User:OuroborosCobra/2010 Talk Archive

'''This is an archive of discussions from 2010 previously located on User talk:OuroborosCobra. As it is an archive, please do not edit these discussions. Feel free to open new conversations on the original talk page.'''

Data Contraction
Hm, I guess I was incorrect on the exact wording, but the episode was on last night, and he definetly said "He's", not "he is". 216.136.4.136 18:05, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Those sound so close it is very hard to tell apart listening. My guess is that he just said "he is" very fast. The transcript is taken from what is actually said. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:07, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

My talk page
Hey OC, I just wanted to point out that Talk:Doctor Who started to go off topic somewhere around the point where you cautioned me about disruptiveness in my creation of other pages for demonstration purposes. While connected, it was a comment about my behavior, not the topic, and became a separate conversation. I've moved that conversation to my talk page, since you observed it was not about the talk page topic. It might've been better just bringing it to my talk first.

When I feel disrespected, I do tend to try and lighten things up, like my pretending not to know what you were talking about the other night. I didn't feel you were dealing with me on a one-to-one level, so I didn't take you or the situation seriously, since you were outraged on behalf of a banned IP that, on many other sites I admin, wouldn't rate a second thought.

Looking back, I can see you are very mindful of possible admin abuse from discussions in your past, and I understand that, but I wasn't and am not trying to administrate your behavior, I was just surfing by the site and made a mistake when i saw a vandalism report, and was surprised you felt the need to initiate so much communication and attention for a mistake i was planning to fix anyway.

Please, accept my apology. -- Captain MKB 05:09, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Again, I feel like our interactions have become distracting from the overall discussion on the page we started on tonight, and I would like to leave the bulk of our back-and-forth to my talk page, since it did not apply to talk:doctor Who. Again, my apologies, i led it down this course and don't want to derail that discussion with 5 KB of our back-and-forth. no comments have been deleted, but the pages have been moved. Please respond before reverting if you have issue. -- Captain MKB 05:21, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do have an issue. You make it out as a continuation of the old discussion, restarted by me, when it was nothing of the sort. I did not bring up the old, already resolved issue. You did. You're attempting to paint it as a "continuation" is an utterly false representation of the issue. If you didn't want it to come out on the Doctor Who page, you should not have revived it there in the first place. Now you just want to hide it? I would have accepted your apology before that, but not if you are going to use "peace" as an excuse to mischaracterize my actions. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:24, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to characterize anything - I started to rehash things myself, that was me - it got the ball rolling.

As I said, I'm just trying to move this big hunk of text about you and I away from the talk discussion that got taken off track. There's nothing there about the Dr Who page, except for tangential descriptions of my 'disruption to prove a point' - It's not hidden at all, if anyone want to see my disruption, they sure can click it in my talk. It was my mistake and my talk page bears the record.

If you want to keep going, user to user, fine, I'll try to answer whatever's put here or on my talk. As I've already let you know, I think you are taking a lot of things more seriously than I am, and I do apologize. -- Captain MKB 05:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * You have already achieved the goal of "getting to the point" on the Doctor Who page with the section titled as such, where I agree with your proposal. I will not abide by a move of the rest to your talk page for precisely the reason I have spelled out, it makes it look like I was petty and intentionally restarted an argument about a resolved issue. I didn't. You did. That was all you. Not me. I will not allow you to continue to mischaracterize my behavior by attaching it to the other conversation, nor will I allow you to remove relevant comments of mine on the handling of the Doctor Who debate. Again, if you don't like it, you shouldn't have done it. Sleep in the bed you made. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:39, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * "You won't abide" -- since when are you the sole decision maker on this site? I think you should leave things as they be and let someone mediate this edit war. Talk pages and misplaced discussions have been moved before, regardless of whether or not someone was embarrassed by them. I'm plenty embarrassed, but the issue is the fact that it was off topic. I'll be embarrassed regardless of how this ends up. How does a large body of off topic text in the wrong place justify your need to prove that? -- Captain MKB 05:45, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Reverts
Don't revert it all... let's avoid an edit war here. Let Cid poke his head into things (likely tomorrow). -- sulfur 19:39, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already finished, sorry. He shouldn't have edited it all. He made sweeping changes to dozens of articles, making this a MASSIVE change to Memory Alpha on his part, near unilaterally. Far from consensus, he was basically the only one in favor of the change, with many editors against, and some, such as Cid, on the fence. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:40, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Happy consensus
If that's how you want it, I'm out of here. You can obviously do what you like, but it doesn't change the fact that your all-important apparent consensus is based on arguments such as "well, sure it's an assumption, but there's no proof against it either"; "look at the analogy with Philadelphia, PA, it must apply 100%", "we generally go with the first name and you can't change five years of internet history, who cares if it's correct". If all you have is a consensus of people who would much rather "feel" the canon than analyze and report about it logically, it's not going to help you, and neither is the fact that you're unwilling to use logic to override arguments on the level of twelve-year-olds. Like it or not, MA is merely fan-fiction which uses canon as one of its sources. – NotOfTheBody 20:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do what I like? You are the one who edited dozens of articles to match your opinion without consensus of the community, and largely in opposition to it. If the wiki philosophy is not something you like, maybe you should leave. I would personally hope that isn't the decision you make, though. While we disagree on this issue, and the community at large seems to, your edits here are done in good faith. Your goal here is admirable, the improvement and accuracy of Memory Alpha. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:27, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Swahili
Dear "OuroborosCobra,"

Unlike most of your contributors, I've been a Trekker since 1967. I'm also a professional historian of U. S. and African history and I speak Kiswahili. I'd hoped to bring all of this to bear in making contributions to this site, particularly since these things are among the many under-explored subtexts of "Star Trek," which was a pioneer in cultural diversity. However, I felt that the edits made by one of your administrators were peremptory, especially in the case of a first-time contributor.

As a result, I've lost all interest in contributing, particularly if I'd risk encountering such an abrupt response again. I'd hoped to help place aspects of "Star Trek" within the broader socio-politico-cultural context in which it was shaped and, in turn, it helped to shape, but it appears that my contributions do not easily conform to the site's guidelines, or at least others' interpretation of them. So be it. If you find whatever I contributed useful, great -- that, after all, was my purpose. However, my decision stands. If you can't delete/remove my account, please let me know how I could do so.

Thank you for your kindness, sensitivity and consideration, which I wish were more widespread. I have the honor to remain

Cordial-Lee yours,

Paul Lee (my real name)


 * The "Kiswahili" bit actually belongs on the Swahili language page, where it can be found in the background section. Just fyi. -- sulfur 11:10, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Blocks
I did it to just stop it in it's tracks. The edit really couldn't be done by accident. I suppose I could have waited...and I reacted too quickly as I didn't see I blocked the wrong ip. I guess I should finish for the day. Oh well, if it happens again I'll reconsider it. :) &mdash; Morder (talk) 02:00, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there reason to believe they weren't stopped? Generally mass repeat editors don't wait 15 or more minutes between edits. Certainly they deserved a message on their page related to the block, rather than an encouragement to learn to edit more in the sandbox, followed by an administrator stopping them from what they were being encouraged to do. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:02, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I was writing a message when you edit conflicted and I just left it at that. You may be right about the repeating but we have too many problems in that regard with anons and I took the safe route. Maybe it wasn't the right choice, maybe it was but it was made and now I have to live with any issues that may result from it. &mdash; Morder (talk) 02:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we really have that many problems? Are the anons REALLY that big a problem? Let's face it, most anon edits here aren't vandalistic, and most edits here aren't anon. I find it kind of funny that admins will jump the gun on an anon, but leave someone like StoryMaster or Trek&CSI or commander data going for days, weeks, even months. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:15, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

All your stuff mentioned was before my time. Anyway, I've always seen it as a problem but whatever. &mdash; Morder (talk) 02:24, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, consider that in the last 24 hours, we've had nearly 500 edits, and your block was the only one. There have been some days this week without any blocks. How big a problem is it, really? Why do we need to treat it as something to jump on as if the house was burning down? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:39, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't really care. We have issues with vandals all the time. I took a preemptive stance and that's that... &mdash; Morder (talk) 04:47, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

IAMD Update
Hi, OuroborosCobra. I see you conditionally supported the removal of featured article last year, on the condition that the summary be made shorter. I'd therefore like to let you know that not only has the summary been considerably shortened but also a lot more background info has been added to the article, which has been duly renominated for FA status. --Defiant 04:30, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

General Chang Image
Hmm, what if I were to lighten up the photo of General Chang? Would that help or do you think it would take away from the "canon" considering it would be a modified image then? --Nihilus Shadow 00:53, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of altering the images. I'd suggest a picture from a different scene. Perhaps the transporter scene, where the Klingon guests are leaving after dinner? --OuroborosCobra talk 01:12, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, although I'm not sure there are any good full body shots of the General in those scenes. Probably plenty off good close up, head shots though.  I'll let you know. --Nihilus Shadow 00:13, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Worf
I see what I did wrong there with Worf's image, (the image of course is labeled 2375), but I didn't catch it until after I updated it. If I were to upload that image as a new photo and label it Worf2379, would you say that image is decent or should I take another look. I'm also still looking into that General Chang image. --Nihilus Shadow 06:20, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * The image you have of Worf from Nemesis is quite good. It would definitely make a good one for the top of the article. Upload away :-) --OuroborosCobra talk 06:22, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Lorelei Signal
I don't understand why you deleted my comment. GO check out the exact same section for the first TAS episode. They have a similar bit with Scotty.--Brumagnus 21:48, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Other things exist" is not justification. Those other things should be removed. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:57, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed on reflection. Perhaps if others had done their job better, such problems wouldn't keep occuring. You should thank me for being here to help consolidate everything seeing as this site needs serious improvements and updates.--Brumagnus 05:43, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * On that I will definitely thank you :-) --OuroborosCobra talk 06:41, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Bujord Reference
Thank you for the discussion page comments of support regarding the Performers considered for Star Trek roles. As a new contributor, I appreciate the open-minded discussion of issues.--TRHickey 19:24, June 20, 2010 (UTC)