User talk:Martok42

You've obviously resorted to using fake accounts to get valid content removed. It was good enough for broadcast television it's good enough for this website. Please refrain from removing this content in the future. If you have a problem with the image in question please take it up with those who created the Television Show. Until then you are free to not visit that particular page as it seems to offend you and no one else. &mdash; Morder 01:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Vulcan
Ok, this is your... fourth time playing with Vulcan. If you have an issue, bring it up on the talk page or on here. Don't just revert. Next one gets you a block. -- sulfur 20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You were warned. Four times. Twice as an anon, twice here. You've been blocked for three days. I would strongly suggest coming up with some VALID reasons why that image should not be there. Once that's done, you should post those reasons on Talk:Vulcan. Use that "+" button at the top of the page. Once that's done, engage in some discourse and discussion with other users on the site. You've got three days to come up with some good reasons. -- sulfur 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Neh, don't use the "+", there's [Talk:Vulcan#A_litle_decency|already a section]] where this gets discussed.

I did not use fake acounts. This is the only acount I have on Memory alpha and i'm the only one it offends? Please. I've seen the talk page, if you think I'm the only one then why did the television show EDIT IT? Answer that. And waned me four times? You guys need a better warning system. I never saw ANY of those warnings. You just expect people to periodicly check this place for crap like that? This place also needs better staff. To both Morder and Sulfer: Hab SoSlI' Quch! May you rot in Gre'thor


 * Any time someone posts on this page, a box should appear when you visit this site which states "You have new messages". I don't believe that anyone said you were the "only one" who felt that way, but you must provide valid reasons for your opinions.  The biggest reason for having it you must overcome is that such a thing appeared on television and thus was deemed suitable.  If such a thing offends you, that is your right, but then your recourse is to not view the page.--31dot 07:29, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Ok look, That scene was edited on tv, so NO it was not deemed suitable. (At least in the USA) and I never saw a thing saying I had new messages. And 1d1ot, or whatever your name is, That is a rather important page on memory alpha its vulcans!! It adds n othing to the artcle and all of you are being stubborn immature fools who enjoy have the slightest taste of power. And have some common sense, or better yet, have some LOGIC!! It adds nothing to the article, it is no different that a human butt, it affends several people, and they edited on tv. What's the point? Why not just take the picture off. I mean come ON!! Just admit that there is no point to that stupid picture and TAKE IT OFF!!!
 * No. &mdash; Morder (talk) 15:51, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be the only one interested in "power", as you wish to bend MA to your views on morality and obscenity. Unless you have been appointed as the morality censor of MA, you cannot impose your views here without valid reasons.  "It adds nothing" is an opinion, not an argument.  Others do feel that it adds something.
 * You also have resorted to name calling to attempt to make your point. You might get farther with your argument if you did so without it. Per policy no personal attacks are permitted, and doing so consistently could result in being blocked.--31dot 21:16, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah all it ADDS is a chance for the people that want to keep it to be able to look at it. DUH! I wouldn't surprised if that is why you want it kept. And no, I did not resort to name calling to try and prove my point, I simply insultated you. I must however give you props for the snappy 'power' comeback, but you know, Your wrong. I'm not trying to make you see that its wrong anything like that, Personnaly I couldn't care less what you think about anything, I am simply trying to get a picture I think is obscene off a website that I enjoy going to. And please tell me exactly how it adds to the article. I you want to show that a Vulcan butt is the same as a human butt simply put in the article "That anatomy of a vulcan is the same as a humans other than the ears (Insert picture of ears here) See? That would be so much simpler than this crap.

(Oh and 31dot, I honostly recomend changing your name, at first glance I really did think it said idiot in leet speak)
 * Your arguments have been discussed and ruled against. Whether you like it or not the image is here. It has been broadcast on television for all to see (as well as numerous other shows that have done much worse). If you have a problem with what airs on your television please take it up with the appropriate people (FCC - if you live in the US). If you wish to further impose your morality on others I suggest you contact wikipedia and ask them to remove the image from as that site is much more popular than this little site and people seem to have deemed it A-OK. So thank you for your interest in this site but know that your request has been denied. &mdash; Morder (talk) 22:27, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yes shows have done worse and yes that artcle is worse, and am not going to read but At least pictures add to the article (I'm asuming, because as I said, I am not going to read it) but it was edited on tv for a reason, am I right? and please, deemed A-ok by a bunch of people that enjoy looking at for reasons unrealated to artcle. I think the reasons are rather apperent as to why you want to keep that blasted picture. And really what does it add? Can somebody just answer me that one question that all of you seem to side-stepping. What does it add to the artcle!?


 * Who are you to decide that anyone who looks at it must be looking at it for "reasons unrelated to the article"? Are you a Betazoid?  Can you read our minds?   It has been explained to you why the picture is in the article, but you have rejected that answer.  It is your right to do so, but it does not change anything.--31dot 22:46, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dotty, I do not see any explanation as to why the picture is in the article. Could you be so kind as to point it out?


 * You have been here debating this enough to know the answer, so I see no reason to point it out to you. I don't need to say anymore.--31dot 22:58, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

EId0t. Listen. very carefuly. I only see, reasons for why it should stay there. I see no sexplanations for the reson it is there or what it adds. To recap that very short request because you don't seem to understand: I see the resons you give for it not be removed. I however do not see an explanation as to why it is there. Please just tell me, and stop side-stepping.

I suppose I never REALLY expected to get a strait answer, because you and I both know that there is in fact no point to the picture there. And unless you can tell me anything other than that I believe I am right in everything I have said. And at least we both agree there is no real point to that picture.

Note to any one veiwing this page: Please pay close attention to thier reactions and comments and have the decerning capabilities to see that they have no reason for that picture being there other than they are to stubburn to admit wrong and just take it off. I believe it is Painfully obvious that stopped the conversation because I was winning the debate and they, though older than I (Presumably), are to childish to say they were wrong. But as I said prevously I never expected them to, in fact I expected about as much. I might actually have maintained an once or two of respect for them had they done that, but to late now I suppose. So in conclusion; I am right, they are wrong, they are childish cowards, and 31dot should really change his name.Martok42 05:01, December 7, 2009 (UTC)