Please do not prod that page nor try to get it deleted. The duplicate info can be removed from the article can be removed but see List of Planetes episodes. I had been meaning to nominate that for a "featured" status. I will do so soon. -- Catchi? 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
All of the article is duplicated on the main SEL page, though... I won't prod it further, but you might want to confer with User:$yD! on what exactly is going to happen with regards to the episode list, and the main Serial Experiments Lain article, which is currently in FA nomination. - Malkinann23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I do not see a reason to further discuss. And please do not get that the wrong way, I just feel this would satisfy all parties involved. I will put a note to the main lain page to explain my actions but I think he would prefer having two featured articles/lists. I'll however wait for that FAC to conclude and nominate the episode list after it for FL. -- Catchi? 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for updating the page. I personally am intriqued by the subject but lack the knowledge and wanted to save the article before it gets deleted. Agathoclea08:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I continue to be very curious at your use of the word "drama" in this case. Are you using this word to mean "something I disagree with"? Friday(talk)17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
drama -noun see meaning #4 and perhaps #5: 1/2 -- Catchi? 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Of extreme interest is that one of the people heavily involved with the deletion votes of both the Warrant Officer and the alternate ranks article showed up within 5 minutes of my working on this article, blanking parts of it and challenging the sources on all of it. I've asked that user to tone it down, I think there might be some personal feeling at work here. Will this never end? Anyway, your help on this new article would be welcome. -Husnock20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I recommend arbitration. WP:HA is not tolerated if thats the case. I am sorry but the other guys do not care about what I have to say and frankly I am sick and tired of repeating myself to them. -- Catchi? 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This is now to the level that I am trying not to laugh. How can one seriously propose deletion of this article? Do these people not like the articles, not like us, or a bit of both? You are so right what you said on the page. It is the same people, the same type of articles, and yes they are making a mess. In this case, however, I am hoping the AfD gets laughed out of court. -Husnock21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
You know... this series of incidents almost reminds me the nature of my medical emergency (rfar #2). Were these guys following you around or attacking star trek articles randomly? -- Catchi? 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
BA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Thats what I did when I saw that these people have nominated YET ANOTHER article for deletion. Who are they trying to fool? -Husnock00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
They can nominate the entire star trek franchise as far as I care... If they really want to destroy their own credibility that badly, how can I prevent them?
In 15 days from now if this nonsense continues as it is going on now, I will compile it in the form of evidence and let arbcom review it. With my estimate that would mean over two dozens of deletions.
I gave a blow by blow description of what has been happening going all the way back to the one user who was constantly removing stuff from the Fleet captain article. This is now on the deletion page for Starfleet JAG Corps. If you go to ArbCom, I'm sure this material will be helpful. -Husnock20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Law in Star Trek appears saved and I can't believe a sensable editor would delete Starfleet Security. don't care what otehrs may say, that AfD was bad faith as Starfleet Security is extremely notable and has existed in every franchise of Star Trek. Looked like our articles are saved. I hope. -Husnock06:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, this is a sanity check thing. Either the majority is wrong or I am right... I asked the same question to several people... Would it be OR research to cite Star Trek Encyclopedia as source? -- Catchi? 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It is impossible to answer such a generalised question as it depends what exactly the claim being made is. I have cited the Encyclopedia for things in the past, generally real-life behind the stage info that it is a reliable source for. Drawing your own conclusions from things the a source says, then citing it, is still original research, regardless of whether the s source is the Encyclopedia or the episodes themselves. Morwen - Talk21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
To be more specific the claim is that Star Trek Encyclopedia is a "self-publication" and hence not meeting "WP:RS". -- Catchi? 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not see any such claim there. I see a claim that you are citing the Encyclopedia for things it does not actually say. You would do well to acknowledge and address the point actually raised, rather than misreading what is being said and addressing that, people might think you are using strawmen arguments. Morwen - Talk21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am citing the encyclopedia for the rank insignias. They are there, are they not? Have I mis-cited any? (I am seriously requesting you to verify, I do have my copy). As for the "text" there is room for work of course, but an AFD wasn't even necessary for that... -- Catchi? 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Moving JAG into the main Starfleet article was probably a good idea, and the various other discrete offices -- eg Medical, Intelligence -- could probably also stand to be similarly cut-and-pasted. If you're up for it, might as well do that before someone decides to slap an AfD on those, too.
That said, I'm not sure a merge is always the best solution. The recently-merged warrant officer material in the alternate ranks article, for instance, is encumbered by OR/uncited information that still needs cleaning up. By placing that OR/uncited material in the alt. ranks article, it is now to another vector of attack and criticism -- and it's shaky enough as is (but less so than it was a few days ago). --EEMeltonIV01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Merging is a good solution. Bad faith nominations as it happened on alternate rank article will happen anyways. The Warrant officer thing annoyed me greatly. Its covert deletion in my view is unacceptable.
Lots of material on wikipedia had been written before citation became important. The correct way of correcting such problems is to properly cite the article, not afd.
I will be merging some of those... Not all though. Starfleet Security is too large for example.
Well, the answer to your question is self apperant.
[1] is just one example. You aren't swearing alright but your tone is irritating. State what you need to say while avoiding the "flowery irritating" tone.
I am going to strongly suggest you do yourself a favor and don't go any further along this line of reasoning. You are going to put yourself in a situation where you are flinging mud at people for giving someone a grudging complement. Look up pithy before you claim I'm acting in a uncivil manner, and while you're at it, perhaps you could explain why you continually assumebadfaith, badger people about votes, engage in blatant misstatements, vote keep without a single recourse to policy except WP:ILIKEIT, and your own tone is patronizing, dismissive of anyone who disagrees with you, and evocative of someone who sees anyone who is not possessed of your brilliance as article-deleting thug. Please stop. --ElaragirlTalk|Count07:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
(sighs tiredly) I will say to you what I have said to others. If you feel I have made a personal attack, you are free to report it to WP:PAIN. Please be aware that since I am very aggressive I am very familiar with WP:NPA and I know the precise limits to which I can and cannot go. I am sorry you cannot accept criticism and that you seem to hold unilateral action higher than policy and consensus, but you warning JzG against personal attacks when he didn't make one clearly illustrates to me that you have zero understanding of the difference between disagreement and attack. --ElaragirlTalk|Count07:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are not allowed to be aggressive. Keeping an attitude borderlining NPA is trolling. I have given you NPA warning #1 as per WP:PAIN. Ignore this at own risk. -- Catchi? 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I find your statement amusing in it's autocratic tone. However, as per diffs above, I wish to remind you. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --ElaragirlTalk|Count08:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (previously unsignedReply
"I am saddened to see you leave. I never noticed you before as you are too fast of an anti vandal person. I sincerely encourage you to come back. I hope this is a temprorary wiki-vacation." --Cool CatMy talk15:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry to see you leave, we have never came into contact with each other but I have noticed your supreme bad luck with RFA's and if you were too have another i'd have voted Support
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just in case you decide not to leave, it would be best not to attract people trolling you by not mentioning old matters in your edits. My case for blocking him, although justifiable, remains arguable by his friends, which is part of the reason I only blocked him for a week and not the full month allowed by the Arbcom Case. Bastiq▼edemandez19:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do you want a long or short answer? -- Catchi? 08:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I imagine it's complicated- please explain as much as you wish. I see no reason for a block tho- do you? If you can work things out without further disruption, I think minimal harm has been done. Friday(talk)08:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
My intention is not disruption, on the contrary. I just do not see a workable way to point out a fundamental flaw with our community.
It actually isn't very complicated. Like the Kelly Martin section on your talk page, incivility has started to even come from our exemplary contributors (such as Kelly Martin). Incivility has became a norm and civil people are almost punished for it.
An example is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl. Not only were people disagreeing with me (I am not pissed that people disagreeing with me), their defense was counter accusations for things I have done over a year ago and people "endorsed" that.
This isn't just about the RfC but a much more serious problem with wikipedia-wide implications. I do not know where to "discuss" it. I am actualy hesitant to even discuss it because of the number of trolls I am dealing with.
I'm all ears when it comes to people kicking around ideas about how to deal with systemic problems. Discussion by itself is rarely harmful- if you're not sure where it belongs, start here on your talk page and once the idea is more developed, post it somewhere else too. I personally keep a scratchpad of half-developed ideas- that might work too. I agree with you on incivility being a widespread problem- I myself was needlessly rude a few times recently and I'm sure this did not improve my ability to communicate. However I think most reasonable editors realize we're all just human. If we make a mistake, we can always say "oops, I messed up" and try to do better next time. I hope not too many people would hold this against us. Friday(talk)09:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
More than one incivility per month makes Wikipe-tan cry. The problem is some people make a habit of it which just depresses Wikipe-tan.
Another reason why we have so much incivility is that several editors (such as myself) are kept on the edge all the time by various trolls. On private discussion people can easily identify trolling but very rarely do they ever react to it when it is staring at them in the face publicaly.
The strategy is to bore off the trolls which is not a working one, wikipedia is too popular for that. Once a troll finally goes away, a new one or ten comes in its place. Its a never ending circle that needs to be disrupted. There are two types of trolls, content trolls and forking trolls. And I am not even referencing to content trolls, those are a different story.
I think there are multiple aspects to the problem. What do you think?
It's an ongoing struggle. If there was an easy answer, we'd already know it by now. I've seen the same thing you've seen- the more people are in a position to deal with such troublemakers, the more they tend to see people as troublemakers. I've seen respected editors accused of trolling by other respected editors. All I can recommend is that we keep an eye on ourselves and each other, and if someone needs to take a break, they should do so. Friday(talk)18:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Um... There can be an easy answer.
User:MONGO seems to be also leaving. While I have no clue about the details of his case, I know that we value trolls above anything else on wikipedia. Trolls are treated like archangels. Blocking trolls is like a deadly sin instead of being a common practice. Trolling seems to be "hard to prove" even if it is common knowledge.
The main problem is not "good" contributors that turned "bad" but "bad" contributors who were always "bad".
Look, I even said please. Please do not lecture me... Do not even talk to me. I do not like you (plural) and wish to never hear from you (plural) again. -- Catchi? 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The edit of mine which you deleted was requesting you not to cross post your replies to my talk page. You not only ignored the request by cross posting, but you also deleted the request. By reverting your edit I didn't remove any post of yours, merely the cross post, so I don't see what the problem is with my reverting it. —Doug Belltalk11:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to bother arguing since I do not care. -- Catchi? 11:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Resemiprotect that. You are borderlining WP:HA since your edit came right after mine. -- Catchi? 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Harrassment? Removing the protection is not intended to annoy you in the slightest, and I'm sorry if it did. The purpose of semiprotection is to protect pages from disruptive edits. It isn't intended to be permanent. If your wikistress user subpage comes under attack from vandals it can always be reprotected. I don't believe there is any basis for protecting it, so I set it back to the default that all pages not requiring protection should have. It's been semiprotected for four months, so presumeably the reasons behind protecting it are gone and the semi-protection can be removed. Please don't take this as anything done to annoy you as that is not the intent at all. —Doug Belltalk12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I really dislike seeing such edits a minute and 39 seconds after mine (especially because of my interaction with moby dick (aka Davenbelle) such stuff really irks me). I'll call this one a coincidence.
That page should be permanently semiprotected. It is my userspace, not an article. I cannot think of a reason why an anon or a new user should be able to edit my stress meter. If they really desire a change, they can mention it on my talk page.
The short answer is: um.. bad. The long answer is: BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! (parodying Jon Stewart) :)
Seriously though I feel like the horde is after me... It is like a stampede...
There was a 'delete happy' group of people who were trying to delete the Star Trek articles which was quite stressful. There was one casuality. That seems to have settled... I am a deletionist myself but I do not create pages like this. I do not make a big deal of it. I dared to complain about their incivility and that went... interesting...
I have a number of trolls lurking on ANB/I attacking me and et all. They practically are accusing that Bastique is my pet Pokemon or something. :P
Toolserv is down so commons is a drag... Don't want to delete anything w/o toolserv there.
Basicaly... Too many trolls... Lots of injustice... :(
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You're letting a few trolls take advantage of your ordinarily reactionary nature. You need to take some time off en.wp for a while before you do something more to jeapordize your own interests here. Bastiq▼edemandez17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Acknowledged. -- Catchi? 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.
Request reason: "Please unblock me (so I can deal with this nonsense) or close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination). There was already a recent afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia and inconclusive deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 5 (16 overturn - 14 endorse ~ 53.555%) --Cat out 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Camel Commodore greets you. You seem to know a lot about Star Trek and Camel Commodore would like to help. Let Camel Commodore know what he can do to help, and with which articles. Let's all call everyone to "Wikipedia Battlestations!" if you know what Camel Commodore means. -CamelCommodore12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Camel Commodore must talk in Camel code so that others do not discover Camel Commodore, if you know what Camel Commodore means. Camel Commodore must hide underneath the sands and avoid being seen, les the Taliban catch Camel Commodore and eat him for breakfest! -CamelCommodore13:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
You seem to like talking in riddles... -- Catchi? 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Moby Dick adlı Kürt şahıs yüzünden ayrıldığını görmiyim. Yıldırma politikaları bunlar, pes etme. Sen kimsin dersen ben WikiProject Türkiyeden kısaca KtB, o kullanıcı şu anda süresiz banned, açıkça yazmıyımda sonra peşime düşmesinler :P. For Aiur, Cool Cat!!!--Doktor Gonzo14:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I saw your comments on the arbcom page. Now, how about we got User:CamelCommodore to agree to you disclosing contents of your conversations, if any? No privacy breach there, right? Obviously the decision is User:CamelCommodore.
Sure, but I do not see the relevance of such a thing. He can reveal it himself/herself and I can verify. -- Catchi? 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, right now the thinking on WP:AN seems to be that User:CamelCommodore is either someone trying to discredit User:Husnock, User:Husnock pretending to be someone trying to discredit himself. Thus, any independent evidence of User:CamelCommodore's existence would be good.
I think forgetting about the whole thing would be the better side of valor. -- Catchi? 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is why I am asking you to be more active in updating pages (rather than complaining/discussing so much). Be bold! If you see a problem, fix it. But please do so w/o butchering the article (this isn't intended to be an accusation, just a heads up if you will) -- Catchi? 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no desire to get into revert wars, which is the reason I haven't touched certain articles. I have been concentrating the types of articles I mention, which I consider more important, and also are the ones that it's actually easier to find sources on. You may be glad to learn I recieved in the post today a book about Law in Star Trek, which I intend to scour for usable things. Morwen - Talk17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you add content as per 'source' I do not believe anyone would revert you. -- Catchi? 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You may not recall this but you were wondering why I wasn't blocked a while back. I sincerely hope your views about me has changed somewhat (since you haven't blocked me) -- Catchi? 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I couldn't agree with your comment on your user page more. Wikipedia lacks coverage on many significant topics that encyclopedias 1/30th the size of us cover. Ethnic groups in Africa numbering in the millions do not have articles written about them, yet the best thing deletionists can do is try to delete an article about some guy's school?? Another thing that gets me is that deletionists rarely write articles in Wikipedia themselves — often because they're too young to know anything notable. And that, my friend, is why they're deletionists in the first place. They lack the simple ability to put themselves in other people's shoes. I often hear some of them argue in AFDs that an article isn't "encyclopedic," but this shows just how ignorant they are! Encyclopedias are works that cover all areas of knowledge and before recent times, some actually tried to include all human knowledge. Arguments exhibiting policy fetishism are examples of a primitive follow-the-leader rationale that most adults abandon after their early teens. The fact that they would be so reckless as to delete something that another person wrote for a week (or month) is a sign of adolescent recklessness, as well. Therefore, deletionists, ironically, tend to be the least qualified in evaluating articles. In conclusion, I think that deletionists do not really have anything to add to this project by their primitive nature and — of course — their reckless behavior.—83.133.121.1210:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. John 1:4 KJV
Dear とある白い猫/Archive/2006,
Love came to a stable on that very special night to bring us out of darkness into His glorious light. May Jesus touch your life with gladness and warm your heart with love as we celebrate His birth. I hope you have a Blessed Christmas, AnupamTalk06:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I saw that you undid my changes to the page. I removed the TWOK enlisted ranks because the coloured shoulder tabs indicated departments not rank. Also, I removed the DS9 Petty Officer pin because this pin did not appear in the episode "Valiant" (or in any other episode). Kind regards. --213.33.15.6913:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sure it did. The girl member of the red squad was wearing it on valiant episode. Aside from Quark and Jake she was the only survivor. As for the rank tabs, I do not care about them much. -- Catchi? 13:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I am mature enough to acknowledge when I am wrong so. I guess you are right. The dots are very hard to notice aren't they? -- Catchi? 11:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm trying to compile galleries of US Military Coats of Arms. I noticed a moment ago that you had applied a Request for Deletion on a number of images uploaded from the US Army Institute of Heraldry with the comment that "Images are not free enough" (I think the request has since been removed, since I can't find it anymore, so forgive me if I am misremembering). I was wondering why you decided to have these images deleted, and what you meant by "not free enough."
v/r,
Hammon2721:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Things are going somewhat OK I suppose. I do not know why you reverted yourself :) -- Catchi? 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you noted on your talkpage you weren't at this paticular project any longer and had moved residence to commons, so I transfered over there, in the case you wouldn't notice little ol' me. :) -Randall Brackett22:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is true that my focus is commons more, en.wiki is mostly unworkable now. The fact that I do not edit, doesn't mean I do not closely watch. -- Catchi? 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:020924a 1130Skuld.gif. 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. MECU≈talk20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
