User talk:Deevolution

Welcome to Memory Alpha, ! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:


 * Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the and  policies, the, our ,  and guidelines for proper.
 * How to edit a page includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha.
 * Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create.
 * The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles.
 * How to write a great article is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday.
 * See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs.
 * Look up past changes you have made in your contributions log.
 * Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own watchlist.
 * Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your talk page.

One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha!--Alan del Beccio 08:52, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know why I reverted the Andorian logo. We decided some time ago, especially in the case of this logo, to use the original (albeit fuzzy) screencap and not use one of the many reproductions of the logo, for copyright reasons, amongst other things. The version of the logo you uploaded was created by Thweimann at don't know if we have the permission to upload it here. --Jörg 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Size
Whenever possible, please refrain of setting a specific thumb size. Thumbs are ajustable in user preferences, and many users prefer to set their own sizes for best viewing on their computers. -- Jaz talk |undefined 05:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A different image sizing issue: Please keep image file sizes in the neighborhood of 30kb to 60kb. Your recent image upload of 128kb is much larger than what we prefer to use. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 11:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Phase pistol additions
The phase pistol article is for anything and everything relating to the phase pistol, no matter how minor or insignificant it may seem: when they were used, how they were used, why they were used, who used them, where they were used, etc. The same goes for every article on MA; it's all about completeness. Removing information about phase pistols from the phase pistol page simply because they do not describe how a phase pistol works is not a good reason to remove it.; in fact, by removing said information, you remove the possibility of readers gaining a full understanding of what the weapons do and how they are used. in any case, for future reference, topics like this are best suited for that article's talk page. Hope this clarifies matters, though. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason those examples you listed haven't been mentioned in the article yet is because no one has added them yet. I only added ones that came to mind at the time; the rest someone else or myself will add later. --From Andoria with Love 09:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Troi image
Just wanted to say that the new Troi image you uploaded a few days ago (File:Deanna Troi, 2379.jpg) is great. I was wondering when we were gonna get rid of that darker, crappier (imo) image. Good job. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks, i had to photoshop her autograph out of it, that's why it looks a little funky. but that old one was just bad.  but thanks.  Deevolution 07:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

File:Farpoint picard.jpg
Hello there. Hereby letting you know that I submitted the image File:Jean-Luc Picard, Encounter at Farpoint.jpg you uploaded for deletion. We already have an image of Picard in 2364, and I couldn't see what makes the image you uploaded special enough to keep. Drop by at the Memory Alpha:Images for deletion page in case you would like to object. Ottens 11:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Voyager's orange nebula
Just curious, as you just added that new image, is the image (right) also part of that trailer? Is this the Voyager+Orange nebula mentioned on Star Trek: First Contact? Cause I've been trying to find a citation for this for quite some time... - AJ Halliwell 07:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * AJ, wish i could be more help. that image, is, i think a doctored image from a voyager episode.  i don't remember which, but i think it's the one with the weird space tornado, that sucked things into subspace...or another realm...or something.  i can't be too sure, but i'm positive it wasn't in the FC trailer.  the orange you see in the trailer, is actually fire, or explosions, but in this image here, you can actually see the debris that was inside the vortex.

Image requests
I know you occasionally get some slack for uploading so many headshots of the main characters, and sorry about that. But if your interested, a task someone's been needing to do for a long time is get some "relationship" images. IE: Notice how on Guinan and Chakotays pages how when there's a section for 'relation with so and so', there's an image of some significant even between the two of them. (With Chakotay, his being stranded on the bug planet giving Janeway a massage for example) Well *most* of the main character articles have just a generic head shot of the person, where it's preferred that there be a significant moment between them (Some examples of these not so good articles: Kathryn Janeway, and Benjamin Sisko, which is a featured article!) So if you could find some good 'significant moments between so and so', that's be greatly appreciated! - AJ Halliwell 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Guinan not being the best example, as many are just her at the bar, but notice the Worf, Riker, and Picard pics.)


 * hey, might be fun. will take some digging, but i'll see what i can do... Deevolution 02:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Recently, the assignment patches for the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and Defiant (NCC-1764) have been given white backdrops. For reason of consistency, we should probably also do the same for USS Exeter (NCC-1672) and Constellation (NCC-1017). So I'm submitting a request for just that. Thanks. --AC84 03:01, 26 September 2006 (PST)

Paramount Stages and Years
I just skimmed through your Paramount Stage articles and made a couple of minor tweaks to the way that you linked the years. Years in the "POV universe" are linked as 2006 (for example), and years in the "Real World" are linked to their production articles, such as. In the first case, it would simply link to the year, 2006, and in the second, it links to the productions for that year,.

Just to let you know. Good job on the articles too. -- Sulfur 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for the heads up! Deevolution 06:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Uniforms edit
Hi, De. This is in regards to your edits at Starfleet uniform. Just to let you know, you can't just remove information because it only references an element from one series (in this case, TNG). If you can, you may expand on the section, but just removing relevant content because it doesn't refernce more than one episode isn't really an option. Anyways, the edit was reverted by Gvsualan and if you still feel the content should be removed, please bring it up in the article's talk page first. Thanks, mate! :) --From Andoria with Love 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * hey yeah sorry about that, i was going to add it to the TNG-era part, but got interrupted. the reason i removed it was, as i said, beause it just didn't really seem to belong within that particular article.  but anyway, thanks for the heads up. Deevolution 06:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:weird images
Wow, that was odd. I had to purge the page for it to look the way it does to you (adding "?action=purge" to the end of the url). It looks like B'Elanna got left out in the bug-fixing... either that, or a problem still exists. Reverting the image seems to have fixed it, but I still need to bring it up with the folks at Wikia. Thanks for pointing that out! --From Andoria with Love 04:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is possible that is one that I missed. I did not notice us having touched it in Recent Changes during the bug (I manually re-uploaded all of the images I could find that we messed with during the bug). I know this was an early one that was caught as a problem, and I could only go back 500 edits. It is possible it was just too far. Oh well. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll fix Kes. Send me any more, I know how to fix them. The problem is not the file, but how MA has decided that the dimensions are different. I just need to download the file and re-upload it. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  05:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

File:JonathanArcher2155.jpg
I just wanted to thank you for replacing that image. I have hated that "angry look" image that was there. It did not seem like a good way to show Archer. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Son'a Images
Hey, I noticed you uploaded some pretty sweet images, among them, and I was wondering if you had any good screenshots of the Son'a from different angles, or maybe a user album? Or would you be able to supply some? (The bigger, the better.) -- Sasoriza Adm &bull; Tlk 08:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close-ups of facial features. The stretched skin, anything like that. I'd sure appreciate it. -- Sasoriza Adm &bull; Tlk 08:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image replacement
Hi Deevolution. Thanks for all of your work with adding or replacing images recently. However, I do have a request: please upload under a new filename if an image is not either a better quality replacement of the same image or an overwrite of a copyright vio or unsourced image. Uploading an image of something completely new over an existing filename seems like a shortcut around the images for deletion page and may compromise the specific use of an image on another page. Thanks! -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 05:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked Image
Didn't my note come up on the change list? The one I replaced was so dark and murky that you coldn't see squat. I could get a different cap and try to rebalalnce it again I suppose.Capt Christopher Donovan 04:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I took your cap and did a fresh rebalance on it (brighter AND more saturated)...see if that's more to your likingCapt Christopher Donovan 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Brighter than the first one you posted :) but still a bit dark...it may well be differences between monitors...I find myself doing a LOT of "tweaking" of DVD based images I find on line because they're "murky"...Capt Christopher Donovan 09:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

how so?
This probably wasn't a "minor edit". I don't know whether you meant to check that box or not, but I doubt that you intended to mark that edit as such. —  THOR  =/\= 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah probably just force of habit. um, are you like mad about it or something?  Deevolution 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very. In fact...you're fired. Actually, I am curious about this edit? That's a lot to remove without explanation. --Alan del Beccio 08:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * wha??? i didn't remove a bunch of stuff. as far as i am aware, i rearranged it and reworded it, but i was being too lazy to completely overhaul it so i just filtered the information a bit.  what do you miss?  maybe we can put it back...unless it's about Kevin Uxbridge.  Deevolution 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Images
Thank you for the advice.– Orr6000 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Images for Deletion
When putting images up for deletion on the IFD page, please make sure to add the delete image template to the image too, as it categorizes it properly for maintenance and cleanup. Thanks! -- Sulfur 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah brain fart, sorry. Deevolution 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also please remember to orphan the image. --Alan 02:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Icheb's Picture
I changed it because the one I found, I think, give him a more pleasant look. In the current pic, he kind of looks like a deer caught in headlights. :) – 200.108.16.174 00:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Icheb's Picture
I changed it because the one I found has a more pleasing look, I think. In the current one, he kinda looks like a deer caught in headlights.:) – Orr6000 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: VOY Cast Photos
I always use the DVD photos at my first option in looking for images. However, none are available for the cast members in question, except for Robert Beltran and Tim Russ, both of which are, in the opinion of one who is only trying to make constructive contributions to the site, namely me, horrid. The point is, the website states clearly that they are all Paramount copyrighted. Thus I have followed regulations. The sight may have access to image material from paramount that is not on the DVDs. Quality? Are all the photos on the DVD's top class? Not at all. I have followed regulations. Further, it is not only Voyager cast photos I have done, but several TNG cast photos as well. Unlike Voyager cast, there is no shortage of TNG cast pictures from the DVDs.

I am getting extremely tired of this. I have seen other images here that are not of the best quality and images that clearly constitute copyright infringment that sit untouched and unflagged. In fact, this past Saturday I found a copyrighted image of Zoe McLellan that came from wireimage.com, which has been here for two years. Did anyone flag it or post it for deletion? No. I did it. I can name others. There is one of Vaughn Armstrong from a German site, for example. And then there is this one of Avery Brooks from Yahoo. They still sit unposted for deletion. As for quality, how about Xon? Or Gul Dukat? Or the Jemhadar image? Or the image of Joe Murphy as a Borg drone? Or the 1972 Star Trek Convention in New York? Any posting for deletion because of quality? No. But yet anything I upload is pounced on within hours. And these examples are just from the Performers Images. I am really starting to feel unfairly singled out and am seriously wondering if to continue to contribute or even visit at all. – Orr6000 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, as i said earlier, you shouldn't feel bullied, you shouldn't feel singled out nor should you question whether or not to continue contributing. it would be very sad to see you go because it is not a personal thing, nor is it a conspiracy against you.


 * it is inevitable that you will find copyrighted material on this site, but i would say that the people here have done a fairly thorough job monitoring and preventing it. nevertheless, we do this for fun and things are bound to fall through the cracks.  lately, though, it seems many have taken a more active role in weeding out copyrighted material or potential violations.  this has nothing to do with you.  it began before you started contributing.


 * again, as i said in my previous comment, i sincerely call into question the copyright disclaimers used on the websites you used. i understand it's difficult to find decent images of the actors, but just because a website credits paramount, it is not necessarily correct.  as i said, many of the images appear to be headshots which do not generally belong to the studio, they belong to the actor.


 * regarding image quality, i did not say that i would put these images up for deletion based upon quality. though i would expect them to be replaced with something clearer and likely from a one of the DVDs which seems to be the easiest way to go about doing things.  none of us are trying to impede your work or give you a hard time and the emphatic italics aren't really necessary.  -- Deevolution 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No accusation against you.
Please understand that I am not accusing you. You have always been courteous and helpful to me. It is simply that the unfairness which I have been perceiving, real or not, has really begun to bite. What I think needs to be done is:

1. A major housecleaning of the entire site for images and material that violate copyright or are of unacceptable quality.

2. Clear guidelines that state that images and material must either be from a recognized Paramount affiliate or from the franchise DVD collection. Images and material from any other source must be accompanied by a verifiable notice of permission from the copyright owner to use said material.

Do you agree? – Orr6000 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * i agree to an extent. i can point out the efforts of users like Gvsualan and myself - both of us have gone through and done our best to remove or at least flag possible copyright infringements,  that could be considered housecleaning.


 * the guidelines to me, however, are pretty clear. the upload page itself contains a link to the image use policy. i am fairly certain, though, that there is no rule saying that you can only acquire images from DVD screen captures, but it was my suggestion to you because searching the web is often problematic.  as i said before, many websites will simply credit paramount for material rather than researching the real ownership.


 * cast photos aside, you've done a really good job with the episode summaries, it would be a loss if you stopped contributing. - Deevolution 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You and Good News
Thank you. And I have good news. I have established contact with one Ms. Maria Nausch. She has a website that is a tribute to Tim Russ, with many nice images of Mr. Russ and other Trek Actors. She owns the copyright to all the images. I e-mailed hr asking her permission to use an image of Mr. Russ, She acquiesced. The image is already uploaded. So that settles that. Nobody can touch that one. I have asked her permission to use an image of Robert Beltran, Garrett Wang, Ethan Phillips and Robbie McNeill. I await her response. I have also emailed Mr. McNeill's website asking permission to use an image from there. Once permission is obtained, nobody will be able to raise any objections. I cannot tell you how much I am enjoying this.

In fact, since she seems to be a Trek Enthusiast, I invited her to become a contributor to Memory Alpha. – Orr6000 22:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Permission gotten
As you can see, the lack of voyager actor images is now a thing of the past. See for yourself.– Orr6000 23:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Voyager Crash Image
Thank you for changing it to a less similar image to what was there before. I hadn't thought of that.– Orr6000 17:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * hey no problem, i hope i didn't step on your toes. great work with the summaries by the way.  - Deevolution 22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Same person, new name.
Orr6000 here. New login name. Everybody has something interesting: Sulfur. Shran. Deevolution. Admiral EnzoAquarius! I got tired of Orr6000. What's interesting about that? So...may I introduce you to...– Obsidian One 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous?
Begging your pardon, sir, but 'superfluous'? What is that supposed to mean? What makes this image superfluous as opposed to any other Torres image? Is it that these images that are there in the sidebar presently have been there for a long time? I thought wiki policy allowed images to change. I chose it partly because, in my opinion as a contributor, she looks better in this image than the others. I did it to enhance the sidebar. An MA administrator I spoke to after uploading it agrees with both my choice of image and the placement of it in the sidebar. I can give you his name and point you to his comment supporting it on his user page if you so wish. Are you saying that one is to show what she looked like at the start of the series and the other to show her at the end? I see no change in appearance. To me, that it superfluous. Only one image is therefore necessary, not two. True, I chose it for looks, but if I as a contributor did not feel that it did not enhance the article where I put it, I would not have done so, or even uploaded it. Are you saying aesthetics are superfluous? I do not make any contribution here superfluously, sir, and, frankly, I am offended by your characterization. I also uploaded a new image of Naomi Wildman, and replaced the first image of her on her article because I think it looks better than what was there before. I suppose you think that is superfluous too.

– Watching...listening... 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Yes, the policy was explained to me and it indeed makes sense. But I did not know at the time that it was MA policy.. So, not knowing the policy and seeing coincidentally that you and Shran were the uploaders of the two sidebar images, the logical impression I got was that you and Shran were simply banding together to keep your images up and prevent others from changing or replacing them. This impression was strengthened when I moved my image back up to the sidebar and Shran put it back in the body again.

But, let us move on, as it was obviously only a misunderstanding, aggravated by my unawareness of the policy. – Watching...listening... 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For my response to your Orphaned images post...
...see here.

– Watching...listening... 11:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Method To My Madness
You told me you do not agree with the image changes I made to the Seven of Nine sidebar. I shall now explain to you why I chose these images. Let me take you to school.

Firstly, as you see, the images conform with established practice of a recent and an early appearance. The top image is from, the finale of the series. The bottom image is from her earliest appearances in. The previous images did not conform to this practice; the bottom was from Scorpion II, but the top was from, the very next episode after Scorpion II, a whole 4 years before her final appearance.

This brings me to the second reason: the two pictures I chose fully illustrate the development of the character from drone to Human. They illustrate her regaining of her Humanity. The bottom image, of her as an ice-cold, unfeeling drone who would plunge her assimilation tubules into the neck of a child as he/she screams in abject terror and incredible pain without hesitation and without a shred of compassion or empathy, shows what she entered the show as: as far from her Humanity as she could possibly be. But the top image shows the end of the road she walked; she is seen with her Borg implants removed, and smiling warmly, now in touch with her Humanity, nothing like the monster she started out as.

Makes sense, does it not? I think so too.

As I said...there is a method to my madness.

– Watching...listening... 23:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned Images
For the record, I do not agree with deleting images simply because they used to be on a page, but are not, or are currently unused. They can be kept for possible future use at some point. Images should only be deleted in my opinion if they are:
 * Non-canon
 * Fanon (whatever that means, but I do know it is unacceptable here. Logically, I would think it means 'fan-canon', which puts it into the same category as non-canon and therefore unacceptable)
 * Copyrighted and used without permission
 * Poor quality

– Watching...listening... 21:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

doorstop
"File:Doctor not a doorstop.jpg"

welp

this is honestly the best filename I've seen on memory alpha to date

keep up the good work champ --75.100.7.238 03:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

haha thanks. aw sadly i have fallen out of the habit of updating. Deevolution 03:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Sarek2293.jpg
This is the best image I have ever seen of the old man. Well done! – Watching...listening... 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Borg queen image
First, Happy New Year.

I see you reverted the BQ and Seven of Nine images I changed.

I agree with the reversion of the Seven image; mine had the top of her head cut off, and yours is a complete bust image. But I really think my BQ image is better. Nothing made Alice Krige's portrayal of that character more memorable than that silky, malevolent smile. So I re-reverted it. This is a wiki and everyone has the right to make reasoned contributions, even if they supersede others.

– Watching...listening... 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Different Borg Queen Image!
Hi. Could you tell me how you changed File:Locutus of Borg and Borg Queen.jpg? I'd be very interested to know if you uploaded an all-new cap or used the one I uploaded and made adjustment(s) to it - what program(s) you used and, if you did adjust the pic I uploaded, what that/those adjustment(s) were. As much information as you can provide would be much appreciated, friend! :-) --Defiant 10:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bluray
How did you obtain a bluray capture when the movie has not been released yet?--31dot 00:31, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

If you do not provide more information about how you obtained these images, I will be forced to assume they are from an illegal copy of the movie and remove them.--31dot 00:48, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * presumably not an illegal copy: http://reboot.trekcaps.net/index.php?cat=Star_Trek Deevolution 00:53, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't presume anything. Please see this discussion, but we should not upload those images unless it can be proven that they obtained them from a legal copy of the movie. We only have a little longer to wait for one.--31dot 00:57, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

late reply
Hey. Just wanted to let you know I replied to your comment on my talk page. Sorry for being so late with my response. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 11:13, October 16, 2012 (UTC)