User talk:Magic Pickle

Hi Magic Pickle. Thanks for the kind words, and for trying to save the ENT page. Needless to say, after putting a few months of work researching the references and rewriting the text, I was a little disappointed to see it go. I did make a copy a few days before the AfD closed, when it became apparent the "delete" side would prevail. Unfortunately, that copy was made a few days prior, like I said, so it does not include the latest rewrite you worked on.

One idea was mentioned in passing during the AfD vote, to expand the article to cover not just Enterprise but all Star Trek series. I think that's a good idea: it will make the article more complete and more general. It will require additional research work, though not much - IMO, most of the inconsistencies were due to Enterprise, and that part is already researched and only needs to be simplified.

With that in mind, I've copied the page in my user space as Inconsistencies in Star Trek canon (the first name that came to mind for the project; we can change it when we find a more appropriate one). I haven't started working on it yet, so the version here is the same as before the deletion. I'll welcome your collaboration and ideas.

Ritchy 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I've been busy in real life, and haven't had time to look at the Enterprise continuity page until now.
Like I mentioned in my previous message, I think making a "inconsistencies in Star Trek canon" page would be more interesting than a strictly Enterprise page. With that in mind, I rewrote the introduction text in the page, and I added another inconsistency which is not related to Enterprise (it's between TOS and VOY). I then removed everything from the page that was not an inconsistency or that involved speculation, and ended up with a page quite similar to yours.
You can see the new version here. Speaking of which, keeping multiple copies of the page (I see you added the same one in your talk page as you did in mine) might not be a good idea. It could lead to confusion and mix-ups. And it fills up the talk page... that's what the user space is for! So I suggest we keep a common copy we both work on. It can either be the one already in my user space, or if you'll be working on it more than me, in your user space. In fact, I don't know how much free time I'll have for this, so if you want to take the lead on the project, you might prefer to have the page in your user space. -- Ritchy 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Maybe we should warn them to stop, before Crossmr tries to delete the Enterprise main page too!
But seriously, I've posted a message in the Talk:Star Trek canon page, to get some Star Trek-minded editors to help us complete the page. Hopefully, some of them will answer the call, and we can get the new inconsistencies page up quickly. -- Ritchy 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise, the latest series based upon the Star Trek universe created by Gene Roddenberry, debuted in September 2001. Even before the series aired, some Star Trek fans began criticizing the show for allegedly violating well-established continuity of previous Star Trek series. As a prequel to the other Star Trek series, Enterprise came under noticeably intense scrutiny from fans.

While some contend that the series cannot reconcile with earlier shows, others respond that most if not all alleged continuity violations can be explained. The number of perceived continuity violations has led to some fans to refuse to accept Enterprise as canon, although it is undeniably so according to Paramount Pictures^{[citation needed]}, owners of the Star Trek franchise. Other fans insist on claiming that Enterprise takes place in an alternate timeline from the other Star Trek series, even though Brannon Braga has declared that it is "of course not" the case^[1]. On the other hand, it should also be noted that, whilst co-creator Brannon Braga claims he and his staff were "slaves to the continuity", he concedes that the production team "bent rules" whilst making Enterprise^[2].

To clarify the article, the various Star Trek series will be referred to by their standard abbreviations. The original series is denoted by TOS, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" by TNG, "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" by DS9, "Star Trek: Voyager" by VOY and the new series "Enterprise" is ENT.

{{spoiler}}

I'm sticking this here as it will end up being archived by the archiver User:Crossmr/trekcleanup. This way we can discuss the various aspects of it without worrying. --Crossmr 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I left the above message 2 weeks ago and never heard from you.--Crossmr 20:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

have a look here User_talk:Crossmr/trekcleanup I used the talk page to start with some points on the subject.--Crossmr 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I stopped by and made a couple comments. Over-all it looks good, but a couple of entries need a bit of work.--Crossmr 20:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry I was abroad and had no i.net access at all. I didn't read what DN Kay said to OBC, I am very sorry. Take care, --Kt66 10:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Plese check:

• Book Review on "Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain..." by Inken Prohl, Free University of Berlin

--Kt66 05:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Magic. The Inconsistencies page was deleted almost a month ago, on 8 December. Here's the vote, for your information. As you see, there was some support to keep it, but the lack of sources and notability killed it.

If you want to try again, feel free to do it, but this time around be sure to have independant references and a justification for why it matters. Unfortunately, I won't be a part of it. I gave it my best shot twice, with this page and with the "Inconsistencies in Star Trek Enterprise" before it, and both times it got deleted. I don't think I'll try for a third attempt.

Anyway, thanks for all your work on these two pages, and good luck on your other articles!

Ritchy 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Who decides Trek is not notable? Its a TV show that has survived 40 YEARS - it's a part of Americana. The OR thing is another matter, though.Magic Pickle 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is denying Star Trek is notable; consensus merely thinks the topic of this article is not.. Computerjoe's talk 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Who decides Insonsistencies in trek is not notable? A different sample of wiki users may suggest it is. I didn't get to vote keep as I didn't know there was an afd in progress. Magic Pickle 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can assume that any articles on contradictions in the Bible and Shakespeare can expect to be deleted too, then? Magic Pickle 20:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No. There is a big difference as contradictions in the Bible receive media attention (or are at least often laughed at in media). My original reason for deletion still stands: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Computerjoe's talk 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A point of view shared enough to create consensus. Computerjoe's talk 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once." Magic Pickle 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I dislike what you are accusing. It is indeed possible but strictly against policy. Computerjoe's talk 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

CJ, I am directly quoting from WP:POINT , here it is in context

"If somebody suggests that Wikipedia should become a majority-rule democratic community... do point out that it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once. " Magic Pickle 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer your other question, "where we can keep the article going with as much OR as we like?", the answer is "in your user space". In fact, this is where Wikipedia recommends keeping articles that are "under development" and, if you recall, it's where I kept the Inconsistencies page until I felt it was ready to be added in Wikipedia. You can create such a page like you'd create a normal page, by wikilinking to it and clicking on the resulting red link. -- Ritchy 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It can be held on a talk page, the problem is it shouldn't be linked from articles, and it can't be held there indefinitely. Moving something to a user page or talk page is a strategy usually reserved for working on material temporarily. You might consider going to memory alpha since the topic is pretty much dead here and seeing about the feasibility of a properly written article there.--Crossmr 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You can I suppose, there isn't anything technically stopping you, but I'm not sure how useful that is. It doesn't seem like an article that can make a comeback, and it can't be linked to.--Crossmr 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You can put it up for AfD if you think it violates WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR or any of the other policies and you don't think the article can be fixed. You might also want to read WP:POINT before doing so though. What I do notice about the inconsistencies in that show and those on the previous article is that most are all quite obvious, and don't require interpretation on the part of the reader or editor. For example Kirk's character being called Mick the first time he's seen then having his name changed. There is no spin the editor can put on that, and no ambiguity. There are a couple there which I noted that do draw conclusions (and I've tagged it with an OR tag and I'm going to make some comments on the talk page) however the majority of the inconsistencies are of the nature Character A does/says B when the show clearly and unambiguously shows the opposite.--Crossmr 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing you have to keep in mind is that no two articles are exactly the same. It would be easy to say "This article about inconsistencies didn't belong therefore every article about inconsistencies doesn't belong". There already seems to be some talk on the mash page about items put up that are drawing conclusions which might not be so cut and dried. I'd encourage you to have a look at them and make a list much like I did for the gilmore girl's one and post it to the talk page. In terms of the reason given for the second article being deleted, the article was again falling into the same issue that existed before. There were editors too interested in putting OR into the article and drawing conclusions based on their opinions. Notability..well thats a questionable thing. The series itself is notable, how notable are the inconsistencies or inconsistencies in general. This again needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. Having more time to look at the GG one I might suggest a merge is in order to a more appropriate parent article. In this case, I might give a week for any OR to be cleaned up then once that is done suggest a merge on the content to a parent article where perhaps the entire list doesn't get moved, but a mention is made of occasional inconsistencies with a couple of notable examples given. A character's name change to me would seem like a notable example. One thing you need to keep an eye for on a merge is the tendency of drive-by editors (those who may edit an article only once or twice and never come back to it) to expand example lists to unreasonable lengths. When it comes to OR what you really need to look for is whether or not there are reasonable alternate theories to what an individual has written in an article. For example, in the GG one if in Season 3 mention is made of Kirk's twin brother who used to live in town you might say that perhaps that really isn't an inconsistency. If there is any ambiguity to what they're writing, they need a citation.--Crossmr 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"There were editors too interested in putting OR into the article and drawing conclusions based on their opinions." Ah well a cautionary note crossmr, if you now look at the main Star Trek Enterprise article, OR and ssumption are rapidly creeping in... Magic Pickle 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You could do it yourself :) Computerjoe's talk 11:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really as I am not sure I agree with the deletion policy. Maybe. Magic Pickle 18:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Magic Pickle, could you please be so kind to check - mediate - the discussion and the points regarding this issue. I can not see a fault from my site, but I am open to get corrected or improve possibly misunderstanding points in the ordination section. Please check the critic of EthicalJohn and my reply maybe you have an advice or suggestion. Thank you very much, --Kt66 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the Archivist entry - it was much appreciated! Could you tell me how I could get some mod help watching the entry on Gwen Shamblin? I just put up a bunch of new info and links, and I'm concerned about alterations that may be made by her followers. --Efkeathley 8:55, 29 March 2007 (EST)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proton pack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proton pack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. - Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Bear Grylls were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Also, please remember to sign your posts. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)