Removing Information Edit

Hi, Distantlycharmed. Just letting you know if you're going to remove information, such as quotes, from pages, you should provide a reason in the edit summary. Otherwise such removal will likely be reverted. Thanks, Cleanse 02:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Preview Button Edit

Hello. If it would be possible, please use the "Preview Button" when editing before you save. It prevents strain on the database and cuts down on the entries on the "Recent Changes" page. Thanks!! ---- Willie LLAP 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate what Willie asked you several days ago. Please make use of the the "Show preview" button located to the immediate right of the "Save page" button. Proofread your changes, then press "Save page." Also, if you are going to make changes to more than one section, feel free to edit the whole page rather than just the individual sections one at a time. It is also customary to leave a quick note about what you changed in the "Summary:" line located just above the "Save page" button. Thanks :) – Topher 04:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Picard quote Edit

Please stop changing the Picard quote. The current one was arrived at after a great deal of long discussion, one which specifically dismissed the quote you have selected as not being wanted by the community. Again, read the old discussion, and respond to it. Certainly do not continue changing it when there has barely been any new discussion, and absolutely no consensus on a change for a quote that was accepted by the community for the approval of a featured article. You are risking its featured status with these changes. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Internal links and random spacesEdit

Hi there, I noticed you edited the "The Killing Game" article by taking out the link to Captain and replacing it with Captain Janeway. I have reverted this because a user who is reading the article may want to go to the Captain article but cannot when it simply goes to the Kathryn Janeway article. If you include the links like this: Captain Janeway then the user has the option of going to both articles. See Memory Alpha:Build the web for more information. Thanks. -- TrekFan 18:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I have just corrected some random spaces in between paragraphs and random new lines in the middle of sentences on the aforementioned article. Can you explain why you put these in there? -- TrekFan 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Spaces Edit

Moved from User talk:TrekFan

Hey TF, well I put bigger spaces between paragraphs mostly because visually it is easier to read and more appealing. Leaving only one space bar between paragraphs just makes the summary page look cluttered and as if it was just one solid block of text - which can be discouraging. So I really believe leaving more space in between paragraphs makes accessing and reading the page and information contained within it more appealing and 'cleaner" if you so will. The spaces I leave are, therefore, really not "random". Imagine you read a newspaper article or a paper or even an email and everything is jammed into one or two tight paragraphs. Makes you not wanna approach it - it is kind of overwhelming. Anyway, hope that makes sense. – Distantlycharmed 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but the MA standard is to just have the one space in between paragraphs, not four or five. And what was with the new lines in the middle of sentences? I saw that a lot throughout the article. If you want to edit on MA, you need to follow the policies and guidelines. -- TrekFan 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not gonna get into another debate over the rigidity of the system here. MA guidelines should make sense and be re-evaluated, especially when someone has an idea for improvement. Spacing paragraphs more widely makes the pages look more appealing, cleaner and crisp ( I didnt do 5 by the way, only 2). If you don't think it is worth re-evaluating (whatever authority you have to make that judgment) and just want to point out to rules again, so be it. Apparently since I dont have a "blue" account my suggestions are also not taken seriously. Oh well. I also am not sure what you mean with the new lines in the middle of a sentence. I use IE at home for editing and ever since MA changed, the edit page looks weird and freezes often. So that might just have been a random error. – Distantlycharmed 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When did I say I don't take you seriously because you have a "red link"? You have used this excuse before when nobody has been saying anything of the sort against you. All you need to do is have a good read of the MA guidelines and these debates can be avoided. By the way, if you simply added something to your user page, your name wouldn't appear red, not that it has any impact on my opinion of a user. -- TrekFan 23:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Look everytime something is slightly changed or improved, I hear the same "refer to MA rules" standard response and get dismissed - as if the MA guidelines were the ten commandments that couldnt possibly be changed. When someone has a suggestion then the correct way is to assess it and give arguments for or against the suggested change before making a decision. And yes it was another user under the Picard Quote debate who said he is annoyed that every now and then someone with a "red" account who has seen a few episodes comes in and wants to change things. True, it wasn't you, but I got this feeling that there simply is no felxibility here or room for allowing for input and suggestions.– Distantlycharmed 00:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is 'flexibility' and 'room for suggestions'. You just have to go about doing it within the scope of the rules of MA. Any organisation/project/group needs rules by which to follow or there would be chaos. Stick to the rules and you will be OK. Before making any major changes, just discuss it on the talk page first - that's what it's there for. In some cases, people have spent hours on an article and it's not fair when someone comes along and deletes/changes something that in fairness should could been kept, or at least discussed. Also, when you are using talk pages (such as this user talk page), remember that the person intiating the conversation doesn't need to indent. Only people who join conversations indent and everytime someone does they indent +1. That way it makes it clear a different person is speaking. -- TrekFan 01:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to initiate a principles debate everytime I add a period or comma to a section. I have not changed the structure of anything around here, merely increased paragraph spacing in order to make the text visually appealing. That's all. I dont disagree with having rules, but some people seem to see themselves as the ultimate authority on this, dumping on others everytime an improvement is suggested. You cannot seriously believe that attempting to clean up a section that looks cluttered otherwise is a bad idea. Anyway dont worry, I will not increase the paragraph spacing from now on, god forbid. – Distantlycharmed 03:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for using your talk page for this, TrekFan - perhaps you might want to think about moving this whole discussion to Distantlycharmed's talk page, where it all started.
Anyway, commenting on what was said above: Yes, guidelines should make sense, and might need to be reevaluated every once in a while. However, the guideline to create paragraphs by adding one blank line does make sense. Technically, every additional blank line just adds unnecessary formatting to the HTML source of a page. The correct way to achieve a different spacing between paragraphs would be to use CSS - something you can do for yourself, if you want, and we'd even help you with that if you just asked. This would also have the advantage of changing all pages to that new format, and not just the one page among nearly 30,000 that you happened to edit. Doing it that way doesn't really make sense, does it?
On a more general level, you complained, more than once, that you're not allowed to "suggest improvements". This is simply not true - you are. However, keep in mind that this site has been active for nearly five years now. So, not everything you might think of as an "improvement" really is one, or even is a new idea for that matter. Also keep in mind that "suggesting" does not equal "simply changing it on one page or another" - that just makes the site inconsistent. If you really want to suggest, do so by opening up a discussion somewhere. -- Cid Highwind 10:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in there Cid. I don't think Distantly understands what we are trying to tell him. Distantly, basically, just open up a discussion on talk page BEFORE you go making any major changes. That's all we ask. I am now moving this to Distantly's talk page. -- TrekFan 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not a him guys, I am a she. Also, Cid, thank you, I appreciate finally someone explaining this. Honestly, I dont know what CSS is - so I couldnt have asked for it in the first place. All this time i thought you just go into edit and make a change. I am not a programmer or too familiar with html. And I didnt think that was a requirement for this anyway. A plus, yes, but not a requirement. But I appreciate the suggestion and honestly, if someone had suggested this in the first place we probably wouldnt be having this long debate. I also didnt consider adding one extra line of space to a page a "major change" that needs a debate. Frankly the page looks better with more spacing and if there is any way to change that, so that pages look neater and more clear-cut that'd be great. – Distantlycharmed 16:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. CSS, in short, is a standard way to add formatting to webpages. HTML, the language to describe webpages, works by "marking" individual parts of a text with tags - there are tags for section headers, boxes, paragraphs, etc. CSS can then be used to tell the browser how to display each of those elements.
I added a CSS file to your user space here: User:Distantlycharmed/monaco.css. The instruction I added to that file should lead to a bigger space between paragraphs (you migth need to clear your browsers cache for that) - if it is not enough, you might want to try changing the specified "2em" to something bigger, like for example "3em".
If you have further questions regarding CSS or policies/guidelines of this wiki in general, don't hesitate to ask. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The point isn't "you should have asked for CSS change", the point is that a dicussion of your attitude toward the standard would have been more fruitful, more effective and less disruptive than just chucking your own style into random articles. --TribbleFurSuit 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page standardsEdit

Hi, just noticed your post on the talk page of Seven of Nine. Talk:Seven_of_Nine#Identity_crises Wow, ok, geeze, look that is not what a talk page is for. A talk page is to discuss certain facts on the page in question. Like whether or not certain things should be added or to clear up confusion or whatever. But to go on a rant like you did in which you bash a very well liked character is absolutely not what it is for. Go to a forum to discuss stuff like that, that's what they're for. Not a talk page. MA is not meant to express the personal opinions of its users, this is an online ST encyclopedia. It just gives a bad impression if someone goes on a talk page of a character and finds rants like that on them. What about people who do like the character? They don't wanna go on a page of their fav characters and find hateful opinions like that, would you? This is a good way to start a serious online argument and even incite vandalism to the page. Therefore you shouldn't do it. So in the future please refrain from expressing your opinion on talk pages. It is your right to dislike the character, but such negative comments are not meant to be on MA. People do not come here to read your personal opinion on a character.

Further more, from reading your talk page and the great many complaints on it on what is apparently very disruptive editing on your part, I feel the need to warn you that edits like these are in violation with the behavioral and etiquette guidelines on MA. I'm not saying this to attack you, far from it. I don't doubt that you've done some good work on MA too, I'm saying this to help you improve your future edits here so that you can make a more useful contribution. But I do warn that your behavior on the Talk page of Seven of Nine is not acceptable. So don't do it again or you will end up being reported to an admin and then there will be some consequences that no one will be happy with. Don't let it come to that, ok. I hope you take this advice to heart and that it makes you a better user in the future. --Marjolijn 10:11, 20 October 2008 (CET)

And even furtherly furthermore, nothing was "randomly moved" to your Talk: page, it was very deliberately added directly here - not moved, not random. However few or many months it has been doesn't matter: the "no blanking" thing that has been repeated and repeated to you and ignored and ignored by you. It was "re-re-added" after you "re-re-deleted" it. If you don't want it on your Talk: page, the thing to do is to archive it, don't delete it. To erase this from your history here on MA is to mis-represent yourself.
"being threatened because someone does not like what you wrote constitutes personal attack" - excusez moi but a warning of possibly-justified admin consequences is a far cry from a threat of harm or ostracization; not liking disruptive rulebreaking is a far cry from not liking tastes or opinions; and finally, what you perceive as a personal attack against yourself was actually quite more impersonal, benign, civil, fair, and relevant to MA, than what you wrote about 7/9. --TribbleFurSuit 06:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Having an opinion about a character, and I have seen far more opinionated things on here, is not a violation of anything. I dont recall having called her any names or used profanity. The only thing that I had "violated" which you somehow like to put in big red letters, is that it was a comment made on a discussion page that should have been used to discuss that page, and not to comment on the plot and/or characters. I did not violate anything significant. I have seen plenty of users commit such violations and I never saw them being reprimanded like that.
First of all, my comment and its response by that person was NOT ON MY TALK PAGE, it was on the 7 of 9 page - so I didnt blank anything that I shouldnt have. If you insist it on being there, then put it on the 7 of 9 page - why move it to my talk page if it wasnt there in the first place? THAT is what I mean with doing things just to be spiteful. Speaking of misrepresentation: I dont care if people know what I think about 7 of 9 - it is nothing i am trying to hide, it's the fact that I'm getting a psycho reply from someone who has taken this whole thing waaaay too seriously and obviously equates criticizing 7 of 9 with blasphemy. Sad but i guess just a reality. I mean who goes writing crap like that on someone's page because they don't like a character they like? Anyway, I would like to know why this is being moved from 7 of 9 to my talk page and where in the policy it says that it was ok. – Distantlycharmed 06:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI Marjolijn is a he not a her. Also RE: "[what] I did with 7 of 9, was not a gross MA policy violation and did not warrant such a reaction by that user" - OK, first of all, it was gross, in all senses of that word: voluminous, blatant, and disgusting. Second of all, it was a MA policy violation. Third of all, the more you do it, the grosser it becomes and the more such a reaction is warranted. You Leaving_the_Galaxy.3Fcertainly have not stopped doing it. Fourth of all, what's so special about "that user"? For someone who bristles against perceived personal comments, that's pretty personal on your own part. Finally: RE: "Now, someone after a few months, adds this comment to my page", excusez moi, but that's total fantasy. It was added the same day you flamed 7/9. That you keep deleting it doesn't mean it magically appeared months after the fact. --TribbleFurSuit 06:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the most recent string of returning it to your talk page was also not a random decision. It was done specifically in response to your actions here, where you falsely claimed to be ignorant of the policy regarding talk pages. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, if I were you, I wouldn't be trying to play the victim regarding personal attacks. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"equates criticizing 7 of 9 with blasphemy" Criticize 7/9 all you want, I don't care, Hell, I'll join you, just do it at TrekBBS or Subspace Comms Network, not MA:Talk. And, you really have a total delusion that somebody moved something to your Talk: page. It didn't happen. If IT WAS NOT ON MY TALK PAGE is your logic, then I don't get why you aren't deleting every single word on it. Think about it - which ones were there before someone added them? And where did they all get moved from if they weren't there?
RE: "writing crap like that on someone's page because they don't like a character". You can not possibly continue to pretend to think that that's why it was written, it was written because it was a gross violation etc etc etc already hashed over. --TribbleFurSuit 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Really, I thought he left his comment right after my post on the 7 of 9 talk page and not on mine. I dont recall that person leaving it on my page and i havent checked the page history yet. Second: IF i deleted the comment from my talk page, it was done months ago and not just last week. Given that I was once told that I could not change my mind about wanting to change a comment and should have thought of it earlier, I can ask the exact same question. Why re-add it after 3 months? Third: stop dramatizing and nit-picking now. With all due respect, but whether you found my assessment of 7 of 9 warm and fuzzy or whether you can't handle my direct tone, is irrelevant and not my problem. I dont recall a policy that states you have to talk only good things about Star Trek characters and cannot have an opinion about them. Especially since I did not use profanity and was not vulgar, I do not see the issue here other than someone blowing something out of proportion. Fortunately we live in a free country (well at least I do) where we dont cut someone's throat open because they dont agree with us. The only thing I (and most people apparently) was in violation of was commenting personally on a page discussion page. And finally, do not accuse me of having made false claims of any kind. In the discussion you reference above I said that when I made a comment on the discussion page, I was genuinely not aware of having to turn to Help Desk to ask questions and /or make comments about an episode - especially given that many users do it as well. Furthermore, I stated that I thought discussing such things would be an interesting thing to do as well as informative.
One last thing: if you cannot keep discussions to the point and want to be childish by making ridiculous remarks, I will remove your comments. – Distantlycharmed 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You've been told why it was re-added to your talk page this week, specifically because of your actions on "Talk:Day of the Dove," where you pretended to be ignorant of the very talk pages rules you violated in 7 of 9. You were warned about it here, and now you are being reminded of that fact, so you can't keep claiming to be ignorant of it. As for your newest announcement of things you are going to remove, I'll paraphrase you. What, will you spontaneously combust over a little red text on your talk page? --OuroborosCobra talk 07:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
ITYM "a little more red text" --TribbleFurSuit 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop posting irrelevant comments on this that serve no purpose other than creating an atmosphere of adversity.– Distantlycharmed 08:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict] "if you cannot keep discussions to the point and want to be childish by making ridiculous remarks, I will remove your comments". That's fair ^_^ as far as I'm concerned. Lucky for you you didn't say anything on my talk page about big red letters. Anyway I sort of archived it. --TribbleFurSuit 07:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop posting irrelevant comments on this that serve no purpose other than creating an atmosphere of adversity.– Distantlycharmed 08:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless you have something to say that it relevant to the subject or says anything new, this discussion is over. – Distantlycharmed 08:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, if we were going to try and remove every comment that served no purpose other than to create an atmosphere of adversity, we'd have to remove about half of everything you have written here, virtually everything you have ever left on other user's talk pages, etc. Once again, stop talking as if you're the saint, here. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
First, let's change the tone of this slightly by changing the title of this section. Second, badgering isn't going to solve anything, neither does retaliation. They only exacerbates the situation. Obviously.
So to clarify an apparent misunderstanding in how this site works, that shall once and for all be addressed so as to no longer label this as a 'misunderstanding', lets get a few things straight here:
  • Memory Alpha is, above all, an 'encyclopedia', and there are certain things that have been deemed inappropriate in terms of what is discussed both in and about articles. Specifically, in regards to talk pages:
    • The 'policy' states that essentially: "Memory Alpha is not a discussion forum. We are not here to chat or to discuss ideas – we're simply here to write the encyclopedia."
    • Likewise, the 'guidelines' state that MA articles are not for nitpicking, therefore, the same logic should really apply to talk pages as well, which kind of goes hand-in-hand with the above 'policy'.
    • To be fair, Marjolijn is correct in that "a talk page is to discuss certain facts on the page in question," but probably could have gone about it in a more roundabout way, summing it up with that sentence alone.
    • Also, it *is* okay to ask legitimate questions when something is not completely understood with regards to what happened in an episode, on its talk page, but it is probably not okay to turn the discussion into bunch of "what ifs" and interjections that do not relate to canon. It is what it is, and it all goes back to the site's approach on nitpicks and speculation.
    • Finally to be clear to everyone, Distantlycharmed, there is no 'policy', nor even a 'guideline' that states that you cannot "delete stuff" from your own talk page, merely a 'suggestion' under 'standards and practices' on a 'help page' that makes reference to it not really being a good idea, especially if you have chose to ignore it, rather than acknowledge it (either directly or indirectly). I think the point that the *guys* here are trying to make, in their unique approach, is that it may seem as if these various comments addressed to you on how to use talk pages are being ignored and that perhaps it might be a good idea to read and heed to the aforementioned suggestions.
So, with that all said, you are more than welcome to contribute to MA articles, and talk page discussions on topics relating to those contributions, but some friendly advice might be for you to avoid making things here too personal, and based on recent activity, MA may not be the most appropriate venue for some of the discussions you (and others) have chosen to pursue. Everyone needs to keep in mind that this is supposed to be fun (and not in that 'tormenting little kittens' or 'using oversized red text to drive a point home kind of fun', but the 'yay, let's go play Frogger on the Atari' kind of fun!)...but please note too, that this cannot continue like it is. I am being reasonable here, and hope that what proceeds this follows suit. --Alan 09:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Alan. Thanks very much. I appreciate you addressing this matter in a professional and competent manner - it honestly makes "getting along" and communicating much easier :)– Distantlycharmed 09:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Now maybe you could be willing to take Alan's approach to heart, and try to play nice with the rest of us? I'm just saying, my talk page archives have a fair amount of stuff from you, and tonight you have not exactly been playing the "better part of valor." Will you try and play nice, now? --OuroborosCobra talk 09:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages Edit

Please do not blank talk page discussions. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You made that comment almost a month ago, if you wanted to have it not there you shouldn't have waited a month. In addition, you deleted someone else's comment as well. 31dot had replied to you. Lastly, we have a policy on talk pages, Help:Talk pages, which says not to delete content in the manner you did. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just removing your own comment doesn't work either. 31dot wasn't replying to dead air, he was replying to you. Not to mention it still violates the policy. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, I'll just do neither, since as you pointed out the talk page is not long enough to archive, your comment wasn't a personal attack, etc. You don't just get to pick and choose, not after waiting a whole month. It's not like warnings about taking care in submitting aren't right above the "save page" button whenever you make an edit, including talk pages. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Please make sure that you use proper grammar on the teaser bits on episodes. Some you've changed to grammatically incorrect statements. There is also no need to go into too much depth on the teasers. Simplify. Tease. Don't storytell. -- sulfur 15:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the grammar and the going off on tangents in the teaser is what I am fixing (most of them are really long) and I think I have done a good job. I dont understand why in Endgame, Voyager returning back is written in the past tense. Like "after voyager returNED to the Alpaha Quadrant, Janeway triES to do this and that". – Distantlycharmed 15:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it is "some time after Voyager returned, Janeway tries." The first part of the sentence is in the past tense, since it occurred in the past. the second part is the "present" of the episode. Another wording for it would be "Some time after Voyager's return, Janeway tries."

Also, "in the meanwhile" is not grammatically correct. That should be either "meanwhile" or "in the meantime". -- sulfur 16:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i know, it sounds awkward :) The Endgame teaser should be changed to what you mentioned above. Right now it just sounds awkward too.– Distantlycharmed 16:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ship name formatsEdit

As an aside, Enterprise's, not Enterprise's. Check the formatting on those by editing the page. Also... TNG and TOS were "the Enterprise", while ENT's was simply "Enterprise". -- sulfur 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Archer never says the Enterprise? – Distantlycharmed 04:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He may have, but stylistically, that's the way we roll. :) -- sulfur 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

One Summary Edit

I figured I waxed a bit too dramatic, but did not quite know how to pare it down without removing the drama entirely. I firmly believe that readers prefer some life in the summary instead of a flat report. Thanks for the assist. :)– Watching... listening... 22:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. It was fun. cheers :) -- Lili

Editing Edit

A few points:

1. I see that you remove dialog I put in, but I was told a long time ago by Sulfur that usinf dialog directly in the summary is acceptable, so long as it is not overdone.

2. What's the difference between Sickbay and THE sickbay?

3. Try not to take out TOO much drama. :) I pulled my punches for "Drive"; I thought I struck the correct balance there. As I said, this is an encyclopedia, not a novel, so one has to be careful not too wax TOO poetic. But I really believe that for a reader to get ALL the information in the summary, he has to be ENCOURAGED to read the whole thing. Therefore, I think some life IS necessary to hold his/her interest. It's like school; you definitely pay attention to the work when the teacher is lively rather than if he is stodgy and dull. :)

Watching... listening... 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

--- Hey Watching,

I am just editing for better style. What I edited did not take the beauty or drama out of it, if anything, it actually made the piece more coherent and stylistically appealing. Here are some things I noticed and edited:

1) You spread semicolons around generously. Where there should be a period or comma or colon, there is often a semi-colon. I don't get that. I have never seen so many semicolons in one paragraph.
2) Your sentences are short and broken up, not flowing into each other but seem cut off. You dont connect them well (or at all) through the use of connectors, and so it is hard to read and stylistically just not very appealing. Adding connectors add variety and rhythm to your paragraph as well as creating a general flow.
3) Some of the things you write sound awkward and are grammatically wrong, not to mention stylistically unappealing like, for example: "Paris applauds his new spirit and does so". Does so? Sometimes I am not even understanding what you are trying to say like, for example,

"She has successfully bartered with other crew-members for theirs, accumulating almost enough time to span a weekend. This is for her and Lt. Paris, her lover. The Doctor's time will complete it."


"She gives it, but he complains her delivery is very unexciting"

--> broken up sentence/ And the Doctor's time will complete what? What time? Holodeck hours/time? It would be great if you say it. Look at the change I made. Also, you shouldnt start a sentence with "she gives it"- that is not introducing drama, it is just wrong.

4) You use "but" a lot at the beginning of sentences, which is also stylistically awkward, especially if used a lot. I mean yeah I use "but" to start a sentence occasionally, but if you have a row of "but"s back to back it just doesnt read all that well. Ha also to do with adding variety to a paragraph.
5) We should try to keep judgment about how characters feel and the naming of their relationships to a minimum, especially when it is unclear or when the term we use could easily be interpreted otherwise. For instance, in the example above, you refer to Tom Paris as B'Elanna's "lover". Lover is a somewhat loaded term and carries with itself some kind of a sexual undertone. In pop culture, someone who is your lover is generally seen as someone you have a primarily sexual connection with. Now right or wrong, this is how the term "lover" is understood. So you shouldnt be using it to describe their relationship, especially if you dont know really for a fact and if it is not true. B'Elanna and Tom ain't just hookin' up.

Since this is an encyclopedia, you want to just tell the story and not add value judgments to things.

Another example is when you said in "One" "with a look and a voice that a 20th century woman would have called sexual harassment..." --> Well, that is really kind of inappropriate as well. First of all, the guy was threatening and not sexually harassing. And, it is not necessary to mention how some woman in the 20th century would feel about some alien chatting up Seven. We don't really know and it is un-encyclopedic anyway.

6) It's sickbay and not 'the sickbay, because this is how sickbay is referred to in all of Star Trek; I've never heard anyone say "take him to the sickbay" and because it is just convention to not say the sickbay.
7) Dialog makes sense if it is written well with regards to context. Good writing and re-telling knows how to insert a dialog without breaking up the flow of the paragraph. Often the dialogs I see inserted just seem like out of place there and really do distract.

I suggest you check out the episode "Blood Fever". Whoever wrote it, it was really a pleasure reading it today. It was engaging, stylistically nearly perfect, connected paragraphs and sentences, was tasteful and really managed to put together ideas and sentences to create a real flow and story and capture the reader. I was impressed that the writer managed to write about/retell the steamy interaction between B'Elanna and Tom in such a tasteful, non-tacky way.

Anyway, I do hope that you dont take my suggestions the wrong way or personal. I just wanted to make sure you see why I edited the way I did and what my rationale was. :)– Distantlycharmed 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(*Big Smile*) I gather your teach English professionally? And the name is Eyes Only. What I sign with is just my signature. :) – Watching... listening... 00:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Naw I suck at grammar too sometimes :) – Distantlycharmed 01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode linksEdit

As an aside, it's best not to use [[One (episode)|One]], but rather to use {{e|One}}. See this help page for more details. In short, this system allows us to change episode locations easily if needed, without having to edit a whole lot of pages. -- sulfur 01:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lifeline Summary Edit

Mind taking a look at "Life Line"? I did over that one, too. I think it could use your touch. :) – Watching... listening... 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Human vs humanEdit

Since "Human" is the name of a species, we capitalize it, just like Klingon, Romulan, and so forth. Just FYI. -- sulfur 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Elements Edit

Element#External links (the last link) is the source of the elements — Morder 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I am not able to access the link. I mean it doesnt go where it should, or maybe I'm just not seeing it. – Distantlycharmed 00:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Seems you're not the only one - yet for some reason I clue what's going on — Morder 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Image descriptions/etcEdit

Check out the image use policy. See this diff to your image upload to see how they should be formatted. -- sulfur 18:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Um...yeah I know, thank you :) I'm still trying to figure out this image uploading procedure. – Distantlycharmed 19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cache Servers Edit

Please do not update that image again. The cache servers are actually having problems - see Forum:Cache servers. There is a real problem and it won't be fixed because you keep uploading images and you might be making it worse by causing more jobs to be added. So just stop. Thanks. — Morder 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont get it. First of all, why does the picture keep getting changed anyway? It was perfectly fine as it was and there was no reason to change it or crop it. Someone just decided to crop it and put it up there. Second, when I upload a pic, it doesnt take 3 days to show "as it should" but shows correctly right away. Again, I dont see why this picture was changed in the first place. Dont you see how terrible it looks as a thumbnail on McCoy's profile? – Distantlycharmed 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's showing up poorly right now because of what Morder pointed out. The cache servers are having issues. That's why it's taking a while to show up properly. -- sulfur 15:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, not really sulfur, this time it also appears that charmed as an old (deleted) image still in their cache, however... One image was horrible and that was deleted by alan. All the other images are just yours repeated 3 times and 1 image that is cropped but not skewed as you put it and has better color. Just leave it alone until the dvd comes out - they'll all be replaced by then anyway. And, personally, I think the current image (yours) is the right one because the filename is "Kirk and Bones" while the cropped (but not skewed) one is just "Bones" — Morder 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way :) it took several days for the Gaila image to be updated from cache when i reverted a copyvio :) — Morder 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything was perfectly fine with this image until someone decided to crop it and upload the crappy version. Then I reverted it back to how it should be, and then it got reverted back again and I was told to wait for the cache to do its thing. But the cache is not doing its thing because its not a cache problem and the reason the picture that uploaded after mine is so terrible is because someone messed around in photoshop but apparently didnt do it right. There is no reason why the skewed image should remain on McCoy's profile if a perfectly fine picture can be up there. So, unless someone tells me why the picture had to be changed in the first place and what was wrong with the original one, I will change it back if it remains like this. – Distantlycharmed 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The current image is exactly what it should be. Do not change it again as there's no need. — Morder 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk image discussion Edit

I'm not sure why you are telling me to give it a rest when you keep beating a dead horse. I don't need to justify anything as to why the picture shouldn't be there. It isn't a picture from canon, therefore it can't be used to represent Kirk in a canon article, especially when there are other pictures available. Nothing more needs to be said. I'm sorry if that's not good enough.--31dot 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I dont agree that it is not a picture from the movie or that it would be such an inappropriate picture to put up as Kirk's profile pic. I would understand if it was a picture taken of Chris Pine somewhere outside of Star Trek, or with the director or writers, but it really is not so I dont see the insistence of removing it as his profile pic. That's all. – Distantlycharmed 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's about POV... An image of the character as taken from the film would be the proper POV, an image of the character taken as a publicity photo does not fall under that qualification. A publicity photo is as good as "a picture taken of Chris Pine somewhere outside of Star Trek". Regardless, the current as taken image is only as temporary as the time it takes for the DVD to be released. --Alan 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
To follow up. That image you are referring to is the correct POV from the movie. It is the scene in the very end where Kirk gives Nero the opportunity to save his ship and Nero declines. Spock is standing right next to him and Sulu is in the back.– Distantlycharmed 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Regular" universe Edit

When I put the links up I was trying not to use the term "prime" since there is a bit of a debate about that term going on right now, or maybe it has ended, I don't check it that often, but either way hope this answers your question. - Archduk3 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok cool. I changed it to keep it uniform, since we have been using "prime" thus far with all the other characters in Star Trek until we figure out something else, if at all. – Distantlycharmed 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A Matter of Perspective Edit

Just so you are aware, I moved your comment to the featured article removal candidates page, since that's what you were suggesting. :) --31dot 20:12, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Voyager Edits Edit

I'm wondering why you moved all of the USS Voyager's history towards the bottom of the page. I spent a great deal of time re-writing that article and had the format down to a science, now it's ruined. --Nero210 21:38, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

The technical data comes first on articles for starship classes, but not necessarily the individual starships. You put a majority of the history towards the bottom and now it just doesn't look right, so I'm going to keep changing it back. --Nero210 23:12, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Since this has gone back and forth with huge edits, I've temporarily protected the article in question. Please take the discussion to the talk page and discuss the changes there instead of just reverting edits. -- sulfur 23:28, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
Please note that ship names here on the wiki are done in the style USS Voyager rather than USS Voyager. Only the name is italicized, not the designation. -- sulfur 00:06, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see. Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I do get that confused at times.– Distantlycharmed 00:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Check out the Manual of style for the full way for formatting here. -- sulfur 00:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Journey of Voyager SectionEdit

Look I've been pretty tolerant of how you've edited the Voyager article since I re-wrote it a couple days ago, and in all honesty I actually prefer your description of how the ship ended up in the Delta Quadrant over mine (I had a bit of writers block on that section on how to word it) and believe you have added a good deal of information that I missed. But if you were paying attention to anything I was saying in the talk page you would know a Journey of Voyager section isn't necessary because its covered in the "history" section. This is the first time since the re-write that I've reverted one of your edits and so long as you don't start up that section again it should very well be the last. Please work with me just a little bit for once in this whole debate. --Nero210 20:14, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this isnt your article which you "tolerate" me editing - thanks very much. Learn something about wiki etiquette and policy. Second, I have also explained my position in the talk page and in fact believe that the Journey of Voyager - with all the subheaders that follow etc - to be very appropriate. Moreover, you mention, "Shortening the journey" - and therefore, "the Journey of Voyager" goes very well with it - as both reference Voyager's Journey. I also find your suggestion that I am not reading what you wrote in the comment article annoying - as you assume that the only reason I disagree with you must be because I "dont get you". But that isnt true. I get what you are saying and I think you are mistaken and disagree.
I dont find anything wrong with that sbudivision and in fact find it giving it the article a nice structure in which the journeys of voyager are summarized under one big header. I am sorry you do not agree with that and I dont mean to be rude, but I'm just gonna say it because I really think with your attempted reorganization you have made a gigantic mess out of the Voyager article. My organization gave the article a clear structure and focus and you just jumbled it all around. You mention "Dealings with the Borg" right after you talk about the Kazon and then you categorize "the equinox" under "contact with Starfleet" - which it really isnt - Voyager didnt have contact with Starfleet by their encounter with the Equinox. But just the same, as I have actually been respectful of your edits and have always tried to incorporate your wording and ideas into what I edited as much as possible. You, on the other hand, have shown bad form all throughout, going so far as deleting sections ("Overview" under Tech Data) because you didnt like how it was written and reverting edits.
Also note that last edit did more than just move around paragraphs; I have also edited contents wise - which you wouldnt know of course, given that you just blindly hit the revert button. – Distantlycharmed 21:51, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

You know I've tried to be cool and work with you but you are so hell bent on screwing up everything I've done in that article and are completely unwilling to compromise on this one thing. I have not fought you on any of your additions/re-writes since I re-wrote the Voyager article but you're not willing to give me this one thing? Maybe YOU should learn etiquette. So if you're interested in fighting me on this matter I will give you one - I'll continue to revert that section into the format it was in before (without the "Journey of Voyager" section) no matter how many times you try to re-add it. So maybe you should consider working with me. Also, I really don't give a crap how "annoyed" you are with my pointing out your inability to read - because if you could/chose to read anything with what I was trying to tell you, you would understand why I organized the article the way I did. Pay attention and quit being a jerk. --Nero210 22:19, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

All rightEdit

Frankly, folks, I'm not impressed with the way either one of you are conducting yourselves, and this has gone on long enough. I have again protected the Voyager page as a cool-down to halt the edit warring. If there is disagreement about how the page should be structured, you should talk about it and hash out an agreement before either one of you makes any changes. If after the protection is expired you both continue to act in the same manner, blocks may become neccesary. Let's talk about this and set aside any feelings before making changes that the other will just roll back.--31dot 22:16, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I tried to talk to him but he hasn't shown any respect for the hard work I put in on this article, doesn't read one word about why I organized the article the way I did, and is unwilling to compromise. He seems hell bent on fighting everything I do on the Voyager article so naturally I'm getting a little frustrated. I understand I don't own "exclusive rights" to the Voyager article but neither does Distantlycharmed so if he isn't willing to compromise or even read why I'm doing things the way I am then I see no reason to work with him. --Nero210 22:26, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I have been and am more than willing to work this out with you. Like i said, I have cooperated with you on many of the topics and regarding the header of "Journey of Voyager" I have also explained my rationale: The "History" begins telling about Voyager's first mission and assignment, its launch, how it was catapulted into the delta quadrant and the initial struggles they had with the Kazon and crew member defecting to their side and betraying them etc. After that, I think that creating a header or category that summarizes their Journeys past that initial point, to be very useful. I actually liked how you added the sub-header "Shortening the Journey" as that actually gave the title "Journey of Voyager" even stronger meaning and definition and just made sense - since they did embark on a journey unlike any other. Their encounter with the Borg, The pathfinder Project, Time Travel, The Equinox, Official Mission etc, - all fall under the Journey that Voyager has embarked on. I do not see anything wrong with that or that anything in this version either diminishes either your work or the organization of the article. If anything, I find it gives the article a nice structure and overview for readers who get on the page and want to learn more about the USS Voyager. So, there is that.

On another note: Actually Nero, it is you who is hell bent in changing everything I do - as evidenced by going in EVERYTIME I edit and "fixing" something (which you can do of course, but reverting and deleting entire sections...). You are also the one threatening edit wars and that you will come back and revert my edits etc, if I dont agree with your changes (yet i am being equally threatened with a block). I also have pointed out to you many times - and i am baffled you still dont get it and that no one here on MA has pointed out to you yet - (again, I am being equally threatened with a block) that you DO NOT OWN THIS ARTICLE. You act like it is your property and you are just being nice enough to let me edit it (see what you wrote above about tolerating my edits).

Anyway let me make this very clear: I am not editing this article to piss you off, I dont even know you, I am merely editing because it needs improvement. That's all. I would like people (and i do propose that) to go back to the point before the first block (like 50 sthg edits before your current one) and point out to me how my organization was so terribly bad that you apparently couldnt sleep at night and HAD TO CHANGE IT ALL OVER (complete revert) and then smugly leave me a mere note on my talk page to let me know that hey btw "I am going to keep changing it back". No discussion.

So then we actually did go into discussion, yet you insist that I dont want to cooperate with you and as if I had in fact made any personal claims over this article - which is rather ironic because I am not the one mentioning in my profile page that I have rewritten the entire USS VOYAGER article. I, have actually been honoring and taking into consideration some of your edits and suggestions, such as no longer insisting that tech data come before history etc. Given that and your threats about reverting edits no matter what, I find it insincere of you to be accusing me of just blindly wanting to fight your edits, not cooperate and claim this article my own. – Distantlycharmed 01:34, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Look Distantlycharmed, I never intended for this whole debate to get to the point its at now, but try to understand my position: You bust your ass on an article then all of a sudden someone comes in, criticizes the hell out of it and completely messes up your hard work. Like I said in my earlier post, I fully acknowledge that I do not own "exclusive rights" to the Voyager article, but if you were in my shoes, how would you feel about that? I'd like to point out that you too do not own exclusive rights to the article; therefore you can't just change the whole thing because YOU don't agree with it. I felt my article was detailed and well informed, and I didn't put up a fight when you added to it (I was actually glad you did by the way because I did miss some things. Forgive me for being Human) or re-worded something, but because you alone felt the formatting was more evil than Hitler, you had to have it 100% your way or the highway. Sorry but that's not how a wiki works. Another thing, the reason why I frequently call you out on "not being able to read" is because you frequently misconstrue my words or just completely ignore what I'm saying; it obviously appears to me like you either do not read what I type or do not care to listen to what I'm saying. Now with those things in mind, I stand by my formatting choice for the Voyager article. I do not believe a "Journey of Voyager" section is needed because all of the information in that article can fit in with "History" just fine. If you disagree then I'm sorry but maybe we should put it too a vote an see if others find a section like that necessary? Wiki's do work by consensus after all. I will continue to stand by my original formatting choice until there is a consensus on whether or not to use mine or yours; additionally, I'd like to appologize if I came off disrespectful. Understand you were really hitting on some nerves with the way your criticizing and majorly changing the article that I put A LOT of work into and in a case like that it's VERY HARD to not take that personally. --Nero210 03:46, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I find it tiresome having to repeat myself and I feel that is exactly what Im doin: telling you over and over again that a) I in fact did take your edits/suggestions into account and attempted to cooperate with you and that 2) I am genuinely not considering this article my work which I merely tolerate everyone else editing. I dont know how else to make it clear to you. If i wanted things 100% my way, then I would have just done what you do, revert edits. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt and that you felt/feel that someone has been just messing up your article and not respecting your hard work, but first of all that is not true and secondly, I honestly thought we went over this when we first started discussing it and where I suggested that you please do not take this so personally and as an attack on you as a person. You seem to, however, be pressing the issue of your hard work and how it has gone unappreciated, repeatedly, so let me say that this all aint about your ego (or mine for that matter) - this is criticism (at least from me, I cant speak for other people) from a purely writer/wiki editing/style and formatting etc perspective. That's all.

So the truth of the matter is this: I hadnt looked at the USS Voyager article in a while and then one day wanted ot look up some info about it and I went there and I couldnt find it. It was some tech data issue and I couldnt find it it in the table of contents and throughout the article (and I knew for a fact from previous edits it was there). Then I noticed that quite some info was missing and that it looked disorganized with information about Kazon, the Borg, Pathfinder, Crew, Tech Data, Equinox, return home etc squattered all over the place without any particular order most people could discern; it seemed counterintuitive. That's how it seemed to me, sorry. So I edited bit by bit without any intention to put down anyone's work. I believe that an article like that, one which describes a ship, should be well organized and its organization intuitive (categorizing, labeling, sub headers, correct grouping etc). And in addition to your efforts (which I did honor as much as possible), I believe that my suggestion with regard to "Journey of Voyager" does precisely help with that goal; it isnt counterintuitive and it certainly doesn't diminish or belittle your work (see my explanation above, dont wanna repeat). Maybe the way you organize it makes sense to you personally and i believe it genuinely does...people are different...

Anyway I am ok with people taking a vote (or making their suggestions if they see what I/we dont see) pertaining to this. Like I said earlier, I am cool with people looking at my edits even before the first block and tell me if there was (supposedly) something wrong with it and if it was disorganized and unpolished etc - as you seem to suggest. – Distantlycharmed 06:10, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you were looking for tech info you really should have looked on the Intrepid-class page. Individual starship articles are suppossed to cover mainly history with only a little bit of tech data - that's why we have starship class articles to cover all the juicy tech stuff. Also, I don't merely "revert edits" at a whim, I only do that when something major has gone wrong (in my opinion) and a revert is the fastest way to fix the issue. I only reverted your change ONCE since the rewrite and yet you seem to be playing that card like it was more valuable than a lottery ticket. Now, I don't want to repeat my reasons for editing the article the way I did (if you would like a reminder, I kindly invite you to revisit the talk page for the Voyager article), but you have not listened or misconstrued a lot of what I was saying and that only added a lot of fuel to my frustration (such as you complaining about the "weapons systems" section not being in tech data when I clearly explained that all the info would be under "defense systems" and why, for example). As I said, I really don't believe a "Journey of Voyager" section is necessary, as all the info works under "History" (after all it is explaining the ships history). I didn't fight the "Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant" section like I originally intended to because when I saw it, I liked how it looked and was organized. The only changes I made to your revisions were minor ones (things like removing B'Elanna's note about dropping out of Starfleet at 19 - not necessary in a ship article) and the crew compliment in the tech data (doesn't belong there and when you really think about I'm sure you'll agree considering there is a "crew" section).
I understand that you were only trying to enhance the article but you can't just change the format because YOU ALONE don't agree with it. The article sat for months as it was without any complaints and then one day you changed it because you couldn't find some tech data that didn't belong there (but in the Intrepid-class article), honestly that's a little messed up. Voyager is the only "main" setting vessel that isn't up to featured article status (unlike DS9, the Defiant, and all the Enterprise's), and as long as we keep fighting each other that isn't going to change any time soon - so we need to work something out now before this gets anymore out of hand. Here's the things I'm not backing down on to start:
Contact With Starfleet section organization. I very strongly feel that the way that section is written and organized is insightful, appropriate, detailed, and proper. I understand the "Equinox" wasn't exactly contact with home, but it was contact with another Federation vessel and in my view that justifies its position in that section. I am not backing down on that position.
Organization; EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE for individual starships on Memory Alpha lists history first, and tech data afterwords. I don't know how after looking at the DS9, Defiant, and Enterprise-D articles that you don't see that, but whatever you choose to see is your prerogative. I know we may have already settled on this issue, but I'm listing it for completion and NOT to start a fight.
Tech Data Information: Now that the "Overview" section has been brought up to standards, I have no issues with it (as I mentioned in the talk page). There is no need for a "weapons systems" subsection because the "weapons systems" subsection on the Intrepid-class is pretty f-ed up right now and disputed - I don't want to drag those issues into the Voyager article as well. Besides, having a "Defense systems" section allows us to detail not only the weapons but also the shield and armor systems as well. The way they are listed presently (which I think is pretty damn good at the risk of tooting my own horn) is perfectly fine in my opinion - thorough and to the point.

Now finally, I did think out how I would list all the info on this article before I re-wrote it. I'm not a moron. I only was trying to get this article up to the standards that you could see on the Deep Space 9, USS Defiant, and USS Enterprise articles (all three of which have achieved "featured" status). I did this by following the formula seen on those articles - a detailed listing of the ships history, followed by tech data and all the other stuff that you know about. It took a great deal of time and like I said - if you had put in the effort I did with this article you would take it personally too when someone completely altered and criticized the hell out of it just because they didn't like the layout. Now, I may be willing to negotiate on a "Journey of Voyager" section as a sign of good faith - but I can't guarantee that I'll see the necessity of it that you do - in my view all of that works fine under the general "History" section. But we'll have to wait and see.

Finally I'm seriously NOT trying to fight with you - us trekkies tend to be conservative and head strong and as a result we can but heads fairly easily. I want the Voyager article 100% my way and you want it 100% your way but that just isn't going to happen - so we need to find some kind of peace and quit bullshitting and trash talking each other in order to find a compromise acceptable to both of us. It's that or we just keep fighting and get banned. So the balls in your court now - what's it going to be? --Nero210 07:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
I DONT want it 100% my way, I DID cooperate with you on those edits (there is no weapons system, only defernse systems, tech data after history etc) WHY DO YOU KEEP MISSING THAT AND HARPING ON THAT ISSUE? HELLOOO...
2) Your "organization" is/was a mess, it might make sense in your head personally but Im sorry it wasnt very intuitive and "clean" in its execution and the writing was sloppy. Dont take it personal.
3)There is also no mandate that all ship articles have to follow the USS Enterprise and Defiant pages to the dot or else they are crap. The USS Voyager article looked fine and was well organized even without copying USS Defiant and then you came in and reverted all edits because you felt your ego was bruised. Something I am sorry about but it wasnt personal.
4) I do believe that some info about physical parameters and technical data belongs in the USS Voyager article and cannot be left out because the Interpid class article contains some data similar to it (and frankly it is not like we spent 20 paragraphs getting into painful detail about it so i dont know why you are losing sleep over it). Let it be in the article.
5) The point of writing a wiki is to improve it. Inserting data and information 'relevant to the article improves the article, organizing it with headers like "Journey of Voyager" improves it. What about that do you not understand. Seriously. What dictates of organization are violated if someone choses to add....hmm, let's say, the ship's length and warp factor and photon torpedoes into the article. Are you gonna forbid everyone from doing that for the life time of this wiki.
Anyway, I have no desire - or time - to keep arguing with you and keep repeating myself - just to have you falsely accuse me of the same thing again and again. It is frustrating. I am ok with others taking a vote on this issues and holding off on editing until we reach consensus as a community.– Distantlycharmed 16:18, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Mom, Dad, stop fighting, you're ruining my birthday! -Angry Future Romulan 16:24, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Lol. No kidding. This is supposed to be a fun thing to do - editing on MA - not arguing over the Vulcan dictates of poetics :)

Distantlycharmed 16:26, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Tags Edit

Just to save you some typing, I don't think it is neccesary to tag every President article for deletion- just a few should be enough, as the discussion already covers the subject.--31dot 00:34, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Just wanted to make sure we got them all covered...– Distantlycharmed 00:39, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Edit

Welcome to New England! --OuroborosCobra talk 05:18, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, actually, I've been here for the past 4 years or so, going back and forth, but just now updated it in the system. Thanks :)– Distantlycharmed 05:23, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Image Citations Edit

Please add the relevant episodes to the images you upload. In addition, please take some higher quality screen caps as your images will have to be replaced due to poor quality. — Morder (talk) 23:27, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

When adding citations, please do not add categories for the episode or licensing. Those are added automatically by the templates, and if that template changes, then there will be added excessive categories that don't belong. If these are being added because you are using the "fancy editor", I would strongly recommend turning it off, because it causes other problems with formatting. -- sulfur 03:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Ok I didnt know they were automatically added. When I first uploaded they didn't show up so I thought I had to add them. – Distantlycharmed 03:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
That only applies to the episode and "fair use" ones. The ones for Humans, Klingons, etc all have to be added still. Also, please ensure that your image is not duplicating another image. One of the images you uploaded was almost identical to the already existing File:Chevrolet Camaro.jpg. -- sulfur 10:43, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
I know, but it was a better quality. Albeit slightly. – Distantlycharmed 16:45, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Could you also add {{pna-file cleanup}} to your image uploads. They all require a higher quality version. Also where are you getting your images as they're clearly not from a DVD... — Morder (talk) 01:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my laptop isnt really high end; it's rather old. And, have you seen some of the pics that are being added around here and that have been up for a while? No one ever tags them. Some of them are garbage. I actually uploaded some better ones. Why are you picking on me now? – Distantlycharmed 03:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with picking on you. If you see a bad quality image then tag it, if I see one then I tag it, as well. I happen to see yours now because you're uploading them now. — Morder (talk) 19:44, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, add {{pna-file cleanup}} to all your image uploads and don't forget to add proper categories. — Morder (talk) 23:18, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if you think they need improvement, you can add them. I did add the categories to the best of my knowledge. My images are not as terrible as you make them out to be and often they replaced the really terrible ones. I dont see why I should be required to add a "this image is crap" note to everything I upload, while others get to upload things and are not picked on, even though their images aint particularly stellar either. Please either treat everyone the same or stop singling out certain people because you got no one else to pick on or because someone is an admin etc. If an image looks really bad, then I will gladly add the imagecleanup thing on there, but requiring that of me by default is not right. – Distantlycharmed 23:27, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

You need to add them because they are not image caps from a DVD therefore they are low quality. You need to add them because it informs people that a DVD quality image is required to be uploaded and if someone has the time and energy they can but they won't unless we tell them that there are low quality images on this site. If you don't want those notices added to your images don't upload low quality images. You're making more work for everyone already by not adding categories or proper templates. If I see someone else uploading low quality images I would say the same thing to them, especially when they're uploading a lot of images. — Morder (talk) 13:31, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? First, there are dozens of pictures being added every day and not all of them high quality. If you werent on my case about my uploads, you would have noticed. Second, some of the pictures I replaced, which you tagged as needing a clean up but but which were untagged before, arent even my uploads! They are someone else's low quality, non DVD pictures I made to look better. Yet, the moment I fixed them, you just put the tag on them. Finally, your contributions to MA for the past week have solely consisted of going through my uploads and tagging them. So excuse me if I find it all a little suspicious and accuse you of being on my case and singling me out. Either the rules apply to everyone or to no one. I am sorry you haven't learned that. – Distantlycharmed 15:35, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether I'm focusing on your images or not is, at this time, only because you're consistently uploading bad images. If the images you replaced were horrible quality then they needed a tag and nobody added one but that doesn't mean the image you replace with is up to snuff either. If you just added the tags yourself you wouldn't have heard a word from me... — Morder (talk) 02:58, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, are you bored or something or just trolling for the heck of it? The fact that your only edits for the past week have been to go through my stuff only and pick them to criticize - for whatever reason - is very relevant here. That is no way to behave, not to mention that it is neither very professional, nor that it gives you much credibility with respect to "I am just being neutral and doing the right thing here". Speaking of disrupting the community to make a point. I am also not consistently uploading bad images and as I explained above, there are dozens of uploads every day, some of which are not particularly high quality. Also, some of the pics were not my screen caps. I actually improved someone else's images and you tag them. Anyway, the fact you apparently have nothing better to do than log onto MA and go through my edits to pick on, speaks for itself. I do not mind if images are tagged because they could use improvement, but if only my images are being tagged while similar pictures remain untagged, and while I am being somehow asked to do so by default, that's just out of line. – Distantlycharmed 03:36, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I couldn't care less what you think of my edits. I have over 15000 edits on this site and I dare say most don't relate to don't think you're special. I am clearly not disrupting anything but I'm pointing out to you that you're not following policy by properly tagging your images. You blew it up out of proportion by not listing to the first bit of advice I posted in this section. Anyway, I'm done with trying to help you as you clearly aren't listening. I focused on your edits because you've been uploading a lot of images that need to be replaced...simple as that - you stood out and as a result I checked your history and looked at all your image uploads. I will continue to mark your bad image uploads as necessary until you upload images that are from a DVD and not some cheap download or youtube video. Even if you think you're improving existing images yours still need to be improved upon. If you uploaded quality images or tagged your images properly you wouldn't have heard from anyone on this site. So, you have no one to blame but yourself. — Morder (talk) 03:52, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I dont care you have 15,000 edits under your belt and as a result think you can just pick on someone or that you could never possibly be wrong. We are not talking about your editing history on MA since you started - I do acknowledge you as a valuable contributor and i was happy to see you become an administrator - but we are talking about your edits for the past week consisting of only tagging my images, even though at the same time some other images have been uploaded that dont strike me as high quality or DVD caps for that matter. Would you appreciate it if someone treated you that way? What impression would you get if you were in my place? Also, what makes you think I am uploading images from a "you tube video or some other cheap download" anyway? Wow. Had you marked other quality-wise supposedly questionable images, instead of just mine, then maybe I wouldnt have gotten the impression that you were just singling me out. So, you have have no one to blame but yourself. Anyway, tag them if you wish. I dont mind seeing improvement of any kind, that's the goal of this site after all. It's just disheartening you dont seem to get what i'm sayin. – Distantlycharmed 04:17, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vis à VisEdit

Please take a moment to read this article, as your changes to articles about this are further confusing matters, and wrong. This is confusing enough in the first place, which is why it's important to correctly say what happened, and who did it. - Archduk3 21:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

If this is in reference to the "Steth in Tom Paris' DNA attacks Seven line" that just sounds wrong dude. If Steth was in Tom Paris' DNA (which would have to be some big ass DNA), then we would see the DNA helix attacking Seven, not Tom (whatever form of him). I have stayed largely out of the Steth debate and whatever is in the Tom Paris article regarding any kinds of exchanges I just took over from previous writers. I didnt elaborate. But the way you worded that up there is just wrong. No one attacks anyone in their DNA. – Distantlycharmed 21:17, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

The key word there would be with, as in "with Tom Paris' DNA". Either way, I changed the word to "appearance". Also, on a unrelated matter, it's The Doctor, not the Doctor. - Archduk3 21:26, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Re the doctor: didnt know this was how he was supposed to be addressed/written. In most articles they use lower case "t". – Distantlycharmed 21:41, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

"The" vs "the" is an ongoing, and recently reconfirmed, issue. The easy rule of thumb is "The Doctor" was on Star Trek while "the Doctor" is on Doctor Who. - Archduk3 22:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "The Doctor" guideline is now in the Manual of Style.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:35, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Finally! I'm glad to know that I was part of the ongoing debate to clarify the use of "T" or "t"!--Obey the Fist!! 19:38, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Image deletionsEdit

Please comment on the images for deletion page next time instead of just removing the deletion notice from the file, since the notice is a courtesy to let users know that there is a discussion going on. Even with the notice removed, it could still have ended up being deleted for the other reason stated without a keep vote. - Archduk3 06:28, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didnt know there was a discussion about it. I thought it was tagged for deletion because it hadnt been used. I actually forgot to use the image, as I had intended; I dont know why it slipped my mind. Anyway that's a picture of her in one of her jumps back through time which I integrated into the appropriate episode summary. – Distantlycharmed 06:52, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Edits Edit

I would suggest that if you are going to make a series of changes or rearrangements to an article, you put up the inuse template ({{inuse}}) and then make your changes using the preview button. This will save a lot of space on the edit history of the article (probably 90% of the last 100 edits on Tom Paris are from you) and keep the Recent Changes page from being unneccesarily taken up.--31dot 20:51, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said :) How do I do this? I mean I know what you are trying to say, but I dont know how to do it. I do use the preview button but I edit by section so that doesnt help. – Distantlycharmed 20:59, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

This is only a suggestion and not criticism. If it's not practical for some reason, there is no problem, but it would be helpful to others.  :) First, type in {{inuse}} at the top of the article. This indicates to others that someone is doing extensive work on the article and that they should not edit it until it is removed by the person who posted it. Then, edit the entire page instead of section by section, especially if you are moving stuff from one section to another or making many changes. Once you've finished your changes(checking them in preview) but before you do a final save, remove the template.--31dot 21:10, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ah...I get it, thank you :) That would work if I decided or knew that I was going to do all the editing for an article in one go. But i sometimes dont, I do it over several days and more...but I'll do it next time i do a lot of moving around etc. – Distantlycharmed 21:21, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Right- if you're not going to do it all at once, that is very different- that's just another tool in the toolbox.--31dot 21:42, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Indents Edit

When you add a comment to a discussion page you are supposed to use a constant number of indents. If you are the first to write you use none, the second uses one :, the third uses ::, fourth uses :::, and so on. An this stays as a constant for all your comments. You are not supposed to add one more than the previous commentator. You always use the same ammount you started with in the beginning. --Pseudohuman 17:58, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oh so if I am the third commentator, then on my 12th reply, I will still only use ::: ? Seriously? I didnt know that. I thought it went by whose comment is following whom so there is a "gradient" :) – Distantlycharmed 18:02, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Help:Talk pages. -- sulfur 18:12, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Condolences Edit

My condolences on your loss. I know some consider things like this to just be "empty words" posted on a Star Trek wiki talk page, but the fact that they were worth "saying" hopefully makes all the difference. - Archduk3 07:39, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second Archduk's sentiments. -Angry Future Romulan 15:29, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you guys. I appreciate it. I would have said the same thing to any other member of the community if they were going through it and people here have announced their engagements etc here. And they are not empty words at all. This is the only online community I am involved in and i just wanted to honor her in my tiny little way. She was my lifeline, my best friend, my pillar. – Distantlycharmed 17:24, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Talk page reactionsEdit

DC, calm. You don't need to react in such a way on talk pages. Simple, to the point, and avoid the insults, insinuation, and aggressive talk. There is no need for incendiary responses. It just riles people up and makes them react poorly to you, inflaming situations. -- sulfur 02:42, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know. I think his whole "13-year-olds-retards-and people-who-arent English majors/speakers comparison just set me off there for a minute.– Distantlycharmed 02:48, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
Do NOT feed the trolls. - Archduk3 03:30, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Monaco Edit

Not to disappoint you, but the Wikia people have made it quite clear Monaco will not be staying around. Many others have requested it on the discussion page about the change(linked to in the intro of Forum:Yet another skin change) and Wikia merely states they do not have the resources to maintain it. I am not weighing in on the merits of doing so or lack thereof, but that's the way it seems to be.--31dot 03:25, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Have they stated why exactly? Aside from "no resource to maintain it" - which seems like a very unspecific response? Alas, I am afraid if you trace it back all the way, it will probably come down to some money-making, business strategy type of thing - as is usually the case these days. I dont think the engineers can do anything about it then if it is in fact coming from corporate level. – Distantlycharmed 03:31, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

There might be a more specific answer somewhere in that discussion- it is quite extensive- but I don't recall seeing it. If I skimmed it right, aside from trying to get "better" ad placement they are also trying to increase traffic between wikis(which means more people see ads on each wiki).--31dot 03:36, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old devil money...of course that's to be expected. In that case, no amount of complaint filing is going to make them change anything - unless someone speaks their language: pay them off :) – Distantlycharmed 04:05, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Of Sidebars and Actors Edit

Please do not removed "X was played by Y" notes when adding a sidebar to character pages. Sidebars are meant to supplement rather than replace information contained in the article itself. Thanks.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 04:09, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

The sidebar mentions who played the actor, why mention it again under the text? Especially in such a short article? Isnt that a bit redundant? – Distantlycharmed 04:21, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

This is per the Manual of Style which states "Any information contained in the sidebar is not considered a replacement for that same information appearing in the body of the text. As such, please ensure that all information found in a sidebar is also contained in the main article."

All information in the sidebar is intended to be "redundant" in the sense that it provides brief biographical information on the subject that should be in the article proper. For example, Mr. Kira's death is listed succinctly in the sidebar and in detail in the article, as are his marital status and children. Actor notes are no different.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 04:26, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I see. Ok. Well I just wanted to clarify since this is such a short article and all. Thanks for clarifying. – Distantlycharmed 04:42, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I guess my stance on length is: if the article is long enough to justify a sidebar, the sidebar rules apply. ;-) – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:30, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

The reason for such is in case the sidebar has to be removed for some reason (which, due to the CSS) happened on an older skin that was used on Wikia. Sidebars would occasionally... disappear for no obvious reason. With the new skin, we may have to find a new approach for dealing with the sidebars. -- sulfur 10:00, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Inline templates Edit

Please use the inline templates when linking to starships and what not, as this does all the formatting with less characters and you have less to type. - Archduk3 06:14, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

A Quick Personal Note Edit

Just an FYI, I'm very well aware of how the talk page works, I'm not an idiot. Also, contrary to what you believe, I'm not in this to "win" anything as you so colorfully put it (although your "my way or the highway" approach to editing makes me think you're the one trying to win something, though I'm not going to try to play your accusations game). --Nero210 06:58, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Moving talk pagesEdit

Don't. Especially not to locations where there is no associated page. Ever. Don't. Again.

In short: Don't disrupt to prove a point. -- sulfur 16:26, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well I wanted to rename it. The title was wrong. This wasnt about signing in to your talk page (which is minor), this was about signing into your MA account when editing - especially controversial edits, which is a little bit more serious. I didnt know how else to change it. Sorry. – Distantlycharmed 16:30, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

The "Memory Alpha" namespace is not a forum discussion. That name space is for policies and such. Where I moved the conversation is actually pretty close to the issue -- not signing comments appropriately. -- sulfur 16:36, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Ok I get what you are saying. That was the talk page of a policy site that I moved. I can see how that would be bad. I thought it was a created forum. Anyway, maybe there should be a separate policy page then about signing in into your account when editing articles, not just talk pages. For the same reasons - so as to identify who edited what etc. Sure we got people editing without registering all the time, but once they become regular contributors, it is irritating to see them switch back and forth between anon and registered account on a regular basis – Distantlycharmed 17:11, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Now you're moving back into the discussion about the situation rather than the page move. Please keep that all in one place. Don't try to hold the same conversations and such in multiple locations. -- sulfur 17:22, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Alright EnoughEdit

Moved to Memory Alpha talk:Sign your posts on talk pages...

Image uploads and categoriesEdit

Even if you cannot figure out a category for an image to go in, please at least add the Category:Memory Alpha images one so that someone else can come along later and sort it appropriately. Thanks. -- sulfur 14:15, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Voyager edits (2) Edit

(Note: the following is a condensed version of my original, ridiculously long and dumb posts on 14:40, November 13, 2010 (UTC). The original is here.)


You were right to point out I was overly sensitive and wrote stupidly long "mini-novellas" (as one admin put it!) as responses on the Voyager talk page. I'll strive to be both more welcoming of others' input and use fewer words (and leave out the TMI).

Thanks for your patience with me as I learn my way around here.

--Cepstrum (talk) 18:34, November 30, 2010 (UTC)  

Think promotion levell Edit

Do you want me to move File:Think promotion Levell.jpg to File:Think promotion Lavelle.jpg? — Morder (talk)

Sure. Um..yeah...I realized the spelling issues but alas it was too late. Thanks. – Distantlycharmed 00:39, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a friendly note Edit

(Note: I know you asked me to never post on your talk page again, but I hope you'll indulge me the chance to start afresh. If not, please delete/undo this post. Thanks!)

Hi, DC.

Thanks for weighing in on the anesthesia etc. discussion. (And for your willingness to make improvements. We'll see what happens with that and the drugs page.)

Hope all is well with you. Just wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with your take onVoyager's captain and crew being the most fun and "real". That's the principal reason I like the show (though I like all three TNG-era series).

I'd also like to let you know Cid helped me finally understand how bad my posts had been: I was way too sensitive, verbose, and as you aptly put it, "insecure". Per his suggestion, I've been trying to find my dumb posts and either summarize or remove them, leaving a note and a link to the original post on my special archive page for dumb posts. Let me know if you find any past ridiculous posts of mine that I need to move there. (If you like, I could do that to posts I made on your talk page – I didn't want to without your consent, though.)

Take care. I look forward to further collaboration, possibly on the drugs "project".

--Cepstrum (talk) 13:29, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about constantly checking with everyone everytime you want to make an edit. Just do it. – Distantlycharmed 23:52, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Done. (I checked with you because Cid directed me to because I'm editing your talk page.) Hope you like the removal/condensing of my silly posts! :)

--Cepstrum (talk) 18:45, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

No I meant if you edit articles stop asking everyone's permission/input. Just do it, if it needs changing, it will be done. Seems like you got enough edit-stalkers right? :) – Distantlycharmed 06:26, December 2, 2010 (UTC)


Moved to talk page for "Datalore"

Skin changes Edit

Hey DC, I've been reading your comments on the recent wikia skin changes aswell as your outspoken debates with Sannse and I just wanna say I completely 100% agree with you! Sannse and the others obviously don't want to hear from the people who make wikia what it is - you and me - and go ahead and make arbitrary changes to satisfy advertisers. So just wanna say, keep it up. The more noise we make, the better! -- :TrekFan Open a channel 16:56, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Hi Trek Fan, thanks for your message, I appreciate it. I think that Sannse is just some engineer doing what she's been told to do by up above. She cannot change anything, or make management decisions, even if she wanted to. At least that is the impression I got. It is a shame though and i agree with you that they absolutely do not care about the users who make this what it is or about this wiki. As long as ad space can be expanded so they post higher profits, who cares about the layout right? Sure, they say we appreciate your feedback and comments, but really, they dont. Distantlycharmed 20:10, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel exactly the same way though I don't believe Sannse wants to change anything anyway. At the end of the day, it doesn't affect her like it does us or any of the other wiki engineers for that matter. I'm using the Monobook theme 'cos the new one is just awful and this is the only one which seems to fit with the "encylopaedia" aspect of the site. Plus, there's no stupid ads cluttering the place up! :) -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:17, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Me too. The new layout is shit. Seriously. A blind man could have come up with something more appealing. The best, most qualified answer she could give me was something in the lines of "I know how you feel. Sorry ". So basically - yeah it sucks, we know, but deal with it bitches. Oh well :) Distantlycharmed 20:21, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

I know, I read the conversation. It was kinda like "Tough, that's the way it's going to be. Deal with it" lol, but maybe in a nicer way! :P -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:23, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

"Jonathan Archer" peer review Edit

Hey again DC. I was just wondering if you thought there was anything else we can add/amend to the Jonathan Archer article to improve on it? You seem to have a lot of ideas. -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:34, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was going to expand the relationships sections but dont have time. I definitely think it needs expansion (i.e. nothing said about trip and archer's friendship past "cogenitor" etc). It might take time if you wanna do a thorough job. You dont have a deadline for that do you? :) Distantlycharmed 20:42, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

No, there's no deadline. I just have some time and wondered if you had any thoughts about the article. It would be nice to have it as complete as possible and who knows, maybe get it featured? :) If you do think of/edit anything on the article, if you could just add a few words to the peer review so we're working from the same hymn sheet (so to speak) that would be great! -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:47, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. Feel free to copy edit it if you got time and feel like it. Distantlycharmed 20:53, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, will do. I'm going to try and work on some of those missing references you mentioned too. I'll put any I do on the peer review aswell. Thanks. -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:59, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've expanded on the Trip Tucker section and I just wanted your thoughts on it if that's OK? -- TrekFan Open a channel 18:12, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Done. I am glad you expanded. There was so much more to say about the two. I wish I had more time to really delve into Archer's profile but we'll get there... Distantlycharmed 18:39, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It definately looks a lot better now. I'm going to try and add some more references to the rest of the friendship section but tbh, I don't there is a lot more to be mentioned on them. For example, he didn't really have a friendship with Malcolm and the major points have been put in. I'll still take a look though. -- TrekFan Open a channel 19:09, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. that's the dilemma. Sometimes you dont know if you can call it friendship as he, like you said, didnt have a friendship with Malcolm. They were colleagues but not buddies. I dont even think he had a friendship with Phlox or Mayweather either. But I guess people have friends of varying degrees and not everyone is gonna be close to you so for lack of a better option, we can just have it stay as is. Distantlycharmed 19:18, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I think it does work OK though, because Trip was his best buddy (besides Porthos of course!) so he's going to have the most info there, which he now does. From then on, the amount of text/references should, in theory, get smaller as there is less to talk about. Malcolm was typically military and didn't engage in social activities with senior officers, much less Archer - and Mayweather was a young fresh officer under his command. Are we comfortable leaving the friendships section now? -- TrekFan Open a channel 19:24, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

I havent copy edited but form what you telling me contents wise, sure. Distantlycharmed 20:10, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

I may actually just expand on the Hoshi section a little after comments on the peer review. I've also added a quotes and apocrypha section to the article too. I think we're getting there! -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:13, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Are you OK? Edit

After that post on the Jonathan Archer peer review I felt as though I should ask if you're alright? -- TrekFan Open a channel 22:46, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Peachy... Distantlycharmed 23:08, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Why do I not believe you? :p I know you don't know me but we're all editors here on MA so if you wanna talk about it without fear of anyone having a go at you, I'm all ears. :) -- TrekFan Open a channel 23:22, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TrekFan I appreciate your consideration, and I am fine. Such is things :) Distantlycharmed 23:33, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

OK, well if you change your mind, the offer still stands. :D -- TrekFan Open a channel 23:39, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

"Scorpion" revert Edit

Hi, Distantlycharmed. You might want to do some reading and check out Memory Alpha:Manual of style#Headlines and sections. The correct format for section headings in episode articles is for all words to be capitalized, rather than in lower-case type. --Defiant 22:39, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. All this time my edits were reverted because - as I was told - the policy is that you in fact don't cap the second word in the heading. For years I had people go in and change my edits because i did exactly what you did. Now i am being told it is incorrect? Is this a new policy or were previous editors just full of shit because I sure I cant keep up with all the contradicting input I am receiving around here.Distantlycharmed 22:43, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
If I may jump in? Distantly, I had exactly the same problem just last week. It seems that for episode articles, all headings are capitalised, whereas other articles are not. I was just as confused with the whole thing as you as I too have been told different in the past. I'd just suggest you go along with it since it's not going to change. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:47, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I should probably have made myself clearer, so I'm sorry about that. --Defiant 23:04, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's fine. I am not planning on disputing it, it is just confusing. I dont see the point of making a difference between the two since it is a formatting issue and not a matter of contents - so it shouldnt change depending on the type of article it is - but whatever. Thanks for clarifying guys. Distantlycharmed 23:09, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Continued Edit

Rather than clog up the FA nominations page with unrelated chat, I thought I'd do it here instead! :P

Just wanted to say that I understand your point of view when it comes to the episode summaries and to be fair, I do like what you did with "Scorpoion". It's not too short and it does provide an adequate summary. I guess I'm just in "summary" mode this week. I've written about five DS9 episode summaries in the past seven days. It's tiring work! On that note, I wonder if you'd take a look at a couple? See what you think? They are on Peer Review now. You don't have to make any edits if you don't want to - I can do that - but I'd appreciate any comments you might have. It's no big deal if you don't. I can appreciate you might not have the time. --| TrekFan Open a channel 03:46, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Reginald Barclay Edit

Reginald Barclay has been through some changes. Is there any chance you could reconsider your vote? :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:52, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Strapped to bed with influenza virus. Dont have time to look at it now. Distantlycharmed 00:17, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

lol ok. Sorry to hear that. Get well soon! ;P --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:23, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

"Visionary" FA Nomination Edit

Hey Distantly, I hope you're feeling better now (if not, get well soon!). I was wondering if I could count on your vote for "Visionary" as a featured article? I've worked on it a lot and there's a decent amount of background information there. I've only got one vote with none against and I'd really like to get some more before the time expires. Thanks. --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:24, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. Sorry, have been very busy lately and havent looked at MA in a while. I'm sorry i missed the nomination. Did it go through? Did it get featured? You been pretty busy nominating lots of stuff lately I noticed :) Distantlycharmed 18:06, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

No, unfortunately it didn't go through. There was this whole argument about some bg info missing and so we couldn't come to a unanimous decision. I intend to renominate it in a few weeks, once the dust has settled. I've already done quite a bit more work on it. Oh and since Reginald Barclay failed I've done quite a bit of work on that to try and bring it up to scratch. Perhaps you could post a few comments in it's peer review? See what you think?

Also, I only nominate an article if I have come across one that I think is really good. I only post self nominations when I have spent a considerable amount of time working on an article and since we hadn't had many then, I thought why not! :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:31, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

"Inter Arma..." FA Nomination Edit

Hey Distantly, if you're not too busy, I was hoping you might take a look at "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" as it's currently under FA nomination? I'd appreciate any comments you might have for improvement, if not a supporting vote. Thanks and hope you're well! :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:38, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. Sure I can take a look. Been quite busy lately but will try :) Distantlycharmed 15:30, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

If you can't, then don't worry, but thanks! :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:26, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Attitude Edit

From this point on, you will be block for your attitude on the talk pages, per no personal attacks. You have been warned time and time over a period of months, and your post remain little more than nothing but attacking the people who contribute here, and this is the end of the line. The blocks will increase if you choose to continue. - Archduk3 04:45, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks/unjust block Edit

Just wanted to say that if you need someone to back you up regarding this then I have your back. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:34, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

My friends list Edit

I hope you don't mind but I've added you to my "friends list" as I find you to be a valued member of this community if a little misunderstood by other users, at times. ;) --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:30, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Your recent comments in the revised proposal discussionEdit

They are inappropriate to the discussion at hand. I've left a warning message for anyone who posts similarly inappropriate comments. I would suggest that you take a moment or two to read it. -- sulfur 17:11, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Duke accused Defiant of not knowing the context of the block against me and I corrected it. TrekFan proposed finding a good way of dealing with the issue, and he is being accused basically of not being sincere with his proposal as it is filled, allegedly, with "ulterior motives" and is being done in "bad faith". And when did Duke say he shouldnt have blocked me? Seriously - if i missed it I'm sorry but where? And i was the one last time who urged everyone to please stay on topic and refrain from ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the issue, just to be laughed at by Cid and getting a response that is personal again, instead of about the topic. Anyway, i am out of this debate as frankly I do not see it going anywhere and then being threatened mid discussion. Very nice. Sorry TrekFan. I know you made every effort in good faith and if you can achieve something here then kudos to you. Distantlycharmed 17:47, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
It's OK, DC. And thanks. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:43, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+