User talk:1312.4

Welcome to Memory Alpha, 1312.4! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thanks for your edit to the USS Defiant (2375) page! 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 editing guidelines, our point of view, copyrights and guidelines for proper etiquette.
 * 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! -- Defiant (Talk) 19:06, July 13, 2010


 * The above named user is the most currently available administrator to contribute to Memory Alpha; their signature was automatically added by User:Wikia. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, you may contact that user through their talk page.

Page move
Please do not move the Defiant page again, not without consensus as to where it should go. Just because you "haven't seen better suggestions" doesn't mean there aren't any, or that there is a consensus. The discussion must reach some sort of agreement or conclusion before the page is moved.--31dot 09:58, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing is more important on MA than presenting the canon without bias towards shaky fan hypotheses. Think of what you're supporting. – 1312.4 16:28, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep discussions in one place, please.

That doesn't mean you should unilaterally implement your point of view. A discussion is taking place, it should arrive at some sort of agreement first. Such agreement is not the views of any one person.

I think the number serves as a disambiguator only, as the article would make clear. If "casual readers" aren't interested in reading the entire article, which would make that clear, then any assumptions they have are of their own making. We are not responsible for that. Leaving it alone is not the ideal solution, but if we can't agree on what to do, that's what will happen anyway.--31dot 16:38, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are absolutely responsible if we can change the title to pretty much anything that isn't misleading. What is stopping us is the administrators' fear of a theoretical edit war, which hasn't taken place. – 1312.4 17:06, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your unilateral moves, which have been getting reverted by non-administrators, constitute edit warring among non-administrators. So yes, it is happening. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:27, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, I didn't notice Commander Scott because he didn't revert it with a canon-based argument, only because his subjective sense of consensus wasn't satisfied. Is there a guideline on what happens when people involved in a consensus aren't sufficiently interested in enforcing the canon? That's the basic problem here - as you can see, I had revised my original proposal to USS Defiant (Sao Paulo) following reasonable suggestions from some people, but I can't support mere "consensus"-based arguments. – 1312.4 17:41, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're operating under a false idea about what we do here. We do not enforce canon, and as a wiki we operate under a consensus. If you wish to start enforcing canon without consensus, you can always start your own website. As for the rush, I too wish things moved a little faster, but unless we start getting paid for this, I doubt things will. - 18:00, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * But what if the consensus is wrong? It's not like contributors are being selected based on their objectivity or respect for the canon. They can just sign up and edit. That's when administrators should step in and allow only constructive, canon-based arguments. I've seen a few reasonable arguments about keeping Defiant in the name and avoiding the registry debate, but most contributors don't seem to care about spreading misinformation to the rest of the world, which is a serious problem. – 1312.4 18:07, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin to be in the business of determining which arguments are legitimate and which are not. That is not my, or any admin's, job. As a wiki, we operate on consensus of those who choose to spend time here or edit here. We are not in the business of "enforcing" anything. We document it, and when issues arise, we discuss them to arrive at a consensus. If you believe that the consensus is "wrong", then it is up to you to persuade us otherwise, not to enforce your own views on everyone.--31dot 18:11, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * And who is responsible for determining that consensus has been reached and that the page can be moved? How do we define that step? – 1312.4 18:13, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are familiar with how wikis work, but we are responsible. When the discussion has reached a solution that most people seem to agree with, then there is a consensus. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand. There is no authority or arbiter who makes those determinations, we decide ourselves. That's what a wiki is. --31dot 18:16, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively, the person who creates an article can name it whatever he wants as long as the title isn't jarringly wrong, while everyone who is concerned with the more subtle points of casual readers and such has to argue like hell to change the title. – 1312.4 18:22, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Interpret it however you will. That's what a wiki is. If it's not your cup of tea, you could always start your own site where you can be an enforcer, as Archduk said.--31dot 18:27, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting Links
Please stop changing the links in articles that feature the second Defiant to the page that you created, as I've just been forced to undo a number of your attempts to enforce your interpretation of where the article should be located, along with correcting a number of instances where you had changed the ship's registry number from NCC-75633 to NX-74205. -- Commander Scott 06:34, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Having looked into the timestamps, it would appear as though these changes transpired before the other issues were discussed yesterday, so under the circumstances, I believe that this has already been dealt with during that exchange. My apologies for any toes that may have been trampled. -- Commander Scott 09:51, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages
When posting comments on talk pages where you express a change in your opinion, it is not a good idea to go back and alter your previous posts to reflect your new opinion, as this essentially rewrites the history of the discussion. Comments by others related to any altered posts will then make no sense. If you wish, you can strike out previous comments you made like this: comment here which would appear like this .--31dot 00:23, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it was unnecessarily confusing on the page, given that the voting date is obviously different and that I also explained the revised vote later in the text (because a new voting option was added, not because I changed my opinion, there is a difference). – 1312.4 05:17, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * With the exception of minor spelling mistakes, you shouldn't change your old posts, as 31dot said. This is the reason I reverted your change to your previous vote and added a bullet point to your new post about changing your vote to #5, since that is now your vote. This way anyone who reads the page will know what was originally said, and the order it was said in without having to check every timestamp on the page. - 21:09, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Recent comments
I would suggest that you review the no personal attacks policy. Some of your comments have come close to being such attacks, and any comments which are directly insulting will not be tolerated.--31dot 18:54, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop with the attitude. If you can't contribute without it, don't. - 12:52, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've contributed just fine, until frustrated Star Trek would-be writers and other assumption-makers started this edit war by reverting changes which I had fully justified. Sulfur just assumed I was wrong, without even bothering to refute my argument. It is just mind-boggling, their inability to wrap their heads around the fact that "the most advanced" need not mean "it has the highest warp factor", or the idea that one must double-check someone's memory of a line before editing the canon section. Reasonable people would've understood the logic and said, "yes, you're right, clearly it doesn't say anything specific about the warp factor!", but no, most people seem to be frustrated Star Trek writers, with a burning need to put something in the speed section, even if it is only based on their "creative" logic. – 1312.4 13:08, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Reread what Archduk3 said, and think about whether it's really worth it.--31dot 13:15, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not, because the accuracy of MA is worth nothing to you. You couldn't care less if MA became responsible for myths about Ent-E's maximum speed. Maybe you should call it Memory Gamma? The administrators would rather block users and revert all of their other recent contributions than delete one number - 9.975 - from that canon section, based on my very simple argument. – 1312.4 13:22, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

You were not blocked for your contribution- you were blocked for your insults. Sulfur had also not even responded to your comment yet- maybe he would have agreed with you after seeing your explanation.--31dot 13:32, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, because it is "insulting" to point out that one shouldn't insert fanfic into the canon section instead of merely keeping the speed attribute empty, that such activity is indicative of logic issues and a desire to create more Star Trek instead of analyzing the canon. Because my insults to such "methodology" are totally inexplicable, and would've continued even after it took a reasonable person five minutes to understand my argument and unlock the page with an empty warp factor attribute. How practical of everyone involved. Accuracy must always win, no matter what, and it is going to win one way or another. – 1312.4 13:45, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you don't get it, so I'm going to stop trying.--31dot 13:51, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly you need a dictionary, in order to understand the difference between "the most advanced" and "fastest". – 1312.4 13:55, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't about any problem to understand the frakking difference between some words. The problem at hand, for which you have been blocked, is that you are wrapping the one good point you actually have in a huge steaming pile of insults and snideness, leading to people losing even the last bit of interest in actually thinking about what you have to say. Stop that shit, and we might get across - keep up the arrogance, and you are the only one responsible for what happens to you here. -- Cid Highwind 14:05, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Sulfur and 31dot were always polite to basic logic, right. Their own insistence not to accept my very simple argument has lead to my own insistence not to allow them to get away with it, which is why this dicussion has continued. If they had just said, "Yes, we understand, you're right, we were wrong, according to the neutral arbiters of Canon, Logic and the Dictionary", that would've been the end of it.


 * I have to act in defense of the canon, dictionary and basic logic, whenever I encounter contributors who keep rejecting those and espousing the idea that it is OK to introduce assumptions into the canon section, instead of accepting a perfectly simple argument which can be understood in five minutes. – 1312.4 14:22, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. And I did suggest in one of the messages searching the canon for references to other warp factors, but I'm also saying that you must blank the line immediately as a safety measure, to prevent the spreading of myths until a hard reference can be found. Once a more specific reference is confirmed, it can be added to that section. – 1312.4 14:39, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

May I ask whom appointed you "defender of canon"? I must say that I don't think the wiki model is a good fit for you if you cannot tolerate discussion on an issue. Can you also point out where I was rude to you or said that I would not listen to you? I in fact did listen to Cobra, who made his statement without insulting me.--31dot 14:45, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody appointed me "defender of canon", but the fact is that I know a lot about it and how it should be analyzed. I have nothing against discussion, which is why I had argued my edits (see the history), but Sulfur basically attacked me by reverting them without digging into my reasons. He just assumed I was on some kind of spree. Of course, he will be proven wrong in the end, as usual, since I'm much better informed than he is.


 * Also, you weren't rude to me, but you were rude to the logic (as I noted above), without any good reason. You wanted to make an assumption in the canon section (!), even though you could've avoided it simply by not adding any speed. Cobra had to explain commonsense concepts to you, such as the difference between "most advanced" and "fastest", but he didn't have to, since you could've just as well read my first post on the subject on the Talk page. How can you justify such disregard for the integrity of the canon? Just because it's not real life, you feel it doesn't matter if your facts are wrong?


 * I expect to have the freedom to make argued edits, and for other people to have the freedom to revert my edits based on argument, not by adding "reasons" such as "do not change this" into the history. That was insulting to me personally, since I had taken the trouble to justify them and read the existing discussion. No matter, though - I will be proven right in the end, since I'm simply much better informed. – 1312.4 17:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

stardate
hi!, ok for your message, but how consider the stardate: 1277.1, Kirk's birthday ? why it isn't in your board ? that's stardate is accepted on kirk's page... (if you know french language, I prefer...) C-IMZADI-4 23:08, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

9.975

 * (moved from User talk:Cid Highwind)

Do you understand that someone made an unreferenced edit (without quoting a character's specific line in a specific scene) to the effect that the Enterprise-E can reach a higher warp factor than Voyager? Also, do you realize that you just locked the article to that unreferenced edit, instead of locking it to my version without any warp factor (which is safe, and can always be amended to one with a warp factor if there is proof)? Have you forgotten about the need for referenced statements on a wiki? This is seriously disappointing. Who does Sulfur think he is that he can start an edit war, by reverting my changes without answering my arguments? – 1312.4 23:22, December 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I perfectly do realize that, thanks for asking again... I thought I explained my reasons in enough details already, but here it goes... my options:
 * Do nothing: not a good option because people are having a frakking edit war on this wiki!
 * Protect while keeping your changes: siding with you.
 * Protect while removing just your changes to the "speed" attribute: siding with the other party.
 * Protect while reverting to a revision that has survived basically unchanged for some months: as neutral as possible.
 * -- Cid Highwind 23:37, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

In other words, it's so much safer to leave the ship with a debatable maximum speed than with no known maximum speed at all. Wonderful logic - so much about the wiki-form, with zero consideration for content. I hope you're not involved in anything in real life which requires the content to be accurate. – 1312.4 00:03, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * More discussing the point, less insults - they don't work too well, anyway, as I don't care much what random people from somewhere around the globe consider to be my fitness for some arbitrary task. The only thing you achieve by spewing insults is to make me care less about the good point you may actually have. -- Cid Highwind 00:16, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Great, so random people around the globe can make you care less about their potentialy good points, and by extension, about MA's content. More wonderful news. Do you run everything by vote and consensus, instead of trying to understand an issue and taking the side that is safer for MA's accuracy? I feel like I'm explaining rocket science here - what's so difficult about "don't include a debatable, unproven speed"? – 1312.4 00:25, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that the explanations have not gotten through to you, yet - that's probably because you feel attacked and/or neglected (unnecessarily, I might add). So, good advice: take some time off, and let's have a clean start of the discussion (on the relevant talk page, not here) in some hours. If you do not want to take that advice, feel free to add more insulting commentary to this page. I will read and move the whole wall of text to your page tomorrow, after I've had some hours of sleep. Thanks and good night. -- Cid Highwind 00:35, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can see how your insistence to remain "neutral" at the expense of MA's accuracy can be problematic on your Talk page. After all, we're not talking about arcane details here - it's about people boldly assuming (in the canon section!) that "the most advanced starship" means "it has the highest maximum warp factor", which is not the kind of simple logic error you want to be seen supporting. – 1312.4 07:58, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1312, Cid did his role in mediating this edit war just as he was supposed to. He reverted the article to what had been stable, and therefore the community consensus, for many months. He locked it in what had been a non-contenscious version of the article. That's what he is supposed to do when an edit war happens. Yes, the version had incorrect information, but had you handled yourself better defending your point on the discussion page, there would not have been an edit war. There would have been no need for Cid to intervene. There would have been no need for me to come along and point out what you'd already said. Had you not continued in your negative attitude, you would not be currently blocked from editing Memory Alpha. I know you claim to be "acting in the interest of MA readers," but MA has been around for a long time and will be around for a long time. A few days of false information isn't going to have a major impact on the readers of MA in the long term. Now you can't do anything at all for those readers. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:02, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * How is 1312's behavior intimidating and harassing, warranting a block? To my knowledge, he has not made any controversial edits after he was warned, he has not used insults, threatening or degrading language, he is just expressing his discontent with a situation - now warranted or not is another debate - so I dont think it is right to straight-out block him for that. I recognize that the conversation has become uncomfortable and heated but unless someone seriously crosses the line, I think using a "block" to essentially end or block a debate you dont like is unfair and not right. – Distantlycharmed 05:28, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't care. All that matters is, Sulfur and 31dot have already been proven analytically careless and therefore, they have lost. Had I been in Sulfur's place, I would've read my initial explanation on the talk page and in the history before reverting with so much conviction and continuing to revert (which caused the edit war, since I couldn't let such arrogant behavior stand), and had I been in Cid's place, I would've taken five minutes to understand that the statement was completely unreferenced and locked the article with an empty speed attribute until Talk could come up with references, making it clear that "consensus" based on half-remembered lines or bold assumptions will not be tolerated even for a second. My block will expire eventually and I will revise that entire article from start to finish, no doubt causing great distress to those interested in the status quo, but this time I won't bother to argue - I will merely keep copying/pasting my original explanation, slightly modifying it until the reader gets it, because that is all I've been doing so far essentially. – 1312.4 07:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont know anything about the merits of the debate and dont care to interfere. My comment is regarding the block which is completely out of line and uncalled for. There is no reason to block you, you have not violated anything. – Distantlycharmed 07:28, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * If those edits you are going to make are uncontroversial, feel free - however, as far as you are threatening another edit war concerning more than just the speed value we're now in the process of dealing with, don't bother! "My way or the highway" and generally being uncooperative won't lead to you "winning" (and as an aside, if you consider "winning" some argument to be your top goal here, you really haven't understood the wiki process), it will just lead to you being blocked again while others try to find the consensus that you could have found right at the start. -- Cid Highwind 11:13, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * DC the block is perfectly valid. This user has demonstrated that he is unwilling to follow standard wiki processes here and in the past when he thinks he is right(or even when he is right).  It was not done because anyone "did not like" the debate or that he was "expressing discontent".  He has also done more than express discontent, he has done so in an offensive manner.  Sulfur or I did not block him, Archduk3 did, who wasn't really invovled.
 * I reject the idea that I am "analytically careless" just for offering alternative ideas, which is all I was doing.--31dot 12:06, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone point out what he did specifically  wrong to justify a flat out block? I mean he is "unwilling to follow standard wiki processes" is hardly a violation if not followed by some concrete action. Has he vandalized? Has he ruined articles? Has he called anyone names? Has he threatened anyone with anything? Has he used derogatory language? What did he do concretely to warrant a block? Looking at his comments above none of it seems to fit those descriptions. – Distantlycharmed 18:10, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * 31dot said:


 * I reject the idea that I am "analytically careless" just for offering alternative ideas, which is all I was doing.--31dot 12:06, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * You proposed that the Enterprise-E is factually faster than Voyager because in your experience, more advanced Star Trek starships are faster. In my experience, English-speaking Star Trek fans were usually born in the United States. Therefore, you _are_ from the United States, and I don't need to put "unknown place of birth" if I can't make sure. If it should turn out you're not, I was not being analytically careless, merely offering alternative ideas. Do you agree? – 1312.4 18:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not "propose" that. I said that was the impression I got from my experiences with Star Trek.  --31dot 01:21, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * You proposed it because you chose to state such an impression instead of being outraged at the error. Stating an impression like that is supportive of careless analysis. If John Doe, an American atheist, were to complain to a journalist about getting his facts wrong about John Doe's lack of religious affiliation, and another journalist were to say, "Well, in my experience, most Americans are Christian", what would you think of this second journalist? Is he being just as analytically careless or merely offering alternative ideas? My conclusion is that both journalists are careless. – 1312.4 06:51, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to feel that way. I know what I was doing and have stated so- you can feel what you wish. As the No personal attacks page says, this is all for fun.  We're not writing the Encyclopedia Britannica here so I guess errors like that do not outrage me as much as they do you.  I take things seriously but I don't get "outraged", even if things get a little heated.  I'd suggest you learn to do so.  I'm going to move on because clearly we are not going to see eye to eye.--31dot 10:55, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course this is just a fun game, but you are clearly one of those people who don't like to be told that they were careless with a particular chess move and that because of that, they were checkmated. You can call it an "alternative idea" or whatever you like, but it doesn't change the fact that your game is unlikely to improve with such an attitude. This is a game, one in which both you and Sulfur failed to see from my original explanation how previous contributors had broken the Rule of the Canon Section (meaning, everything in there must logically follow from the canon). You can try to "offer an alternative idea" in support of their error, but the rules won't change as a result of that. So, perhaps I was blocked for a day, but my edit will remain, while your edits and Sulfur's edits will be rejected more and more unless you start agreeing with this kind of logic in the future, no matter how much you dislike a frank assessment. – 1312.4 19:26, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's it. At least for the time being if not forever, I will not attempt to make any more improvements to your "consensus-driven canon, whatever the logic", in which there is no room for pointing out carelessness. Sulfur couldn't be bothered to read my comments in the edit history, couldn't be bothered to read my original explanation, couldn't be bothered to agree with me once I had pointed out his error for the second time, but he can sure revert with conviction and keep extending my block. I've rarely encountered people with so much ego that they can't admit to their mistakes, and then wonder why someone keeps criticizing their logic over and over again. – 1312.4 19:51, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Block Log, Archduk extended your block, not Sulfur. In fact he corrected the block to allow you to edit this page. --31dot 19:57, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * When I attempt an edit, the message still says "Blocked by: Sulfur", and below that, "needs some more time to think it over". If the message was written by Archduk, then my mistake (see, it's not so hard!) is understandable - bad UI design, since the implication is that Sulfur wrote that message. No matter - I've already thought it over and it is impossible to deal with such a third-rate approach to Star Trek analysis, where contributors are afraid to admit to their mistakes and call them "alternative ideas" or "fun" instead. Please reserve your alternative ideas for your next game of baseball, basketball, football, chess, or instead have a sit-down in which you would redefine my Rule of the Canon Section above. – 1312.4 20:13, December 14, 2010 (UTC)