Talk:Klingon starships/Archive 1

Merge
Alistair McMillan has singlehandedly and without so much as the slightest nod to procedure chosen to merge all the Klingon ship articles together here. Iceberg3k 02:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:FICT AlistairMcMillan 04:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Alistair has effectively vanadalized and deleted information permanently from what I can tell. All information previously on the non-merged pages is gone and old revert histories can not be found. This vandalism on the Klingon ships needs to be undone as quickly as possible. Alyeska 03:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's see how many errors there are in this comment.


 * *"Alistair has vandalised..." WRONG.  Please see the definition here... How to spot vandalism
 * *"...deleted information..." WRONG.  All page have their own Page History which remains intact.
 * *"All information previously on the non-merged pages is gone..." WRONG. Again, all pages have their own Page History which remains intact.
 * *"...old revert histories can not be found..." WRONG.  What you mean to say is, you don't know where to find it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raptor_class_starship&action=history
 * *"This vandalism..." WRONG. It isn't vandalism, this is actually semi-policy round these parts. WP:FICT
 * *"...needs to be undone as quickly as possible." MOST DEFINITELY WRONG. No-one needs a bunch of stub pages about Star Trek starship classes.  If you disagree, then we can put them up for deletion and see how people vote...


 * Thank you for your time. Move along. AlistairMcMillan 04:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Be careful with the word "vandalism"
I'm seeing too many people labeling edits they don't agree with as "vandalism". Please stop this; it amounts to a personal attack and is further confusing for those of us who actually do fight vandalism. I get annoyed when I see an edit summary of "revert vandalism" go by and when I go to investigate, it's not actually vandalism. Please don't make what I do for Wikipedia harder by using inaccurate edit summaries. Thank you. Kelly Martin 03:31, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Principles of Wikipedia etiquette
Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles. Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette

Atrahasis 19:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And if you read just a wee bit further, you'll find "Don't ignore questions." AlistairMcMillan 19:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Common Newbie Mistakes
Newcomers to Wikipedia may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! Here are a few common ones you might try to avoid:

Making dictionary-type entries. We take the stance that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Each article should aim to cover its topic beyond a simple definition and teach something about greater context. Pure dictionary definitions belong in our sister project, Wiktionary (http://wiktionary.wikipedia.org).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes

--Atrahasis 19:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

More Common Newbie Mistakes
Deleting biased content. Biased content can be useful content (see above). Remove the bias and keep the content.

Deleting without announcing that you're doing it. Remark on it in the edit summary box. Otherwise, other users who care about the article's development will be caught unawares, and may think you're being intentionally sneaky.

Deleting without justifying. Deleting anything nontrivial requires some words of justification in the edit summary or on the talk page. If the justification is presented on the talk page, you can simply write "See talk:" in the edit summary box.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes

--Atrahasis 19:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Procedure for Complaining about a User

 * If the dispute involves allegations that a user has engaged in serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, create a subpage for the dispute. Use the subpage to elaborate on the allegations.


 * For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem.

--Atrahasis 19:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Atrahasis
Is there a point to all this? AlistairMcMillan 19:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Might as well make sure Alistair doesn't forget, but he openly lied in a discussion and renigged on a compromise. Alyeska 02:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Troll. I never lied.  And "renigged" isn't a word. AlistairMcMillan 02:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prometheus_class_starship&diff=12625767&oldid=12623852 What do you know, you agreed to a compromise according to your own words. Oh, wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nebula_class_starship&diff=14007920&oldid=14007404 Whoops, and this was AFTER I already posted the link.

You care to try and lie about this issue some more? Who's the troll. Your refusing to admit to doing something which I have evidence that proves you wrong quite decisevly. Stop trolling Alistair, its unbecoming. Alyeska 03:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You initiated a compromise and by that compromise agreed with my information. Then you retracted the compromise stating you still agreed with the information but that it merely had to be put into the text of the article. Later you decide that the information is bad. After I provided evidence the information was good you then attempt to nitpick the rules to simply have my information tossed out. After more then a month of this, we get other people involved in a discussion. They suggest a compromise. I point out that you already agreed to then rejected a compromise that YOU intiated. You claim you never agreed to any compromise. I post proof that you are incorrect. I've caught you lying. You ignore this. I force you to confront the issue and you deny ever having saying this. I again post the proof. You ignore this. Now you accuse me of lying. How can I lie when I am showing you your exact words? Alyeska 03:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * April 21st: Compromise then. Leave canon info and remove the rest.
 * May 20th: The only person who used the word "compromise" on the Prometheus page was Bluap


 * Funny, I see a slight problem with your two statements. Alyeska 03:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually my comment was "The only person who used the word "compromise" on the Talk:Prometheus class starship page was User:Bluap.". AlistairMcMillan 03:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Now your trying to get out of your little lie. Earlier in the Nebula discussion a compromise was suggested and I agreed to it. I also pointed out you would not and that you previously violated a compromise you agreed to. You state you never agreed to ANY compromise. I post the evidence and you promptly ignore what I've shown. After I force the issue, you start to call me a LIAR. Now that I have you nailed to the wall your trying to nitpick your way out, and by the way haven't apologized for calling me a liar. Either way, you still don't have your facts straight. And you still can't avoid the minor little issue that you previously agreed that my information was legit. Alyeska 03:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Not for one single second have I ever said your information is legit. If I did, please lets see a quote or two. AlistairMcMillan 03:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"Leave canon info and remove the rest." And you promptly left my weapon counts on the page. Alyeska 07:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My bad for giving you the benefit of the doubt when you said you had accurate weapon counts. AlistairMcMillan 07:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And yet you have not actualy disproven the majority of my weapon counts. You bring in other sources claiming a contradiction means mine are automaticaly wrong. You then procede to write off all my work calling it original research, but you then completely ignore the main ships which currently have their weapon counts conducted EXACTLY the same. So now you are using a blatantly obvious double standard. Why allow the Galaxy class specifications and not the Nebula? You previously claimed because the Galaxy class has more screen time. And yet its information was gathered from the exact same sources using the exact same methods as the Nebula class. By your logic we must remove the specifications from the Galaxy class. And don't even think about calling this a red herring. That you won't touch certain pages and the reasons you give make it very clear you are opperating under a double standard. Alyeska 07:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And yet you have not actualy disproven the majority of my weapon counts. You bring in other sources claiming a contradiction means mine are automaticaly wrong. HUGE strawman there. Contradiction means not that your claims are automatically wrong, but that they're not automatically right, ergo ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And no one has to disprove your beloved weapons counts: the burden is that you have to prove them right. Its a simple, clear well-known standard. --Calton | Talk 10:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

What case
I don't see any case being made here. What was actually done that you object to, and why do you object to it? Are you objectign to the merge, or to edits of details about specific ship classes? If info has been remnoved as "non-canon" or as unverifiable, cite sources. DES 18:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not vandalism, but breaking of Wikipedia rules and sensibilities
I agree, "vandalsim" is not the correct term here, but what AM has been doing is deleting huge swathes of other peoples' texts, even though the sources for that information were quoted and noted in-situ whether they were canon sources or not. This is a clear violation of the wanton-deletion clause in the rules, especially since the passges he deletes offer a greater perspective and context "beyond a dictionary definition", as Wikipedia encourages entries to be. Before I came along, the entries for the D-7 and Ktinga were bare...just a simple single paragraph each. I elaborated and quoted all my sources, but he comes along and deletes it all or virtually all of it. Just picture that what we have now for these entries is mostly what I have added, and at first he deleted it all, even though the rules of quoting and noting sources and offering a greater context in the true spirit of Wikipedia-ism were followed! Moreover, apparently I'm not the first one he has done this to. According to the rules, you need at least two people to complain about a user, which means we now have a case against him.

--Atrahasis 06:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see the links on the following page... Talk:K'Vort class starship As for non-canon sources, I've pointed out the problems with introducing non-canon sources in various places here.  This is not a Star Trek fan site.


 * If you want to file a complaint, please do so. I'm tired of dealing with Alyeska and his buddies.  Please note, not a single established editor here has complained about my edits.  Only visitors from "spacebattles.com" and their friends. AlistairMcMillan 07:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Many of whom are "established editors" in their own right. You might notice that I for instance have hundreds of edits under my belt, only a tiny fraction of which are devoted to Star Trek or Star Wars related topics.  I have nothing but disgust for your pathetic, fallacy-ridden tactics.  And editing somebody else's user page to claim they are another user's sock puppet is the lowest of gutter tactics.  I hope you get IP banned, troll. Iceberg3k 08:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

You can drop the elitist attitude Alistair. I've also noted not a single "established" editor has come to your support. If you bothered to see my history of Trek at SB.com or SD.net you would realize I am quite an authority on the subject of Federation starships. I also can not help but notice how you ignore what you don't like to hear. Atrahasis raises a valid point that you are outright making decisions without consultation and have openly stated you will make no compromise. You are convinced you are right and will settle for nothing less then everything you desire. In the process you have irritated multiple people and deleted information that people have spent time accumilating and putting into the articles. Alyeska 08:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk of "established editors" is nothing but pure cow dung. As long as an editor's contributions are sensible and good, an editor with ONE edit is as valuable as one with ten thousand edits. Iceberg3k 08:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wanton Deletion of Canon Facts as Well by AlistairMcMillan
The case against AM is not just simple removal of non-canon facts, but of canon facts as well, especially facts that he wasn't aware of that were canon. Checking the histories for this entry alone, there is a strong case for wanton deletion against him. Also, he seems to be in the paranoid habit of accusing everybody of being a personal friend of Alyeska, and he even went so far as to vandalize my personal page and accuse me of it before I even responded. That alone can be construed as if not vandalism then at least as inappropriate behavior and perhaps even paranoia.

Correction: He vandalized my personal page not by accusing me of being a friend of Alyeska, but rather was so brazen as to publicly announce to the world that I was Alyeska.

--Atrahasis 08:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant one there Alistair. Now who's the troll? Alyeska 08:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had just answered the question when I first asked it, instead of just deleting my question without responding. Please note I only placed that statement on your user page after you twice deleted my question without answering it. Also, posting the message "as you described, he single-handedly does so many deletions and censoring it's not funny" on Alyeska's Talk page, shows you had at least previously discussed me and my so-called "vandalism". 

BTW You do understand you are supposed to collect the evidence against me on a subpage, not on the Talk page of another article. AlistairMcMillan 09:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't try and hide from what you have done Alistair. You try and hide from the fact you were caught in a lie, now you don't even respond to the fact that you were caught vandalizing someone elses front page to their profile. Alyeska 09:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you even bother to read other people's comments before responding to them? I just said in my last comment that I edited Atrahasis user page. That whole comment was intended to explain why I did that. AlistairMcMillan 09:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You make an unfounded claim with no evidence and post it on someones front page. That is vandalism, and you call it a "statement". And now you don't even apologizing after having done it and being caught red handed. Alyeska 09:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalization of a user's personal page by AM
There is no excuse for AM brazenly and falsely accusing another user of sockpuppeting on his own user page, that is by definition pure vandalism perhaps even combined with paranoia and mean-spiritedness. His question was neither relevant nor asked in a very diplomatic way, rather it had a petulant, childish, and challenging tone, and his next step in announcing to the world that I was actually another user was brash, illogical, and definitely overstepping the bounds of polite company.

--Atrahasis 09:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had just answered the question when I first asked it, instead of just deleting my question without responding. Please note I only placed that statement on your user page after you twice deleted my question without answering it. Also, posting the message "as you described, he single-handedly does so many deletions and censoring it's not funny" on Alyeska's Talk page, shows you had at least previously discussed me and my so-called "vandalism". 

BTW You do understand you are supposed to collect the evidence against me on a subpage, not on the Talk page of another article. AlistairMcMillan 09:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Not answering a petulant and childish question is not an excuse to falsely accuse someone of lying or any other crime on his own user page
...which is at worst vandalism and at the very least overstepping social norms. Atrahasis 09:49, 27 May 2005

Let me say again, you do understand that you are not supposed to collect this information on the Talk page of a random article. You are supposed to collect it on a subpage, something like User:Atrahasis/AlistairEvilVandalMcMillan or something similar. AlistairMcMillan 10:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You could also list me at RFC, as it is not very likely that any admins are going to notice this page. AlistairMcMillan 10:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And then if nothing else works, you can list me here Requests for arbitration. Looking forward to see how this all turns out. :) AlistairMcMillan 10:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Short Movie
The above discussion, in its entirety, is being translated into Klingon and will be turned into a screenplay for a short comedy film. I will notify the group when it is available for download from ifilm.com. You will all be portrayed, yelling at each other in Klingon (and subtitled for those of us not fluent), wearing full regalia, occasionally slaughtering each other with a bat'leth. 70.177.90.39 07:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Update: The film will be presented in English. 70.177.90.39 06:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Merge or not
I have not followed, and i am not going to dig out, all the history on this issue. I gather that AM has merged the articles on several different types of Klingon starships into this single page. IMO that is a good idea, and should be the general policy. There should, however, be a note on this page, or at least in the talk page, indicating that this has been doen, with links to the original pages (Which should now be redirect pages) so that their edit history is easily available.

I have been a ST fan since the days of TOS, and I am a frequent reader of SF as well, and I don't think we really need separate articles on the different classes of Klingon starships. In fact i would probably vote to delete such articles as not encyclopedic.

Now if information has been removed in the process of doing the merges, it can be found on the history pages of the relevant articles. If other editors think that such information is valid and valuable, they can and should add it to the appropriate sections of this article. Disputes over what info to include, particularly non-canon information, can be resolved in the same way as any article content debate. I do think that the article should be careful to distinguish between info from the movies and TV series, info from authorized books, and fan-created info.

And I would like to see fewer personal attacks in this discussion. Merging articles is not vandalism. Neither is deleting content an editor feels is in error or inappropriate. However, such changes should be properly indicated in the revision history, and the reasons for them should generally be set out on a talk page, if there is a dispute. DES 18:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * AM has come to the point where he will not concede anything on the issue when it comes to replacing removed information. He has created multiple types of arguments to try and prevent the information from being placed in the articles, most of which are contradictory because he allows this exact same information in other wiki articles.  Discussion on the issue has gone nowhere because as I pointed out AM will not compromise.  He is acting as if he is 100% correct and nothing short of what he wants is allowed.  Alyeska 23:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Then please, lay out the specific info that has been deleted and should, in your view, be restored, and why, or simply restore it to the merged article so you can point to a specifc revision in the edit history for this page. You can use the edit histroies for the old pages -- now redirects -- to get the old info if you want. if you do restore the info teh the merged article, it would help to indicate here on the discussion page, why you think this info belongs in the article. This is much more helpful to others than arguments over who said what whan, who agreed or didn't agree to a compromise and what that agreemetn was to, etc. in short, discuss the content of the article, rather than the personalities of the editors, as much as possible.DES 07:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was very specific in the discussions on the pages in question. Alyeska 07:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images
This article need way more images

So thats the way it is?
Allistair outright lies about his intentions, conducts in dishonest practices as well as double standards, and even gets away with vandalizing someones user page, and he is allowed to get away with it because he was loudest and has a longer history here? Thats complete BS. Allistair adopted a blatant double standard in allowing material to be placed in certain Trek pages while deleting it in others. He lied about his intentions, lied about what was acceptable, lied about his actions, and ultimately even vandalized someone elses page. This is not acceptable. Alistair needs to be held accountable for his actions. Alyeska 08:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Then deal with it elsewhere. This page is for discussion of the article itself, not what someone may or may not have done to other pages. Stay on topic. Trekkie4christ 02:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)