User talk:EEMIV/Archive2

List of Starfleet starships ordered by class
Nice work. I'd encourage you to use structure to display sources. -- Cat out 09:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's next on the list of things to do. Thanks. --EEMeltonIV 11:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work. I nominated that list to be featured. See: Featured list candidates/List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. -- Cat out 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Far too kind; many thanks. --EEMeltonIV 23:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Starfleet officers by rank
Can you sourcify this too? -- Cat out 01:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I only had time to do the other one because it helped me procrastinate all my real world work. Can't really put it off too much longer. But in a couple of weeks, yeah, things should die down a bit. --EEMeltonIV 01:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I also curious if we should source this by ranges rather than . By this I mean between which episodes did a spesific character wear that rank. Tasha for instance died so she didnt wear the rank on say season 2. -- Cat out 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus gathering at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
Hello. Thank you for offering your opinion and "vote" to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)!

We notice that there may have been confusing in collecting the opinions of yourselves and others. Thus, we would appreciate it if you took the time to voting again at the poll. Please choose "#Support" or "#Oppose" for the first option. Additionally, you may also make a completely separate vote for which disambiguation title with be used.

For example, you may vote to oppose the first policy and then support the convention that articles have the disambiguation suffix "( episode)" appended to their name. We apologize for the inconvience and complexity. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary and reply
Please use edit summaries. It looks like someone needs to re-read what they wrote..
 * ""Use italics for [. . . ] Ships such as RMS Titanic""
 * Are you seeing the words, fictional and spaceship up there ;-)? MatthewFenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 13:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, nor do I see anything that specifies that they must be real-world ships. Doing a quick survey of various other franchises' articles in Wikipedia, you'll see that the general consensus seems to follow the notion of italicizing fake ships, too. The MOS sample text for writing about fiction italicizes a ship class name. --EEMeltonIV 13:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:WAF was written by someone as to how they like pages to be laid out.. also.. show me an article where an article has every fictional ship like this (not a real scenario, of course):
 * "The Enterprise fired at Voyager while Saratoga fired at the Negh'var who in turn fired at the Sydney who also fired at Deep Space 9."
 * Adding italics to everything is just extraneous, ugly, messy and un-needed, period. MatthewFenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have created a ridiculous strawman. Can you show me in a Trek article where a similar string of italicized ship names appears? Regardless: if that were the article, then, yes, they should be italicized per the MOS. If you think it's ugly, consider re-writing the sentence, since it's poorly written anyhow. But, to address your tangential strawman: check out Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Midway. Back to the actual MOS point: please tell me where in the MOS it says not to italicize fictional ships' names. --EEMeltonIV 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:ITALICS: "Italics are used for emphasis, but sparingly." — One way or annotehr there is strictly no need to emphasize something 20 times over. (PS: If you'd like to continue this more actively you may reach me on MSN (matthew@[trimmed]) or AIM ([trimmed])) MatthewFenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PPS: MOS is a guideline.. guidelines are not policys and ehnce are flexible and not a must do thing.. so I propose making a alteration to the Star Trek project style guide like so:
 * "Italics are for emphasis and should not be used repeatedly, an example: "Voyagers torpedo was very precise, the torpedo hit the xyz but a shockwave rocked Voyager." - The first occurance is emphaises but no further occurances unless emphais is required. MatthewFenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 14:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are selectively winnowing in on a "pointer" for use of italics but ignoring the more specific heads up I previously mentioned: the MOS says ship titles should be italicized, and does not differentiate between fiction, nonfiction, first mention or subsequent mentions. It also points out that many other things should be italicized, like book titles. Is it your contention that books should only be italicized, what, the first time they're mentioned on their article pages, but not beyond that? Do foreign words get italicized only once per article, and otherwise are not? Your proposed alteration to the Star Trek project I think will just make the pages look inconsistent. A better idea, for Trek articles and all the others, is simply to avoid unnecessary repetition and to write tighter material. But, where a ship name (fictional or real, or a book, or a movie, or whatever) appears, it should be italicized. --EEMeltonIV
 * Your still missing the point: ship and spaceship are different things.. does i say spaceship? Nope. MatthewFenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Space Shuttle Challenger. Apollo 17--EEMeltonIV 14:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with anything? If your talking about an article using your style.. well that means zilch. MatthewFenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * and..? So soembody used italics there.. anyway if you wish to continue this discussion please look above for AIM/MSN contact details. MatthewFenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I think you'd be better off preserving the aforementioned original discussion here, or at least archiving it, but not deleting and summarizing it. As for my feelings on the debate:
 * The fact that MOS:ITALICS and MOS:T don't explicitly mention fiction does not in any way necessarily exclude fiction. Non-exclusive language should be considered inclusive unless there is specific guidance/precedent to the contrary, which there isn't here (quite the opposite).
 * Again, the fact that they don't explicitly mention spaceships does not in any way necessarily exclude spaceships. See the above note about non-exclusive language. Again, precedent actually indicates inclusion.
 * The various Manuals of Style are guidelines, yes, and are not set in stone, but "not written in stone" is not the same as "entirely optional". They should definitely not be ignored arbitrarily.
 * WP:WAF includes a header which states that it is (1) part of the MoS, (2) considered a guideline for Wikipedia, and (3) was reached by consensus. It is not just one editor's personal preference.
 * The concocted example sentence may look awkward, but it's still proper, regardless. Style guidelines take precedence over personal aesthetic preference, given that they're consensus.
 * MOS:ITALICS makes it clear that the instruction to use italics sparingly applies to emphasis. Other uses like titles and ship names are not emphasis. It's standard English writing style.
 * Oh, and I see nothing wrong with debating encyclopedia articles on fiction. Fiction has an important place in culture and history, and it's perfectly reasonable to debate representing it properly on Wikipedia...
 * -- Fru1tbat 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

DS9..
Hey.. I had to revert you (here) it looks like you where trying to remove the weasel paragraph but actually readded it.. not sure :\? Deus (talk· contribs· count · email) 18:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, sigh, yeah, I confused the "things added" and "things deleted" sides. --EEMeltonIV 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. I use popups makes things easier ;-) (WP:POPUPS) Deus (talk· contribs· count · email) 18:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline
Ello. I wonder if I could get your opinion on Timeline of Star Trek. I feel the timeline is currently overburdened with backstory to random episodes: do you think this sort of edit would be an improvement or not? The idea is to refocus it on the events depicted on screen themselves, on the backstory of the characters, the federation, the vulcan/romulan split, the eugencies war, and suchforth. Morwen - Talk 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Redundent "(Star Trek)" additions to article titles
I asked you about this before. Whats up with that? -- Cat out 19:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion on the Trek project talk page and the consensus seemed to be to append it to the ship names. I don't remember what started it. Anyhow, bored one day, saw folks seemed to agree, figured I'd go ahead and do it. In hindsight, I figured it was kind of dumb, but whatever. --EEMeltonIV 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Starship Intrepid, NCC-74600
Hey EEMeltonIV, before you revert my changes to the Intrepid class starship page, please see the comments I left on the discussion page. I have rewritten my edit to include references to the sources of the info.--Just James 23:01, 11 November 2006 (GMT+10:00)

Encyclopedia
Welcome. For reference, i presently have these works accessible
 * The Encyclopedia (1999 edn)
 * Star Trek Star Charts
 * Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise
 * Spaceflight Chronology (arrived in post today)

Let me know if you want anything in particular fishing out of them.

I plan to retrieve out of storage soon:
 * Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual
 * Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual
 * Star Trek Chronology (i think both edns, i may have got rid of the 1st)
 * Star Trek: Phase II
 * possibly some other stuff

Also I hope to get hold of these soon ->


 * Star Trek Ships of the Line
 * Starfleet Technical Manual
 * Star Trek: The Motion Picture (novel)
 * The Worlds of the Federation
 * Star Trek Concordance (new edn)

Morwen - Talk 17:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WoST
I'd like to point out while you may of fixed some typos you actually introduced typos and imo the language was sloppy.. I'm willing to work wit you come up with a better flow but I haven't really liked your contextual changes my self very much so far. Matthew Fenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 20:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gander :\? Also how come you restored chroniton to 1 sentance again? Matthew Fenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

UVa Wiki
Mr. Melton, I have just started a CIO at UVa dedicated to creating a Wiki for the University, so that students can have a comprehensive resource of everything UVa edited by their peers and alumni. If you are interested in the idea I would love to speak to you about it more - just send an e-mail to Nadine at ncn3w@virginia.edu - thanks so much for your time! -- User:Natourminator 14:43, 16 November 2006

Ed Helms
Why do you keep on taking the fan site links off of the Ed Helms page?
 * Because it is a random, non-notable fansite. See this guideline page, #10 -- that applies to the fan site, since Helms doesn't seem to have a connection to that fan site. --EEMeltonIV 17:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages
It is what is called an "edit conflict" - Generally when one occurs a warning occurs to merge content, in this case one [obviously] did not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit: Though for someone who claims to teach English you do make an awful lot of typos. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia iss nut an doktoral thesis. Un kan let up on there speling OCD on a websight like this. --EEMeltonIV 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you bash me enough about it, so, my request: Don't bash others if there English is not perfect. FYI it was in reply to this userbox "This individual still maintains a shred of dignity in this insane world by adhering to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalisation." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Warrant officer (Star Trek)
I am shocked that you pursue articles like this. You could have at least ask for my opinion. That article was part of the Starfleet ranks and insignia... If absolutely necessary it should have been merged to the conjectural ranks and insignia article. Warrant officers are cannon. There is at least one of its appearance on trek. -- Cat out 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then cite the damn thing. The "conjectural ranks" page is itself oddball -- I haven't taken a close look at it yet, but it's on the list to cull of conjecture. The title itself is unfortunate, suggesting it's WP:OR; but I realize the material is more along the lines of non-canon rather than conjectural material. But, whatever. The AfD notice was on the warrant officer page for several days, and the article existed for I-don't-know-how-long before then -- no citation, not even a non-canon reference. Cruft. --EEMeltonIV 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The MA page you linked to for deletion review "cites" a "supposed to...even though numerous dialogue references...would seem to disprove this time and again" and a "has been speculated". Do you think it even counts as notable? --EEMeltonIV 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am shocked as well. If you had asked about this, I would have given you citations.  There are two that come to mind straight away: one out of Pocket Books and other from a Klingon Tech Manual published by the show.  Also, this isnt really you're fault, but the sarcastic statements of other users on the delete page made it clear those voting had a dislike of the subject.  This article should be undeleted. -Husnock 03:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am shocked by your blind zealousness over a crap article. Jesus tits. If there's something to cite, then cite the damn thing. It's a shame you didn't decide that "Oh, I have a source to back it up" until the article gets deleted. --EEMeltonIV 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you know, I am in the Middle East and sources are hard to come by. They are back in the United States with my family.  You've scored a major victory today: Warrant officer article gone, conjectural rank article about to be deleted, and Coolcat proclaiming he will leave the project.  And I had a 21 year old kid call me a contempable person.  Ironic considering where I am and what I am doing.  Anyway, this is all over now.  More battles will come on different days.  I move on to better things. -Husnock 15:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A shame people get so emotionally invested in this. It's kind of sad. My infantry unit is rotating to Iraq in a few months, so before too long you'll have less of a headache from me. But, I'm glad the conjectural material gone. When you cycle home, I hope you can restore it with citations. Or, if this is published stuff, give a heads up into what things someone can look for -- I have no problems hustling to Barnes & Noble to find a text if you think there's substantiating material there. --EEMeltonIV 15:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Warrant Officer (TNG - Hollow Pip) listed in the "Official Star Trek Uniform Guide" or the "Star Trek: Star Fleet Technical Manual"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlieGerFaUstMe262 (talk • contribs)
 * Heck if I know. But, I didn't post the WO stuff; burden of proof isn't on my shoulders. --EEMeltonIV 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to say thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page:) --Phenz 06:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good sir
Good sir, I am asking very nicely here that you tone down your comments about my edits being "crap", "hogwash", etc. We really don't need that on Wikipedia. I am hoping you do not have something against me or the articles I am working on. The issue with deleting Coolcat's articles is over, lets not take this any further. Our guns are all pointed the same way, as we say in the Gulf. Happy editing. -Husnock 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mergification
Moving JAG into the main Starfleet article was probably a good idea, and the various other discrete offices -- eg Medical, Intelligence -- could probably also stand to be similarly cut-and-pasted. If you're up for it, might as well do that before someone decides to slap an AfD on those, too.

That said, I'm not sure a merge is always the best solution. The recently-merged warrant officer material in the alternate ranks article, for instance, is encumbered by OR/uncited information that still needs cleaning up. By placing that OR/uncited material in the alt. ranks article, it is now to another vector of attack and criticism -- and it's shaky enough as is (but less so than it was a few days ago). --EEMeltonIV 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging is a good solution. Bad faith nominations as it happened on alternate rank article will happen anyways. The Warrant officer thing annoyed me greatly. Its covert deletion in my view is unacceptable.
 * Lots of material on wikipedia had been written before citation became important. The correct way of correcting such problems is to properly cite the article, not afd.
 * I will be merging some of those... Not all though. Starfleet Security is too large for example.
 * -- Cat out 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see what's "covert" about a banner at the top of the page and five days of discussion on a dedicated page. But...*shrug*. --EEMeltonIV 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Gentleman's agreement
Hi, my opinions of you is currently at a state of flux. I hate to discuss deletions with you, yet I like editing articles with you. So I ask you to focus on 'fixing'/'improving' articles rather than 'deleting', 'afding', and etc. What do you think? -- Cat out 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also would like to stte you and I have had no major problems, although I think your tone sometimes on talk pages goes a bit too far. But then, Private Santiago's death, while tragic, probabaly saved lives.  I, too, would like to ask that talking and edit is bettering then AfD and blanking. -Husnock 05:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Coolcat and I are both now off this site so will have free reign with these articles. Delete at will, I say. Farewell. -Husnock 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Colonel West
I see you removed the link to Colonel West at Reginald Barclay.

I added that link as I have noticed that other pages link there too (Special:Whatlinkshere/Colonel West (Star Trek)). I just did a search and it seems that most of the mentions of Colonel West are unlinked. I suggest, if the character is unnotable, removing these links that exist.

For reference, since at least 8 pages already mention Colonel West, it might be the case that an article on Colonel West would be useful. I just checked at Memory Alpha and they have this to say: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/West

David H. Flint 05:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

image embigenning
someone at commons uploaded new, very pretty, high-detail images over the small ones. since we hadn't been specifying a size, they came up 1:1 on our pages. i've asked them to be more careful in future.

by the way, I am soliciting comments on Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode) - any thoughts? Morwen - Talk 11:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi 80.168.29.18,
 * I'm sorry to upload over other pictures. I really don't like to do it that way because it doesn't seem very nice to upload over other people's pictures and it causes some weird problems with the cached images, but an admin told me to upload them over the other pictures. Uploading over old images does lessens work some because all the picture links on every page on every Wikipedia don't have to be updated. This way all that has to be done is scan for incorrect image sizes and correct them. Jecowa 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Shoot me an e-mail sometime
Hey man, in all seriousness, shoot me an e-mail sometime. You can use the Wiki feature. Wikipedia aside, we're both in the reserves and I grew up in Reston. The stuff on this site is disturbing, but the real world can be even worse. I cant post any more here due to almost getting banned from the site. -Husnock 08:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy note about ArbCom proceeding
Hiya, just wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current ArbCom proceeding where your name is briefly mentioned: Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. No action is needed on your part, though if you would like to participate in the case by offering a statement, evidence, or comments on the workshop page, you are more than welcome. FYI, Elonka 06:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up -- I weighed in with my opinion in the original vote but am content to let ArbCom wend its way through the process with any more input from me (simply not something about which I feel strongly). --EEMeltonIV 06:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1701-C dedication plaque
is this actually in the Encyclopedia? I can't find a scan of it on the internet, if so - and i can all the others. I wonder where Earth Station McKinley has come from, in that case - possibly TNGTM? Morwen - Talk 23:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Maybe it's in the "other ships named Enterprise" part of the TNG tech. manual. I will take a gander before I leave Florida. --EEMeltonIV 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

TrekBBS Deletion Review
Thank you for your opinions in the TrekBBS AFD. I do not agree with the closing admin's decision and have listed this now under Deletion Review. As you had participated in the AFD, I wished to inform you this in case you wished to voice your opinion on this -- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Morwen/ranks2
have been drafting a rewrite at User:Morwen/ranks2. it's by no means finished yet - i need to cite everything and suchforth - but what do you reckon about that way of dealing with the topic? Morwen - Talk 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the same lines, i.e. reorganizing by series/era rather than by rank itself. --EEMeltonIV 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, it seems to work much better as tables-inset-within-prose rather than just big tables.  Morwen - Talk 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

USS Yamato
Just wondering if you really meant to make that nomination, since it seems you just want a redirect. In that case, there's no need for deletion. It seems there is a slight edit dispute with an anonymous editor, but you could bring it up on the article's page, see if they'll talk with you about. In any case, you should go back and sign it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about Star Trek episode info boxes
Hi EEMeltonIV,

I tried asking this question the Star Trek Portal talk page a while ago but didn't get any takers - mustn't be used all that often. I was going through the talk page on the Star Trek Project page and your name kept popping up, and as I remember having one or two (very brief) conversations with you a while ago about naming conventions I thought I'd chance my arm with you.

I've been trying to add info boxes into those episodes - mainly DS9 at the moment - that don't have them. I've noticed there are inconsistencies with regard to what number is given for the episode number value - in some, its the sequential number of the episode i.e. 155 for the 155th episode, but in others its the season number plus the sequence number for the episode in that season i.e. the 5th episode in season seven is 705.

Would you have any ideas / opinions as to what the correct convention is? i.e. The sequence number or the combination of season number plus sequence number for that season. Hope this makes sense.

Thanks Rmkf1982 | Talk 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Hall
I wonder if is necessary on this page simply because nowhere in the Jefferson Hall article does it refer to the building as "Jeff Hall". Anthony Rupert 00:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An oversight on the Jefferson Hall article, now tweaked. Thanks for the heads up. --EEMeltonIV 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion
Hey. If you've got a minute could you take a look at Talk:Starship_Enterprise and offer an opinion please :-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Scout badge image
Image:VigilSash45degrees.png is being discussed at Fair_use_review and would appear to not be fair use per policy WP:Fairuse. Megapixie 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vigil Sash - Fair Use issues
The image Image:VigilSash45degrees.png is currently tagged as being free use, however, this is probably not possible, given that it is likely copyrighted by the BSA. I thought it might be better for it to be tagged scoutlogo. The problem is that this fair use tag makes it ineligible to be included in userboxes or on user pages, which is the only place that it currently is used.

So, we have two options - 1) justify why it should be free use, or 2) change to "fair use" licensing and remove from userboxes & user pages, including it in at least one related article. --NThurston 15:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The image has been tagged as a fair use image. It's not used in any main namespace articles currently and is subject to deletion if it is not. I've tagged it as such. --Durin 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:JoachimOnCAV.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:JoachimOnCAV.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

creating diff for Picture of the Year vote
I am

Error on talk page?
I'm terribly sorry to post this here, but I can find no other way to get in touch with you, since I have no experience with communicating. I DID delete some stuff from the main Star Trek article this morning, but what I deleted was "STAR TREK SUCKS YOU LOSERS!!!" or something to that effect, and it also appeared that he had deleted the section on the original series. So please don't think it was ME who deleted anything other than the lame comment. Again sorry for commenting here, but I can't find any way to just message you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsideburn (talk • contribs)