload page, to upload the image. Or something. --Bp 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia message

Hi, Alan. I have received a message on my talk page at Wikipedia from someone using the name "Alan Del Beccio". However, for one, you already have an accoutn there as gvsualan, and two, the "d" in your name is lower-case, so I am assuming the person who sent me this message is an imposter. However, I need you to verify that it wasn't you before he is banned. --From Andoria with Love 08:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No, that definitely wasn't me. I have the same user name across the board. --Alan del Beccio 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then, sannse took care of it. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ST III :)

There aren't many of us who'd admit to III Search for Spock being a favorite. I actually sat through it a second time when I went to see it in release. LLaP, Kojiro Vance | Talk 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to anon user contributions

Just thought I would pass on a trick I have. I noticed you creating links to an anon's user contributions by using an external link. You can actually do it with an internal one, if you would like. Rather than:

[http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=123.456.789.012 User:123.456.789.012]

You can use:

[[Special:Contributions/123.456.789.012|User:123.456.789.012]]

Just makes things shorter, and keeps it an internal link. I don't know that either of those really matter, but at least now you know that there is another way to do it (assuming you did not already know, if you did and are using an external for another reason, feel free to disregard). --OuroborosCobra talk 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page indentation

May I ask which way of indentation you are trying to change discussions to? :) For example, you made this edit earlier, after which my comments were using at least three different levels of indentation (0, 1, 4) instead of the one (1) before. It's suggested that every participant in a discussion uses one and the same level of indentation throughout, and that new comments are always added to the end. This makes it easy to follow discussions both chronologically (vertical) and by participant (horizontal). I think we were using this style for the last few years... -- Cid Highwind 03:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bot stuff

I'm not sure what happened when you left IRC, but here are the remaining steps:

  • create a file "user-config.py" with this content: 
mylang = 'en'
family = 'memoryalpha'
usernames['memoryalpha']['en'] = 'DelBeccio-bot'
  • run "login.py"

Then everything should be operational. Anyway, I'm leaving for a while. Later. --Bp 21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting a "wrong password?" error for some reason. --Alan del Beccio 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category you suggested

Category talk:Media companies seems to have support. -- Cid Highwind 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm tryin'

I'm really trying to get the hang of doing the proper wiki-ing of images. I got it mostly right, right? --Babaganoosh 06:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tube Grubs

Thanks for that redirect...I had made "tube grub" before noticing "tube grubS," don't ask me how I whiffed on that one...I was figuring out the code for "#REDIRECT ENTRY" right when you did it...but, thanks. – Lotus000 07:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I moved the page history, which automatically turned your page into a redirect. Otherwise, for future reference, the general rule of thumb for article titles is in the singular, rather than plural. There are very few exceptions to this, but most notably, "list of" articles are in plural, example Federation starships is a "list of Federation starships." --Alan del Beccio 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I'm (very obviously) new to MA and am still attempting to learn all the subtleties. Would you care to let me have your e-mail so I can ask you a few questions that you could answer when you have time, so as not to clog up your talk page? Thanks... my e-mail is wjcherry[at]wulaw.wustl.edu.
Simple: this username at hotmail. --Alan del Beccio 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well it's obvious from the CoCo NoNo debacle that I have yet to master the redirect...now I'm going to hang myself...thanks again, though! – Lotus000 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your bot

I've noticed your bot has appended several notices to the bottom of pages (i.e. [11]) - are these intentional and supposed to be left there? Mafeu 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the Special:Export feature. Wikia is currently looking into that, but apparently there is a bug in the new sitenotice feature. --Alan del Beccio 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
User:DYKBot has over 1300 contributions like that today...I have far less. --Alan del Beccio 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. So if I see any I'm OK to remove them? Mafeu 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better to leave it and let the bot fix it's own mistakes. --Bp 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law / Crime and punishment

Ok, I think I have a pretty good starting point for the list you suggested at User:Renegade54/Crime and punishment. Take a look when you get a chance, if you would, and make any changes or notes or whatever that you feel appropriate. I think everything on that page could/should fall under a category of Law somewhere, and most (if not all) of the stuff at the top under a subcat of Crime and punishment. I'm not exactly settled on some of the stuff in the middle as far as where it should fall, either under Crime and punishment, directly under Law, or under one or more other subcategories under Law. Let me know what you think. Thanks! -- Renegade54 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pic policy

See here. 172.202.99.244 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not a policy, it is a statement based on someone's observation, that is in no way established in fact. --Alan del Beccio 01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Still, wouldn't it make sense to standardise things. As it stands, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura and Sulu all have the arrangement of a photo from this last appearance at the top of the sidebar and then an early one at the bottom; Scotty and Chekov were the only different ones. 172.202.99.244 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I'd probably be inclined to standardise the other way - have each begin wit a picture from TOS, as it's the most iconic image for each. 172.202.99.244 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, on the latter point. Why would we want to see a dried up old shriveled McCoy from a 30 sec guest shot as the primary image of the McCoy page versus the ~80 other appearances he made in his iconic "prime"? --`Alan del Beccio 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to give that a go and see what happens. 172.202.99.244 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add the older pictures of Chekov and Scotty at the bottom of their sidebars, to match the rest now. Madred 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why is it iritating that every time someone makes an article that has been in the wanted list for weeks, that Sulfur or you jump in there and make a total rewrite?? I mean really you can just tell somone if what they have written is bad or poorly done, and then they might correct it, and if they don't, THEN jump in and rewrite! But no, you like to go in and thrash the work of others just so you can claim the work as "yours"! I suppose its fair since the idea of any Wiki is to add information to the internet as a source for facts, but really how are people like me ever going to be able to improve if some people are always "fixing" the articles we start? I just needed to say that.42bens 18:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you find that irritating, but this is a wiki. You can do the same to others' work if you find it poorly written or not formatted correctly. Gvsualan and Sulfur are just rewriting pages for their amusement and the enjoyment of others, the same reason you are writing them. They understand that the work doesn't belong to them, you, or anyone other than the site itself. I doubt they would re-write an article unless it was necessary, but your contributions (the fact that you created the article) are still recorded in the history and they can't "claim" that.--Tim Thomason 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Tim. And I'm just guessing here, but I believe this discussion roots to my rewrite of Operation Lovely Angel. The reason for that rewrite was because it was not written in the proper point of view. Additionally, please take note of the notice located about an inch below your edit box when you are editing: "Please note that all contributions to Memory Alpha are considered to be released under Memory Alpha's Creative Commons License. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." --Alan del Beccio 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

FINE! I overreacted and I was wrong but still just because I suck at writing and deserve to have the things I start to be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will". Do what you will and rewrite it for the good of the trekkers. But really that rewrite did make me feel a little down because what it said to me was, "Man, you really can't write for a wiki, can you!?" I can see that I will never accually have a shot at writing anything more than low class stubs so I give up tring to get you to see it from my view. Maybe Sulfer is the more annoying one. Oh and Tim, I know that the fact that I started an article is always there, but after it is rewriten to a point where it no longer looks like what it started as, I can no longer feel it is my article. Of course I know the article does not belong to me or anyone else, but I would just like to have some article at some time be m