User:TrekFan/TalkArchive08

Hello to our friends in the UK
"The English, the English, the English are best!". Great to meet a nice person from the Isles. I am sorry for making it sound like I didn't like the UK (I actually think its an awesome place!). I'm sure there are a lot of nice British people around. Wikipedia also has a large population of Russian editors and editors from the Scandanavian countries so I did not mean to pick on the UK since those other two groups can be just as bad (if not worse) with harrasing American editors. But then, there are nice folks in those two groups too. So, as Winston once said: "Never has so much been owed to so few" :-) -FC 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. Everywhere has it's jerks, including England and America. Nice to meet you. I'm starting a friends list on my user page. Mind if I put you on it? -- TrekFan 23:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Friends List
Hey, sorry about the delay in responding. I've been kinda busy. Anyways, I don't have a problem with you adding me to your user page. :) Willie LLAP 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. And thanks! -- TrekFan 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolving FA Nominations
Just to let you know, you resolved the FA nomination for Klingon history too early. As per FA nomination policy, "A nomination can be resolved if it has been inactive for seven days, meaning that there were no new opposing votes in that time."

"Klingon history" was suggested on the 12th and archived on the 17th. That's 6 days.

With a clear consensus on that article, this is just some technical nitpicking. But in the future, could we please wait the requisite time? Thanks, – Cleanse 00:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise. I must have misread. I thought it was nominated a day earlier than that. I will double check in future. Sorry! -- TrekFan 00:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about it, mate. Just letting you know. We don't want people challenging the legitimacy of an FA because the discussion was closed too early.– Cleanse 00:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. And once again, sorry. I'll double check in future. -- TrekFan 16:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Fort Knox Nomination
Hi TrekFan. While I love the work you've put in to date on the Operation Fort Knox page, I think there is some room for improvement. I've made some suggestions on the talkpage and would be happy to help get it up there. I haven't done anything yet out of respect that it is really your project, seeing as you've contributed the vast majority of it.

As such, I won't comment on the Nominations page yet, but keep up the good work and I'm sure it'll get there. Tanky 05:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tanky. I was looking for some comments and suggestions anyway. -- TrekFan 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I may have overlooked it, but in case I am wrong, please make sure that you properly archive the discussion for featured articles when you remove them from the nominations for featured articles page. Failed nominations need to be placed in archive, successful nominations need to be placed on the talk page of the successful article. Thanks. --Alan 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: I archived it, but I can't speak for the rest from recent activity, if there is anything else that you think has been missed (as I've noted you have removed things in the past) please do the same. Thanks :) --Alan 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. -- TrekFan Talk 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Spaces
Hey TF, well I put bigger spaces between paragraphs mostly because visually it is easier to read and more appealing. Leaving only one space bar between paragraphs just makes the summary page look cluttered and as if it was just one solid block of text - which can be discouraging. So I really believe leaving more space in between paragraphs makes accessing and reading the page and information contained within it more appealing and 'cleaner" if you so will. The spaces I leave are, therefore, really not "random". Imagine you read a newspaper article or a paper or even an email and everything is jammed into one or two tight paragraphs. Makes you not wanna approach it - it is kind of overwhelming. Anyway, hope that makes sense. – Distantlycharmed 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but the MA standard is to just have the one space in between paragraphs, not four or five. And what was with the new lines in the middle of sentences? I saw that a lot throughout the article. If you want to edit on MA, you need to follow the policies and guidelines. -- TrekFan 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not gonna get into another debate over the rigidity of the system here. MA guidelines should make sense and be re-evaluated, especially when someone has an idea for improvement. Spacing paragraphs more widely makes the pages look more appealing, cleaner and crisp ( I didnt do 5 by the way, only 2). If you don't think it is worth re-evaluating (whatever authority you have to make that judgment) and just want to point out to rules again, so be it. Apparently since I dont have a "blue" account my suggestions are also not taken seriously. Oh well. I also am not sure what you mean with the new lines in the middle of a sentence. I use IE at home for editing and ever since MA changed, the edit page looks weird and freezes often. So that might just have been a random error. – Distantlycharmed 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When did I say I don't take you seriously because you have a "red link"? You have used this excuse before when nobody has been saying anything of the sort against you. All you need to do is have a good read of the MA guidelines and these debates can be avoided. By the way, if you simply added something to your user page, your name wouldn't appear red, not that it has any impact on my opinion of a user. -- TrekFan 23:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Look everytime something is slightly changed or improved, I hear the same "refer to MA rules" standard response and get dismissed - as if the MA guidelines were the ten commandments that couldnt possibly be changed. When someone has a suggestion then the correct way is to assess it and give arguments for or against the suggested change before making a decision. And yes it was another user under the Picard Quote debate who said he is annoyed that every now and then someone with a "red" account who has seen a few episodes comes in and wants to change things. True, it wasn't you, but I got this feeling that there simply is no felxibility here or room for allowing for input and suggestions.– Distantlycharmed 00:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is 'flexibility' and 'room for suggestions'. You just have to go about doing it within the scope of the rules of MA. Any organisation/project/group needs rules by which to follow or there would be chaos. Stick to the rules and you will be OK. Before making any major changes, just discuss it on the talk page first - that's what it's there for. In some cases, people have spent hours on an article and it's not fair when someone comes along and deletes/changes something that in fairness should could been kept, or at least discussed. Also, when you are using talk pages (such as this user talk page), remember that the person intiating the conversation doesn't need to indent. Only people who join conversations indent and everytime someone does they indent +1. That way it makes it clear a different person is speaking. -- TrekFan 01:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to initiate a principles debate everytime I add a period or comma to a section. I have not changed the structure of anything around here, merely increased paragraph spacing in order to make the text visually appealing. That's all. I dont disagree with having rules, but some people seem to see themselves as the ultimate authority on this, dumping on others everytime an improvement is suggested. You cannot seriously believe that attempting to clean up a section that looks cluttered otherwise is a bad idea. Anyway dont worry, I will not increase the paragraph spacing from now on, god forbid. – Distantlycharmed 03:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for using your talk page for this, TrekFan - perhaps you might want to think about moving this whole discussion to Distantlycharmed's talk page, where it all started.


 * Anyway, commenting on what was said above: Yes, guidelines should make sense, and might need to be reevaluated every once in a while. However, the guideline to create paragraphs by adding one blank line does make sense. Technically, every additional blank line just adds unnecessary formatting to the HTML source of a page. The correct way to achieve a different spacing between paragraphs would be to use CSS - something you can do for yourself, if you want, and we'd even help you with that if you just asked. This would also have the advantage of changing all pages to that new format, and not just the one page among nearly 30,000 that you happened to edit. Doing it that way doesn't really make sense, does it?


 * On a more general level, you complained, more than once, that you're not allowed to "suggest improvements". This is simply not true - you are. However, keep in mind that this site has been active for nearly five years now. So, not everything you might think of as an "improvement" really is one, or even is a new idea for that matter. Also keep in mind that "suggesting" does not equal "simply changing it on one page or another" - that just makes the site inconsistent. If you really want to suggest, do so by opening up a discussion somewhere. -- Cid Highwind 10:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for jumping in there Cid. I don't think Distantly understands what we are trying to tell him. Distantly, basically, just open up a discussion on talk page BEFORE you go making any major changes. That's all we ask. I am now moving this to Distantly's talk page. -- TrekFan 13:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved to User talk:Distantlycharmed

Unnecessary Editing
From User talk:Distantlycharmed:
 * Can I just ask you why you keep going into articles and editing templates and links when they were fine the way they were? Your most recent one, in the episode article, I reverted because you removed the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) template from it. Templates are there for a reason. Stop removing them from articles. -- TrekFan Talk 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And may i ask you why you keep being on my case all the damn time about everything? – Distantlycharmed 02:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is the one responding to your editing "problems" does not justify the existence of said problems, and is not an excuse for them. If it were not him responding, it would be me or any of the many other editors here. Trekfan just beat us to it. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks OC. Distantly, can I ask what possible reason there is for you to go into an article and remove the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) template and replace it with USS Enterprise-D ??? It's not as if you wrote the article like that, which could be put down to inexperience, but you intentionally go into an article and change it. And what gets me is, you only make the one change! You don't even contribute something useful to the article. I just want to know why you feel the need to do this after several people have informed you of the MA policies and how to edit appropriately?. -- TrekFan Talk 16:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained Reverts
Could you please explain why you're reverting so many edits made by DistantlyCharmed? If it's not vandalism or patently incorrect you need to "show cause" in the edit summary. I see nothing wrong with the changes he/she made on, or - in fact they look beneficial (especially the latter, which fixed several awkward sentences and added detail to the last paragraph).– Cleanse 00:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cleanse. TrekFan is mistaken that I only changed the ship templates and didnt contribute anything else. I actually wrote and/or expanded on many of the episodes that were mostly incomplete or poorly written - as you correctly noted. Moreover, he has gone over the episode edits I made on "The High Ground" and reverted it back to the bad writing and style it was in. I am sorry but what kind of a sentence is "Riker asks why would they abduct someone like her, a Federation officer as it does not involve them. Worf replies with "It does now." ?? This is the worst sentence I have ever read and it doesnt even make sense. There is a good way and a bad way (i.e. grammatically and stylistically bad way) to re-tell a dialogue and this is undoubtedly the bad way. And you edited out the entire conversation Crusher had with the character;  one of the most important parts of this episode was that conversation they had and its contents. Please stop singling me out and making unnecessary changes to my edits. – Distantlycharmed 05:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the last revert. After re-looking at it, maybe I shouldn't have reverted it. The reason I reverted the others was because Distantly went through the articles and changed templates like USS Voyager and replaced them with USS Voyager and deleted sections of text that made sense and could have been left. I should have placed an explanation in the summary and I am sorry for not doing that. -- TrekFan Talk 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I changed it from USS Voyager to Voyager was because in a summary page of an episode it is awkward, not to mention unnecessary, to be writing out the ship's exact classification and designation. After all, when the Captain records her log entry, she doesnt say "the USS Voyager" but rather "Voyager". Moreover, when in an episode guide for the series "Star Trek Voyager" it is not necessary to remind the reader of the ship's exact designation and classification - USS Voyager (as opposed to another Voyager?). The same is true when writing the summary page for TNG and changing it from USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) to the Enterprise: everyone knows this is the Enterprise from the TNG and not another one. If another Enterprise happens to appear in a given episode, then it is accordingly designated.– Distantlycharmed 16:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When you first mention Voyager in an article, you put the template 'cos it's quicker and easier. Subsequent mentions of Voyager do not need links and can simply be italicized like: Voyager. For example: "The  USS Voyager  was an Intrepid class starship, one of four commissioned by Starfleet. In 2371, Voyager was lost in the Delta Quadrant...". Templates are used to link to ship articles. For subsequent mentions in an article you do not need to include links, and therefore do not need templates, just type out Voyager or Enterprise. I hope that makes it clearer for you. -- TrekFan Talk 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)