User talk:ProfessorTrek

Welcome to Memory Alpha, ProfessorTrek! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thanks for your edit to the "Canada" 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! -- 31dot (Talk) 04:06, July 9, 2011


 * 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.

Recent work
Again, please note we do not deal in real world information not described in Star Trek, such as the history of Canada's involvement with the Manhattan Project. That's why we have a Wikipedia link to their article on Canada. Please review MA:CANON and MA:POV for more information. If you post here that you have read this page, I will lift the block early so you can resume editing.--31dot 04:11, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have. And I understand the policy of not including real-world information. Here, it just so happens that real-world information parallels events in the Star Trek universe. The reason Nazi Germany was unable to complete its heavy water experiments in the corrected timeline, ST:TOS "City on the Edge of Forever", was that Canada manufactured heavy water for the Manhattan Project, and thus the Allies got there first. This was because Prime Minister King understood the exigencies of the situation. ProfessorTrek 04:18, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the Manhattan Project was not mentioned in Star Trek(unless you can cite the specific use of the phrase)- I know we have no article on it. As such, it is not appropriate to mention Canada's involvement in it. --31dot 04:23, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm also fairly sure that King's directive about heavy water was not mentioned specifically, and the mere fact that King did appear in Star Trek is not enough of a connection, as the Star Trek universe is different than ours.--31dot 04:26, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am wrong, and you are right. Spock also had no interest in Canadian history because he knew that triticale is a Canadian invention in "The Trouble with Tribbles"--it's obvious that is what he was thinking (that is, his knowledge of Star Trek--universe Canadian history) when he made the comments about heavy water in "City on the Edge of Forever". It's a judicial thing--even when you don't agree with one of the parties, if the law is on their side, you have to rule in their favour. It's in the rules...er, "Judicial Canon". Check the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Did it ever occur to you that, as a result of these, although it is never mentioned in canon, that his mother Amanda Grayson is probably Canadian, or at least a student of Canadian history?


 * See, it's not that I am factually wrong; I'm wrong because you have adminstrative controls, and I don't. ProfessorTrek 04:37, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Harlan Ellison was, as a result of the accolades he received on "City", pissed off at the Canadian producers of the Canadian science fiction show The Starlost, in which Walter Koenig appeared, which is why the episodes he wrote for The Starlost were credited to his pseudonym, "Cordwainer Bird".


 * So I've locked the page due to the repeated insertion of information that is not compliant with the canon and POV policies. I also strongly suggest you read MA policies without interpreting them with US law, which has no bearing on this. - 05:42, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * You fucking wish.


 * Enjoy your block. Have a nice day. - 07:06, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * No one is above the law--perhaps you fly the flag upside down, too. You probably have the mistaken belief that you occupy the moral high ground here; do not mistake power untempered by morality for righteousness. Power is used prudently when illogic and ignorance invade the project; however, power is used incorrectly when applied rigidly and indiscriminately to edify its own ignorance, as a new source adds value through demonstrated erudition, insight and eloquence, as I have. Such power is misplaced, and ought to be opposed. ProfessorTrek 19:10, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * No clue what's going on here except to say that only canon information is allowed here. You can't add your speculation, real world info, or anything that wasn't specifically mentioned or seen in star trek. If we did allow that then every article would basically be a wikipedia entry. We have external links to wikipedia and other sources when necessary if you want a non-in-universe view on the particular subject. &mdash; Morder (talk) 19:40, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * What is going on here is that I am getting harassed by a power-crazed dilettante who desires to exclude superior erudition, insight and eloquence, lest such reflect upon his own efforts negatively. ProfessorTrek 20:05, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course only canon is allowed; it is essential here. Canada has been mentioned many times in Trek, and heavy-water experiments were mentioned specifically. Nazi heavy-water experiments were nullified by Canada's contribution; Spock's knowledge of this is specifically implied, although all he said was "...and that gave Germany time to complete its heavy-water experiments...".


 * What is not rational is to interpolate that Canada's contribution specifically did not occur to contribute to the events and progression of the Trek universe. Spock explicitly specified the instrumentality of Allied heavy-water experiments ( and explicitly demonstrated a knowledge of, hence an interest in, Canadian history.


 * It is Trek canon that the Allies completed their heavy-water experiments first, and this resulted in the Allied, rather than a Nazi, development of the first nuclear weapon, and that this was pivotal to developments in the Trek universe thereafter . It is not rational to conclude that, specifically in the Trek universe, this Allied contribution came from a source other than Canada. Canada enjoys the prosperity it has because of its essential contributions to the Allies prevailing in World War II, and specifically due to its instrumental contribution to the Manhattan Project, and there is every reason to conclude that this is true in the Trek universe ProfessorTrek 20:05, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * DNFTT. - 20:34, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

There is not one word in the English language that is not a loanword that is comprised entirely of consonants. ProfessorTrek 20:41, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not power crazed- I'm not seeing the connections that you are drawing in canon. Just because Canada was mentioned and nuclear weapons were mentioned doesn't allow you to put the entire history of Canada and nuclear weapons in the Canada article. I don't think you get what "canon" is. You're drawing conclusions that aren't given in canon- and as such we don't mention them here.--31dot 20:50, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Even if I was power crazed that doesn't give you the right to use obscene language(the reason you were blocked) And please learn to use the Preview button.--31dot 20:52, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, then why, in the Trek universe, did Germany not have time to complete its heavy-water experiments? It cannot be for any other reason than that the Allies completed Allied heavy-water experiments first, and Canada provided the heavy water, unless you are suggesting that it is contrary to Trek canon that the Allies did complete their heavy-water experiments first (and a nuclear weapon could not have been completed otherwise), or that it was pivotal to the Trek universe that although the Allies did complete their heavy-water experiments first, Canada did not supply the necessary heavy water--that is, given that heavy-water experiments are a part of Trek canon, the only reason to exclude the information from the Canada article is that in the Trek universe, Canada did not provide heavy water for the Manhattan Project ProfessorTrek 21:07, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confused about what actually goes into our articles. We don't put our own thoughts or conclusions into articles, no matter how much it might makes sense or even if it is the "only reason"(which you don't know). We are only here to document what was described in canon, no more, no less. Why Germany did not have time to complete its experiments is irrelevant, and it certainly is not a license to put Canadian history not mentioned in canon in the article. I would suggest you spend less time being eloquent and more time reading our policies or looking around to see what we put and what we don't.--31dot 21:14, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, what informs "what goes into our articles" is supposed to be guided by an interpretation of the rules, and not a rigid and indiscriminate application of them. That is determined by power wielded by you, and you mistake power untempered by morality for righteousness, and in the absence of morality, power is wielded only to edify its own ignorance.


 * A policy certainly against non-proximate remoteness is certainly called for; however a policy against proximate remoteness is prudent; that Germany did not have time to complete its heavy-water experiments is Trek canon, and the only way that could happen is that the Allies completed theirs first. What you are saying is that it is Trek canon that Canada did not provide heavy water to the explicitly-mentioned heavy-water experiments and there is no reason for that, and in fact it is a detriment to the article, the project, and Trek canon to dictate that. Certainly William Shatner and the late James Doohan, who fought for Canada as an officer in its air force, in that war, would disagree. And, it is that choice, gentlemen, that constitutes power edifying its own ignorance ProfessorTrek 21:26, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

If you link to that episode, please put "The" in the title. That's part of the link. I'd also suggest you get off your anti-power soapbox because you are just wrong and it is not worth any further comment by me.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that since it wasn't mentioned in canon, we don't mention it. It has nothing to do with possible explanations or lack thereof. We are not here to expand on Trek canon. Yes, I am being "rigid and indiscriminate" with things that are outside of our mission and based on your own thoughts, not that of canon. You can spin that however you wish but it won't change anything.

It's not just me telling you these things, two others have said the same thing.--31dot 21:35, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * We are here to expand on Trek canon, because the project cannot proceed otherwise. What we are not here to do is to contradict what must be Trek canon, because that would be expanding Trek canon, as opposed to expanding on Trek canon. It is a policy of excluding both proximate and non-proximate remoteness that informs discretion in a dedication to the project's subject matter. But of course, you must be right, and I must be wrong. Enjoy being right. ProfessorTrek 21:49, July 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * You use to many big words


 * Its not a good idea for you to contribute anything to Memory Alpha anymore.

Images
Please review the image use policy, as personal images are not permitted.--31dot 13:35, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

TMAM
Keep in mind that the episode (script here) uses the terminology "prosecutor" and "defend/defense". That's why they were in the articles. --31dot 01:28, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Never let substance get in the way of form. Good call. --ProfessorTrek 01:44, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Do you deny that the episode uses those terms? If you have a problem with that, contact Paramount and the episode writers. If they were used in canon, we use them. --31dot 01:46, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't deny that, nor do I have a problem with its use of the terms. As to the article, you'll find it's impossible to pull your head out once it's up there. Grammar, accuracy, spelling, punctuation, eloquence and clarity be damned. Your dedication to limiting the quality of the project articles, and of the project is...well, it exists. --ProfessorTrek 02:12, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

I only changed the removal of the terms "prosecute" and "defend", I was careful not to change anything else as there was nothing else wrong besides that. I'm not sure why you removed the rest of your edit on that page, as that was a bit of an overreaction. --31dot 02:15, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * It was an overreaction--yours. "Prosecuting" is advocating for a position, and "defending" is advocating for a position. You seem to be having a problem with the manner in which I'm agreeing with you. You have politely asked me not to fuck with you, and I have cheerfully conceded. My expertise is a package deal. Never let substance get in the way of form. --ProfessorTrek 02:25, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear. My expertise is a package deal. You are not going to get the benefit of my expertise in grammar, spelling, punctuation, eloquence and clarity without according me editorial latitude at parity. --ProfessorTrek 02:31, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

I might not have noticed your changes as much if you hadn't completely removed the use of prosecute and defense from the articles; if you had left the initial use of the terms and changed subsequent mentions of them, that might have been acceptable to me. Removing the initial use of the words is disingenuous to readers as it suggests that they weren't used at all. Substance shouldn't get in the way of form, but it shouldn't be completely ignored, either. I've finished now- if you wish, feel free to comment on the talk page of the article to argue your case. --31dot 02:34, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear once again. My expertise--as demonstrated by all of my contributions today, and today only--is a package deal. You are not going to get the benefit of my expertise in grammar, spelling, punctuation, eloquence and clarity without according me editorial latitude at parity. --ProfessorTrek 02:50, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

I will be equally clear: this is a community project. It's not owned by any one person nor does any one person have total control over any aspect of our content. If you are unwilling to work with the rest of us here to achieve a result- as I and the rest of us are- then I suggest you either find some website which is willing to bow down to your greatness, or start your own wiki where you can write how you want. If it's supposed to hurt us to not have you edit here, you will be greatly disappointed. --31dot 02:57, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe I am even dignifying this at all...you are simply trying to disguise intransigence as righteousness, and singularity as numerosity. You know what I am saying, you know what I mean, yet you insult my intelligence in implying that you don't. --ProfessorTrek 04:12, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello PT, please enjoy your block. You might remember it from the last time, which was for the same reason. Eventually, if this continues, you will never edit here again. Also, for everyone else, please DNFTT. - 07:45, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Your "block" has become for you a self-fulfilling prophecy to you, as you have no doubt noticed accruing to you on a continual basis, in the suffering you have thereby imposed on the article quality of the project. In result of it, nothing has changed as to your interaction with me--you are not going to get the benefit of my expertise in grammar, spelling, punctuation, eloquence and clarity without according me editorial latitude at parity. --ProfessorTrek 13:27, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * "You are not going to get the benefit of my expertise in grammar, spelling, punctuation, eloquence and clarity without according me editorial latitude at parity." Oh, well. -- Renegade54 18:25, February 20, 2012 (UTC)