User talk:Cleanse/Archive 2

Holo-Cam
Thanks for putting in the Tribunal reference into the holo-imager article, as well as the forwarding for holo-cam. --BloodMalice 01:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

AotW
Thanks for nominating Quark's for Article of the Week! The article is one of my babies, and I'm so happy it's become a FA and now nommed for AotW. Thanks! :o) -- Taduolus 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I've updated the AotW template so that Quark's will appear next week as you proposed (currently it was still showing the Xindi aquatics), and added a third paragraph (as it seems 3 paragraphs is the norm for AotWs on the front page). I didn't pick the 3rd paragraph in sequence from the article, but chose my favourite paragraph from the History section as I really like that one and want to show it off ;o) -- Taduolus 09:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good. :-)– Cleanse 09:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow...
I completely screwed that one up... :) thanks! – Morder 00:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's okay - I had to doublecheck that one to make sure I wasn't the one screwing up. :-)


 * For the record, episode articles can be written in either past or present tense - per Memory Alpha:Point of view. However, you're right that by convention they are nearly always written in present tense.– Cleanse 00:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to thank you for your tip. I knew my page really wasn't appropriate for those categories. :) --31dot 23:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote situation
In our recent difficulty with the quote stuff, I am growing more and more suspicious that we might be dealing with the same person using two accounts to create an appearance of broader support. I can prove nothing and have no administrator tools so it would be improper to make any formal accusations. Perhaps others can look into it, but the evidence is beginning to mount up with similar writing styles, support for exactly the same quote, both accounts being relativly new, similar offensive at exactly the same people and comments, and apparently writing the same lenghty multi-paragraph answers to simple questions. Hmmmm. What do you think? -FC 15:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Fort Knox Nomination
Hi, I noticed you reverted the article above so that the nomination process is on the article's (above) talk page again? I did this originally but Alan took it off and left a message on my talk page saying failed nominations go in the archive and only successful nominations go on the talk page. Can you clarify, 'cos it seems I'm being told two different things? The way I thought you did it was to just place the nomination on the talk page regardless of the outcome. I didn't know about the archive, though. I will remember that for future reference. Thanks. -- TrekFan Talk 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Successful nominations go onto the talk page. Historically, failed ones did too, but at a certain point, we simply began putting them into the archive page, in order to keep track of all failures in one place. -- Sulfur 18:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So failed ones do not go on the talk page? In that case, was Cleanse wrong to re-add the nomination to the talk page? -- TrekFan Talk 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I didn't touch the talk page. Look at the history. I only removed the FA tag from the article:, because it was still there after the nomination had failed.– Cleanse 23:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk page discussions
Well first of all, thanks a lot for the editing, it was really bothering me that it didn't feel right. The way your organized it was perfect. And as for the removing, I did what I've seen done, but thank you for informing me of the correct way to go about it. I apologize for the novice mistakes, and thanks again for being kind in your approach.

P.S. I will probably be stealin... "plagiarizing" your method of organization ;) – Saphsaph 03:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Captain Typhuss strikes again
Just thought I would bring this to your attention, since you talked to this user already- they changed the year on the Transphasic torpedo page.

I would guess that this is the same person who did this as an anon user a little while ago.--31dot 20:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Something old, but...
Sorry to bring up something really old, but on your old talk page I remember making a comment about being flawed because Ch'Pok asked O'Brien a hypothetical question/situation. Well, I just finished watching that episode, and toward the end, Ch'Pok rejects a question from Sisko because it was "vague and hypothetical". That's why I had a problem with it. ;) --cinder 00:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey!
What's wrong with rethreading some common themes? --Captain Covington 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Those bars are for story arcs. "Present day setting" is not an arc.– Cleanse 09:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what narrow manual of style fetish you have, but you're free to enjoy your power trip. It's folks like you that put me off of Wikipedia, and now I can't even have a little fun with Star Trek. Good bye. --Captain Covington 09:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Er...okay then. Just telling you how the sidebars work, which is a content issue rather than stylistic anyway. – Cleanse 10:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow.....Cleanse, I'm not sure how your explanation is a "power trip". He asked, you answered.  Guess you're power hungry........... :)--31dot 11:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorized
Question. And I'm asking just out of curiosity, but what part of the policies would allow an unauthorized work to be used as a source? Talk:The Royale (episode) Not being sarcastic, just generally curious. I thought unauthorized immediately meant non-canon. – Saphsaph 05:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing sources for in-universe statements and sources for production info. The former must have canon sources. The latter can be substantiated from any publication or site, regardless of whether Paramount has approved of it or not.


 * Naturally, we must consider the credibility of such sources and an authorised source would be preferred, but I was making the point that neither contained the claimed reference, while both having a significant amount of comments from the production staff on making the episode.– Cleanse 06:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an example. Suppose an article said:

"Spock had a brain"


 * It could only be substantiated by a canon source, so you'd add at the end.


 * If that same article then had a comment in background:

Brannon Braga considered "Spock's Brain" the best episode of TOS.


 * I could cite it with any (reputable) reference work that quoted Mr. Braga saying this, regardless of whether Paramount approved of the reference work or not. I hope this clarifies things. And please use internal links. Thanks, – Cleanse 07:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a Braga fan? :-P --OuroborosCobra talk 07:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining it! And I've been trying to use them!  I'm still a wiki newbie, but now thanks to you I would use something like sun instead of typing the whole thing.  However I didn't know we could do it with talk pages... I see what you did there... *writes this down in his mental how-to book*
 * And heh... I just started watching TOS... I'm getting more and more scared as I approach that episode... How bad could it be? I did stay awake through Threshold and TNG's clip episode – Saphsaph 07:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was bad =( – Saphsaph 14:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Chair unsigned anon
I saw you signed for the anon ip on Talk:Chair but am wondering if that is even something to keep on the talk page. The post seems to be made for no other purpose that to antagonize people and suggest that there was a "secret edit war" going on. I dont mind if such a comment stays but should we simply revert it as an unrelated comment to a closed discussions? What do you think. -FC 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I agree the comment has little merit, it's not clear vandalism or personal attack, so I don't think it is really appropriate to remove it outright. As for the discussion being closed, the anon made the comment only an hour or so after you did.– Cleanse 23:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Geeky Stuff
Cleanse [which makes me feel like I'm talking to either Spock's Brain or a Data that's merged with Q], thanks for cleaning up the spacing in a quote I entered. But I tried to make it consistent with the other quotes. That particular one was entered from a Linux browser, which uses the usual Unix [line feed] convention for End of Line. If your software is oriented towards Windows conventions (and of course Redmond is the Dominion of the Alpha Quadrant)[Carriage Return - Line Feed], it wouldn't take much to detect Unix entries automatically. Have you talked with your techie folks about making such manual intervention unnecessary? Thanks – CraigG 01:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

tag. If you do that, it should come out right.– Cleanse 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm neither a techie guy nor have I ever used Unix ;-), so I'm not really sure I completely understand your question. But with quotes, we always do the line breaks manually with the

Thanks
It wasn't vandalism but I was going to remove it anyway. For some reason I don't receive emails when my talk page changes and uberfuzzy was testing it out :) &mdash; Morder 09:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just on the alert after the last attack we had. ;-) – Cleanse 09:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Feedback needed
Sorry to bother you, but I would really like to prevent my FA-nomination from passing unnoticed. I'd be deeply grateful for every feedback! Thank you, --36ophiuchi 11:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

JJ Abrams Interview
Hi Cleanse, I'm on the Wikia Entertainment team and wanted to let you know about an upcoming interview between the memory-alpha community and JJ Abrams! People in the community can submit questions via talk page, Admins will determine the 10-20 best questions, we'll send the questions to Mr. Abrams, and he'll reply via email. This is a great opportunity to attract new readers and users to the wiki and should be alot of fun. More details are here: -- Karim (talk ) 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitiation to join service record game
Hey, how are you doing. I would like to invite you to take a look at a new internet game I designed. If you wuld like to play it, you can send an e-mail to stsrs@live.com. It requires as much or as little participation as you want and the records generated by the game are regularly e-mailed and can be burned to a CD when/if a character retires. I think you will truely enjoy it and I am looking for live action player. Thank you! -FC 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm not interested. :-) – Cleanse 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, or the robot that contacted me in your name.
I made a small edit to one page. An automated reply sent me here. Unsupported accusations of prostitution do not belong in the public domain.

Incites
The reason I added incites to them was, even if they're facts, there's no proof that they were intentional references...I really hate that section - speculation abound :) &mdash; Morder 15:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is...it's a fact that Leonard Nimoy last gave the monologue in, or that mud fleas were referenced first on Enterprise. We don't need real world citations for that, and we're almost certainly not going to get any. I've offered a suggestion on Talk:Star Trek (film) to avoid the claim that all of these are intentional homages, and which is more consistent with various episode pages.– Cleanse 23:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Medusan merge
I think I merged Forum:Federation/Medusan contact with Talk:Medusan,(as the question was about them). Can you look and see if I didn't mess things up too much, as I haven't done it before? Thanks.--31dot 00:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. :-) I deleted the forum redirect though and the links to it now that it's been moved.– Cleanse 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Or not. So much for my help. ;-) – Cleanse 01:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking.--31dot 15:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)