FANDOM


I AM CURRENTLY AWAY

As of when I sign this note I will be away, please leave your hate mail below, thanks and see you out there! --Alan del Beccio 21:06, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Grrrrr! Sorry, you requested hate mail so I couldn't help growling at you. :) Jaf 21:09, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • Hope you can come back soon, Alan! Take care and good luck! :) --From Andoria with Love 22:41, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Return

Wow, that was quick, lol! Anyways, welcome back! :) --From Andoria with Love 21:31, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm in the process of moving and am just back for the weekend, still not settled and still not sure if an when I will have my access to the net when I get situation. Money is tight at the moment. --Alan del Beccio 22:18, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Somehow I thought your early reappearance was too good to be true. Anyways, again, good luck with the move and the new job! I hope you can get things worked out soon. :) --From Andoria with Love 22:51, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow, too bad the other administrators didn't feel the same way about my absense. I'm sure they could care less. --Alan del Beccio 22:52, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Away again --Alan del Beccio 00:27, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Screen Caps

Maybe you can help me. I've trying to find someone who can do a couple of screen shots from specific episode for me and I saw you had the episode in question on DVD. (Jorg is usually helpful with this but I'm not sure where he is lately). If you care to help me they're in the Requested pictures section. --T smitts 04:29, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --T smitts 06:50, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • No prob. If no one gets the other request for the assassins before I get back I will cap and upload those as well. Anyway, its almost 4am, and its time for me to crash. --Alan del Beccio 07:57, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

spelling TAS

Moved to Talk:The Magicks of Megas-Tu, thank you. --Alan del Beccio 06:37, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

your suggestions?

Per our discussion [1], and the recent removal of FA status [2]|[3], should I make the effort to bring this for further discourse? Your comments seem to have stayed the removal of Grathon Tolar, but those comments were ignored for Ethan Novakovich. Again, I press my point of not wanting to be the bitchy, whiny guy who complains when he doesn't get his way, but my points of before are still valid:

"Secondly, both removal nominations primarily mention (User:Logan 5) a lack of information as a qualifier for removing their FA status. This does not follow through with examining both the statements made during the FA nomination processes [4] [5] where both articles were nominated in the full knowledge that they were on minor subjects, yet were unanimously supported as featured articles by the voting members. You yourself stated that "The fact that it is a minor subject is irrelevant" when voting on Grathon Tolar. And finally, as I mentioned once before, the criterion as stated on the Nominations for featured articles page is: A featured article is an especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject.. While I won't tout the articles as the majority of those things (which is why they went up for voting), they are "comprehensive"; nothing about the quantity required for something to qualify as "comprehensive" is given."

If this discourse led to a discussion where the FA criteria were reevaluated and made more specific and detailing, I would be in whole and complete support of helping with that process; and should any articles I contributed substantially to not qualify under those reevaluated rules, I would be the first to stand by their status removal. But the criteria now are the exact same as they were when those articles were initially nominated and accepted by a majority of MA contributers; nor have the articles themselves changed even remotely close to "substantially" [6] [7] so as to fall under the guideline of "If you feel that an article currently listed on Featured Articles should not be featured (for example, because it has been changed)".

As you have been here longer than I have, have duly attained Administrator status, and have been helpful since my first edits — your advice, suggestions and/or support would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — THOR =/\= 00:27, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Sufficed to say, I never saw your input on the "votes for removal" page, so I'm curious as to what happened with the last discussion we had? I added my two cents to the votes and although I only mentioned it on the one article that is still vegetating on the aforementioned "removal" page, I thought my intentions were in reference to both articles listed at the time, without re-pasteing the same thing twice. Nevertheless, 'nobody said nothing', with exception of Logan after my comment, which has accomplished nothing but prolonged stagnation of the voting process. Ultimately, the problem is, the same people who voted for the page to be featured are not defending their words in the pages votes for being unfeatured. Whichever the case it might be best to just bring this up on the votes for the remaining pages. Depending on the participation level in the conversation, especially from other admins, it might be worth trying to resurrect the votes on the other page (Novakovich?) that has already be put to rest. --Alan del Beccio 22:58, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Re:TAS refs

Thanks for the suggestion. I thought about the TAS reference section after I re-noticed all of the TAS mentions in the Star chart in Conspiracy. I'll try to see what I could do about integrating it into the main TAS article (I should have done that in the first place). Those were all references I could find, but I'm sure there's more, and will be interested to see what you come up with. Also, welcome back to MA, oh Great One!--Tim Thomason 07:16, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but my presense is only temporary-- maintenance stuff mostly. --Alan del Beccio 07:26, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the recent revisions. Still a newbie, some editing tasks pose something of a challenge for me. Thanks again. --Fenian 09:19, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

TAS references

T'Pel and Sasak are only mentioned by the future Spock in the one episode Yesteryear. Beyond the statement that they are relatives to Sarek, there is no other source. Is originality more important than accuracy?--Mike Nobody 10:46, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Besides the fact that it was just copied from another page, what you copied wasn't even accurate in as much as what was copied into each page had zero to do with either character. Beyond the statement that they were relatives of Spock, nothing else needed to be said -- how does duplicating the text from completely unrelated events performed by a their "son" make the article any more accurate? --Alan del Beccio 10:55, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, you left some of what I put there. So, aside from trimming some details, you performed exactly what I intended.--Mike Nobody 11:01, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I removed irrelevant content as a quick fix. --Alan del Beccio 11:25, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.