Not to sound rude or anything, but what was that all about? So confused...o_O StateAlchemist-talk- 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just wanted to say hi to a fellow fullmetal fan. :) -- Catchi? 16:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I assume you spotted either A: My username B: Me in a category page, or C: One of my userboxes (least likely.) StateAlchemist-talk- 22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I actualy noticed your userbox first. I noticed your username at random while accidentaly viewing the entier wikipedia edit feed. ;) -- Catchi? 19:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not remember but you were probably doing something irrelevant to fullmetal or your userboxes. Likely your edits to Bahaumaunt's userspace. Like I said I noticed it randomly. -- Catchi? 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol yeah I play with her page a fair bit. Oh well, nice to meet a Fullmetal Fan like I. StateAlchemist-talk- 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Two new issues here when you have a moment – apologies in advance if the second is something simple I've overlooked. Hope all well, David Kernow(talk) 13:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, fellow MADLAX fan. :) I've noticed you've put following into the template: "Someday, somewhere, anytime, anyplace." Is it a quote I don't recognize? :) More importantly, as you may have noticed, I have recently translated the Russian featured article about MADLAX, and now I'd really like to know your opinion. :) --Koveras☭ 17:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The quote is from the "yammani" theme song. I'll review the russian translation later. -- Catchi? 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, now I remember, thank you. :) It's just that I don't particularly like "nowhere". %) As for the translation, unfortunately, I must inform you that my request is outdated by now. :( --Koveras☭ 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
hey, there's no bot reporting in vandalism-en-wp. Can you help? Thanks much, delldot | talk 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Me and my bot has been banned from that channel indefinately as per essjays supreme authority. I cannot join that channel.
The bots code requires the channel name to be spesific. I can gladly provide bot assistance if the original channel ( #wikipedia-en-vandalism ) becomes avalible again. Otherwise the code wouldn't work.
Yes, unfortunately a bit too much perhaps. -- Catchi? 03:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What's your favourite race? I like Zerg – good for hydra rushing. 120 Hydras, only carriers can stop em :P FredilShadows of Darkness 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I saw you put this up for deletion over at the commons. The source is very clearly given as NARA and that picture is available on the microfiche of his service record...I have personaly seen it since I work for that agency. I would suggest removing the deletion tag from the image its public domain by every definition as an image owned by a U.S. government agency, -Husnock 06:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
It was nominated for speedy deletion (for not having sources). By converting it to regular deletion I managed to delay the process a bit since I trust you. :) I am trying to rescue it not get it deleted.
Would it be possible to somehow source the image to that (maybe a specific number leading to his service record) or better a web reference? My hands are tied by commons policy requiring citation.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Mind restoring the default colors (I cant due to protection). It was lost in a revert perhaps. [1]. If people want any color, they can set it. Ice blue was the most widely used color at the time of the templates creation, thats why I made it the default (and its a nice color :P). Thanks. -- Catchi? 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Cool Cat,
Sure; have just done so – but if folk disapprove, I think I ought to return it to #eee and create a survey to see if there's a consensus as to the preferred default colo/ur. Hope that's okay. Best wishes, David Kernow(talk) 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mmm... Ok. Though, it is an optional parameter... there shouldn't be a reason for people to complain IMHO... :/ -- Catchi? 07:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
An objection has appeared here on {{Navigation}}'s talk page, so per the above I've returned the colo/ur to #eee and set up a survey to see if any consensus pertains. Regards, David(talk) 04:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
...Have posted notifications re the survey here and here (Community bulletin board | News). Let's hope a consensus emerges! Yours, David(talk) 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
If I may butt in on this one... subsuming Islam under "religion" because it's "too specific" strikes me as analogous to subsuming baseball, basketball, football, etc. under "sports," or chemistry, physics, astronomy, psychology, etc. under "science." We don't do that because expertise in one of those areas doesn't necessarily translate into the other areas. Similarly, expertise concerning Islam does not automatically imply expertise regarding Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. So "Islam" is appropriate as a category, and an "Islamic barnstar" (or Jewish, Buddhist, etc.) is an appropriate recognition for specific expertise and Wiki contributions.
OK. I'd be interested to know on what grounds you disagree. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Of course there are other reasons than the ones I specified. I'll give you some.
Using your analogy:
For starters, Islamic barnstar is more like a barnstar award for Chicago Bulls related articles. It is too specific...
Basketball is a vast and dynamic topic with an increasing number of articles. For instance, you have articles about individual players. Thats a +500 new articles per generation for players alone with the assumption that only each US state has one and only one basketball team (with 10 players) notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Islam is on the other hand a static topic. It isn't like there are 500 new prophets or any other notable developments in Islam (or any religion for that matter).
Religion is a bit of a complicated topic. It is fairly easy to distinguish tennis from basketball. Very unlikely for them to have any related articles. But same can't be said about religion. Many articles such as Adam, Angel, God, Devil talk about same thing portrayed in different religions.
We want wikipedia to be a united community. Barnstar awards should reflect that and should not be in any way controversial. It would be silly to create a "anti-working mans barnstar" since that isn't a valid topic. "Anti-islam" or "Anti-Christianity" and etc can be valid topics. Do you get what the prospective problems are?
I can list more reasons... But these should be adequate.
I don't find any of these reasons convincing. Here is why:
The analogy with the Chicago Bulls assumes that religions (like Buddhism, Islam, etc.) are competitors in a game called "religion." To me, that does not describe reality. (I grant you that there may be some believers who feel this way. But are they typical? Not in my experience.)
Islam (or any other religion) is not "a static topic." Here's an example, just drawing on my own contribs to Wikipedia: Farid Esack. It's not just that this is a bio of a living person, but that his thought is not static although grounded in traditional Islamic learning.
Sure, some articles overlap different traditions. The same goes for or the contested term football or the objects called bat and ball. That doesn't preclude barnstars for specific sports, so I don't see the case for abolishing them from religions.
I do not see how a barnstar for a particular religion is necessarily controversial or "anti" another religion. Naturally, recipients of these barnstars would have to abide by the rules and principles of the community. But this goes for scientists and athletes as much as for believers in God.
I get the prospective problems, but do not see them as grounds for prohibition. That's where I'm coming from. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If there are prospective problems, than that makes it an inapproporate barnstar. This isn't a prohibition thing. Think of the atheists receiving the barnstar... A general religion award would not cause any such problem and would serve the same purpose. -- Catchi? 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
On looking at the list of barnstars I see that categories are indeed very broad (e.g.., there is no "physics" or "football" barnstar). I've been proceeding on the assumption that your position is that any "Islam" award should be prohibited. But maybe that's not what you're saying.
If you're proposing that there should be a barnstar for "Religion" to go with the ones for history, culture, math/science, etc., then I'm with you 100%. I also agree that at that level there is no need for a barnstar pertaining to a specific religion.
Moreover, a broad-category barnstar on religion would recognize editors who work on more than one. An "Islam" award should be handled at the WikiProject level or below. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 09.png)edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 09.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I dislike what is happening. There is no reason for this. And where is this discussion? -- Catchi? 07:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry that the bot made a mistake on this page. There was no discussion, but I found it quite important and obvious to remove it after user comments. The problem is that it provides misleading information if used after a post. If I signed this comment with {{time}}, today it would look like I signed November 20 (which is true), but next week it would look like I signed November 27 (which is obviously wrong). It can be used for other purposes, but should not be used after comments on talk pages. —Mets501 (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah that I have no problem with. I actually have reviewed your bots activity and realized the main reason for the thing. Tho a lot of people use the time template like I have. Anyways, thanks for the janitor duty but in the future be a bit more careful. :) -- Catchi? 13:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Keep up the good work ! :) -- Catchi? 11:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:United_(ENT_episode).jpgedit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:United_(ENT_episode).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Jg Saavik.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Durin 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
If you make a list of the Star Trek images you tagged needing fair use rationales then I will go through them and review them the best I can. Matthew Fenton (talk·contribs·count·email) 14:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sure! I'd like to thank you for making more of an effort at discourse than Cool Cat (talk·contribs) did above; with an accusatory tone and no reply, I was unsure of what course of action to take. See below.
These are all the images that had something wrong with them. The majority were missing detailed fair-use rationales, and a few were missing sources IIRC. I've linked the images themselves, and the full link to the edits I made to them at the time. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
This isn't the preferred fair use image process. Those images were uploaded before the rule was implemented. If you'd like to help, feel free to add a rationale to any of the images. After all you are not a bot. :)
Mass tagging as you are doing creates lots and lots of problems... I know you are only trying to help and I more than respect that... For instance it is using orphan bots valuable resources on something entierly avoidable. Furthermore it is not "helping" anyone but instead cluttering the system. Someone will need to further review the case as a result. It is much easier for you to add a rationale rather than a copyvio template.
Hope this helps. And an additional note, I deal with 4 wikis, 1 wikimania 2008 bid, and other things such as putting a satellite in orbit. If you desire a response from me in a timely manner, it would be best if you also used my talk page.
I do not like the tone of your remarks about me you have above. I am not the enemy. -- Catchi? 17:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The "preferred fair use image process"; I'm not sure what you mean by that. You're correct when you say that the images were uploaded before the rule was implemented, but that does not make them retroactively exempt from the rule, it only makes them inapplicable for speedy deletion. That's why I used {{fair use disputed}} as opposed to {{no rationale}}. As for "if I'd like to help": I can't add a detailed fair-use rationale to many of the tagged images as I don't feel they fall under fair-use. Instead of nominating their deletion in my belief, I'm only disputing it and thereby allowing somebody else the opportunity to provide their rationale.
Lots and lots of problems? The images I've tagged with {{fair use disputed}} aren't handled by OrphanBot (talk·contribs), only those which are violating the longer-standing and more important rules requiring sourcing and licensing for all images. Not having requisite sourcing and licensing isn't something I believe should be dealt with leniently and fully appreciate the bot's functioning with. Not having sources or licensing isn't "entirely avoidable"; unless provided by the uploader, this can be nigh on impossible to determine at times. Lastly, it is, in fact, easier to tag the image as not complying with standards than to invent a detailed fair-use rationale for images which I do not feel apply.
Congratulations. I'm very impressed. I need to vacuum my rug, drop some stuff off at Goodwill this afternoon, and wash my dishes; I'm glad you're keeping busy too. I'll poke you on your talkpage to let you know I replied here; odd, my watchlist seems to be working w/o any problems though.
I'm also sorry you don't like my tone. Communicating over a textual medium makes intent, innuendo, and subtlety difficult to discern. As such, I usually try to limit myself to facts and observations as I did when referencing your actions. Speaking of, as you believe in the propriety of many of these images: following your advice shouldn't you amend the images duly, as opposed to simply "rv"ing the factual and legitimate tags already in place — they seem to be appropriately placed, and yet you simply remove my efforts w/o making any of your own in their place. That seems counter-productive. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
As a newer wikipedian you probably have a manageable watchlist. I on the other hand do not. I do not want to monitor the tens of thousands of articles and images I have been involved with unless there is a really good reason. I neither have the time or patience with that kind of a thing, nobody does so please do not expect it from people.
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rules are not to be followed to the letter. You should never be using alternative processes simply to delete images unless there is a serious problem with the copyrights of the said image(s). In addition, you are required to notify unloader of every image uploaded prior to 13 July 2006: Wikipedia:Fair_use#Exceptions. But that may not be good enough at times.
Among the images you have tagged are Kirks promotional photo used in an article about star trek uniforms as well as the show Kirk stared on. What is it there that is so hard to write a rationale about? The first two bullets of the template is met isn't it? We should be careful and slow in applying these newer rules to the older images so as not to needlessly compromise wikipedias content.
On wikipedia a key policy is WP:AGF. What you are telling me is in contradictory with it.
In sum, please share the workload rather than mass tagging any image you see without a rationale.
:^) A "newer" Wikipedian?: non sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated. When you say "rules are not to be followed to the letter", I assume you are referring to WP:IAR?
You say not to use "alternative processes", but these tags are developed and utilized for a reason: it then follows that using them in the fashion for which they were designed isn't non-standard. Additionally, who/what is unloader?
I believe this image would only qualify as fair-use for James T. Kirk, not starfleet uniforms or Star Trek: The Original Series which are the two articles it is used in. As such, I cannot provide a detailed fair-use rationale for those uses; if somebody else believes that this image can be legitimately used somewhere, then they can provide the required rationale — if nobody can or will, the image is both unnecessary and possibly detrimental. Am I assuming ... bad faith? I don't feel I'm assuming any intent whatsoever; I'm tagging images which are lacking required information regardless of whoever uploaded it or what their intent may have been. I can assume that the contributer had good intentions when they uploaded the image, but that assumption does not precipitate the need for such images to be corrected or later deleted. I usually assume good faith.
Finding poorly sourced and/or licensed images and then tagging them appropriately is an important process for maintaining the legal integrity of Wikipedia; I share this workload with many other users. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
With less than 5000 edits I'd consider you quite new. The fact that you didn't even notify me about your post shows your inexperience. Majority of your contribution seems to be nothing but tagging random fairuse images for deletion.
"rules are not to be followed to the letter" is not IAR its how we do things on wikipedia. All rules should be followed to the spirit not letter.
You have forced me to sacrifice valuable sleep time for something stupid with your complete apathy. Thank you. Although I do not believe you care at all for what I have to say but here it is...
I have tagged (copy/pasted) fairuse rationales as you practically ordered me to. This was MOST unpleasant for me as stated above.
I ask you, how am I supposed to discuss rank insignias WITHOUT displaying them whenever relevant? How am I supposed to discuss uniforms WITHOUT displaying them? Please use common sense when thinking about a rationale.
With what you are doing, you are not maintaining wikipedias legal integrity at all, you could simply add the rationales I have added rather than waisting my time...
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You have been awarded these Jelly Beans from User:-The Doctor- I hope you enjoy these Jelly Beans.
Jelly Beans for you.. I am being weird today and I decided to give some to a Random Person to hopefully make people a little bit happier.. Enjoy these Jelly Beans.. (I Like the Lime ones)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gan-chan with Belldandy.png)edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Gan-chan with Belldandy.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Can you provide a source and license for this? -- Catchi? 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I did not put a source on the image my mistake, but when I try to put a source on the image it won’t let met. The correct source is “Source: www.defenselink.mil”, if you can put it on the image. --D.Kurdistani 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
That isn't an acceptable source. I need a link to the page the image appears on. I also need a license. -- Catchi? 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Below is the correct information you can put on the image, but I still can’t put that on the image my self or I don’t have access to it. --D.Kurdistani 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A new (and overdue) Greek and Turkish cooperation and notification board has been launched here. Stop by, have a look and sound off! Cheers! Baristarim 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
User:Durin has indicated his aims of targeting images on Starfleet ranks, again one of the foolish people who believes Paramount has a copyright on three circles in a row or two stripes on top of one another. This guy is very determined and could do SERIOUS damage to the Starfleet ranks article. In fact, I'm sure he would take great pleasure from doing so since I have been so deeply involved with the article. As I am deployed, I may not be here to defend and protect this artcle which we have worked so hard to create. Defend this article with your Wiki-Life! I have sent a request to the Nogri to visit Durin's house but they have not responded (busy doing other things). -Husnock 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I sent you an email. -- Catchi? 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I got it. Some joker also just put up the conjectured ranks article for deletion. I think it might be bad faith...since the "this article's entry" page is completely blank and doesnt give a reason for a VfD (at least, not yet). -Husnock 11:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
As we've both seen, the page is now up and running. This is horrifying that people on Wikipedia would do this. The page is full of "I just don't like this and thats why it should be deleted." comments I seriosly wonder if a couple of users put thier heads togehter to do this since we have seen VfDs on two Star Trek rank articles in the past few days as well as reverts and deletions to other rank articles like Fleet captain; all of this happening in quick succession. -Husnock 12:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am not happy with it. I am thinking of rfcs and rfars but I already experienced how useless dispute resolution process is. If only you weren't stuck in the gulf. But in reality, I am not too terribly concerned. Once you return we can sort this mess.
I'm doing what I can to fix this...no need to fire all phasers snce we clearly dont want the main rank article deleted. -Husnock 12:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I do want to work on it since the current version on Armenian Genocide is depressingly biased. Even making a simple edit to the article causes havoc. I haven't had the time to work on it and several people "owning" the Armenian Genocide article is still problematic... I have however moved the page to my "new" username. -- Catchi? 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I saw your note on the deletion page. I would urge you to stick around despite the occasional aggravations that occur around here. Take a break if you need it but I hope you'll return and resume contributing. Newyorkbrad 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I intend to permanently depart when the afd storm settles on trek related articles. En.wiki is unworkable for me.
I am tired of dealing with people whose entire existence is to troll and/or destroy peoples hard work by dancing with any policy, guideline, or essay that may be remotely relevant.
I will only return when wikipedia become friendly. Wikipedia is a troll heaven.
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kirk001.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87227164){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kirk_spock.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87227273){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:TNG_crew.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87227330){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:STDS9_cast_season_5-6.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87227373){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:EnterpriseCast.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87227427){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:STARFLEETEMBLEM.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87227609){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Starfleet_command_emblem.png&diff=prev&oldid=87227703){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Voyager_OF4.png&diff=prev&oldid=87228240){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Voyager_OF3.png&diff=prev&oldid=87228314){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Voyager_OF2.png&diff=prev&oldid=87228350){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Voyager_OF1a.png&diff=prev&oldid=87228490){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Voyager_OF1b.png&diff=prev&oldid=87228502){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3A29th_century_star_trek_Of_5.jpg&diff=87228518&oldid=45986923){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:29th_century_star_trek_Of_4.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87228524){kind=link}
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3A29th_century_star_trek_Of_3.jpg&diff=87228534&oldid=45986933){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:29th_century_star_trek_Of_2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87228537){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:29th_century_star_trek_Of_1a.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87228550){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:29th_century_star_trek_Of_1b.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=87228561){kind=link}
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AVoyager_OF5.png&diff=87228577&oldid=39396354){kind=link}
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ent_En_3.png&diff=prev&oldid=87228799){kind=link}
![[22]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ent_En_2.png&diff=prev&oldid=87228837){kind=link}
![[23]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ent_En_1.png&diff=prev&oldid=87228868){kind=link}
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:ISS_Enterpirse_OF5.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229063){kind=link}
![[25]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:ISS_Enterpirse_OF8%2C10.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229117){kind=link}
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:ISS_Enterpirse_OF4.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229165){kind=link}
![[27]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:ISS_Enterpirse_OF3.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229196){kind=link}
![[28]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:ISS_Enterpirse_OF2.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229239){kind=link}
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:ISS_Enterpirse_OF1.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229289){kind=link}
![[30]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Star_Trek_The_Next_Generation%2C_Alternate_OF_9.gif&diff=prev&oldid=87229338){kind=link}
![[31]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Star_Trek_The_Next_Generation%2C_Alternate_OF_5.gif&diff=prev&oldid=87229380){kind=link}
![[32]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Star_Trek_The_Next_Generation%2C_Alternate_OF_4.gif&diff=prev&oldid=87229432){kind=link}
![[33]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Star_Trek_The_Next_Generation%2C_Alternate_OF_3.gif&diff=prev&oldid=87229471){kind=link}
![[34]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Star_Trek_The_Next_Generation%2C_Alternate_OF_2.gif&diff=prev&oldid=87229536){kind=link}
![[35]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Star_Trek_The_Next_Generation%2C_Alternate_OF_1a.gif&diff=prev&oldid=87229563){kind=link}
![[36]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Star_Trek_The_Next_Generation%2C_Alternate_OF_1b.gif&diff=prev&oldid=87229607){kind=link}
![[37]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Bajoran_Logo.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229775){kind=link}
![[38]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Cardassian_Logo.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229842){kind=link}
![[39]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Klingon_Logo.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229910){kind=link}
![[40]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Romulan_Logo.png&diff=prev&oldid=87229987){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[41]](http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DFSD0512735&JPGPath=/Assets/2005/Air_Force/DF-SD-05-12735.JPG){kind=link}