Talk:Star Trek/Archive 2

message: Some bot or someone went through all the StarTrek images and added "This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted after 2007-08-03." -- what gives? It seems the rationale of fair use is obvious and stated in all pictures.
Soon, tons and tons of StarTrek images necessary to illustrate concepts will be auto-deleted.'''
It was probably someone at former Viacom trying to exercise his right to be annoying..TetrisAnarchist 05:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Deletion of ALL StarTrek images?? 

message: For the Star Trek portal box, TOS TrekMUSE is listed as an "Expanded Universe" entry, apart from the Fan entries. Is there a reason for this, or is this simply TOS TrekMUSE players asserting they have official sanction from Paramount (again) and are therefore EU canon? 68.249.4.142 08:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOS TrekMUSE in Expanded Universe 

message: I did find out that Walter Koenig played Chekov in Star Trek: New Voyages but I'm not sure what way you could add it to the artical. Could one of you help? Here is the web page. (Go down to Special guests) Hope this is useful. Tenchi Muyo 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for fan made production. 

message: Can someone please add info showing when each series is set (eg ST:TNG is set in 2255 to 2270 or whatever it is)? Mnbf9rca 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more information 

message: The subsection on the culture of Star Trek mentions The Original Series has inspired ten feature films. This isn't true, strictly speaking, since the cast of TOS was not the basis for the last 3 movies; the TNG cast was. I wasn't sure if it should be changed. Kat, Queen of Typos 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really what it's saying. It's saying the success of TOS launched 10 films in addition to 4 spinoff TV shows etc. K1Bond007 07:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't that be 7 films? 

message: Added the Kirk Vs. Picard debate/controversey. JAF1970 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirk Vs. Picard 

message: You need Fair use Rationales! Otherwise, you won't pass, you'll be breaching copyright, and we'll have to send the Borg round to assimilate your knee caps. ;) Harmonious editting, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Notes 

message: There are some serious issues that have to be addressed before this article can reach a GA status.  The first would be lack of any inline citations.
The second, and much more importantly, would be the scope of the article.  On the whole, this article has a very fansite feel to it, focusing mainly on the interesting bits from the films and movies, while totally leaving out key encyclopedic elements.  
*What about Gene's inspiration for Star Trek?  
*The real world connections in terms of the themes?  
*What about the themes themeselves?  
*What about the technology?  
(The lead mentions some of these topics, but keep in mind that's only the lead, as those topics need expansion elsewhere.)
For examples of things this article shouldn't include... take these two examples.  Star Trek: Phase II, in my opinion, plays a very very very minor role in the mythos, but yet it has a whole section dedicated to this topic.  As well, a fifth of the article is dedicated to what may very well end up being speculation about new series, the future of the franchise, new films, etc.  These sections may be fine on an article about some 2-bit primetime sitcom, but keep in mind, this is Star Trek.  This is one of the biggest science fiction franchises in the world.  It has a massive fanbase, it has had languages creates for it, it has depth, it is a culture in itself, and frankly, it deserves better.  
Leave the speculation for a blog, fansite, or whatever... and instead focus on the core topics.  The more space in this article dedicated to predicting the future, the less space there will be dedicated to talking about its rich past.  Remember, the fun fun topics can be covered elsewhere on wikipedia, but the fundamentals have to be covered here.  
Also, keep in mind that this article is only a measly 37K.  That's nothing.  You have room to grow.  So get going guys!  We're all counting on you!  (Yes, I'm being harsh here, but I think you guys can pull this off if you give it another shot.)  --P-Chan 04:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I just noticed something else.  There seems to be a rich reading list in the references section.  But do all of those books just talk about the Shows, Movies and speculation?  Judging by the titles, I don't think so.  I have a feeling that the references listed in this article don't accurately reflect the article itself, otherwise we'd have something a little more encyclopedic.  In the future don't put things in the references section unless you use them as references.  Also, that diverse listing of books look like it would be a powerful launch pad for you guys.--P-Chan 04:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents on the inline citations, they are not needed for the GA status. Lincher 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: There has been some recent tensions over the the Controversy section of the Star Trek: Enterprise arc article, Temporal Cold War. 
If anyone here can help settle the debate against this rather blockheaded user who insists that Storm Front was one of the best episodes, that it should be included in the article, and that it isn't NPOV but simply a logical conclusion based on so-called "statistics".... 
Please please do so. DrWho42 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over the [[Talk:Temporal_Cold_War#Controversy|Temporal Cold War]] 

message: Why can't this section be compressed into two paragraphs?  We don't need a big explanation of the next film, since that already has its own article.  The rest is just a collection of media reports and trivia.--StAkAr Karnak 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status and the future of the franchise 

message: There has been a dispute over how many episodes in Star Trek there are.  I count it as follows:
TOS:    80  (counting The Menagerie as 2 (both Prod. 16) and The Cage (Prod. 01) as 1)
TAS:    22  (some may see the production numbers and think there are 23, however there is no production numbered 12)
TNG:   178
DS9:   176
VOY:   172
ENT:    98
Total: 726
I counted all episodes as 1 per hour, except for TAS, which is one per half-hour.  I counted 2-hour episodes as 2 episodes (1 per hour).
If I have missed something, please drop a note.  --  CALQL8 20:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The 726 was established back in the archived talk page.  I requested a citation because this figure tends to get modified and I wanted to put it to rest with finality.  Is there a website or something in writing that also states 726 that we can use as a footnote?  If all else fails, we could spell it out with a table in-article, but I'd rather reduce the bulk than add to it.  Maybe state the number of episodes within each series summary?--StAkAr Karnak 01:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't find a place where it references the 726, but at StarTrek.com it specifically states there are 704 live action episodes.  I don't think you can get much better than the official site for a reference.  We could just change the wording to say that there are 704 live action episodes and 22 animated episodes.  --  CALQL8 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. It just makes you wonder if some extremely die-hard Trekkie has ever done such a thing. The Wookieepedian 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of episodes 

message: I think a new section should be added that contains criticism of the show... I know for sure that there is enough to warrent a section.
:Any section on criticism would surely be POV, so I don't think it would be a good idea. But if there is a valid source and it can be writtin neutrally, then yes. Newnam(talk) 01:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How much criticism can be applied to Trek as a whole?  Criticisms can largely be addressed in the shows' own articles.--StAkAr Karnak 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section: Criticism 

message: :Moved to talk page from article Newnam(talk) 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novels 

message: Wasn't Weasley Crusher made an acting ensign in the first series, not second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdiaob (talk • contribs) 00:01 12 August 2006 (UTC) 
 
VOTE NOW WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME TO SAVE WIKIPEDIA!
MarkThomas 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for fan made production. 

message: The section on the next generation needs an edit. Instead of saying something like: "The crew of this series' ship is:", it uses the word NEW an obsene amount of times. 70.177.68.209 03:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Next Generation Rewrite 

message: I've deleted the box with all the movie posters.  The individual articles about the movies each show their posters.  It's not necessary to duplicate that here, it just takes up space.  CPitt76 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Posters 

message: It seems a bit cluttered to have the production dates of each series included in the headers. The information is available in either the blurb in this article, or the main article for each series. What does everyone think? Newnam(talk) 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in headers 

message: Some anon guy posted the following to the article:
:The one disputedly negative aspect of TNG, was that Gene Roddenbury decided, before the pilot was writen, that the bridge crew would never disagree with one another. although this leads to a more futuristic, perfect view, many beleive that this lack of character conflict makes the show lose all shreds of enjoyability.
There's some POV there, but probably also a useful nugget for inclusion.  Anyone want to take a stab at fixing it up? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's almost entirely POV.  Was there even a source provided to back up the claim?  Assuming it can be backed up, it's probably better suited for inclusion in TNG main article.  CPitt76 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TNG rqst

message: For some reason, whenever I try to look up Star Trek, I am directed to a page about Star Wars. Did someone delete all of the Trek information and copy the Star Wars?
:There's one or two words on the subject at Star Trek. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was referring to , which now appears to have been fixed.  Dionyseus 20:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What has happened

message: I just completely changed this article, and hope I didn't remove or add anything inappropriately. I have been re-doing this article for the past several days and my progress can be seen in my userspace at User:Newnam/Star Trek rewrite. Some comments on what it was I did to the article: I mereged the paragraphs in the opening to create a more concise and grammatically correct introduction. I have reduced all of the sub-headings about the individual series to one paragraph each. The reason for this is because the link to the main article is right there, and any additional information on this page would be extraneous to explaing Star Trek. I removed the section on multi-part episodes, as it is not neccessary, again, to explaining Star Trek. I merged the novels section with the other storylines and canonocity, to create a broad enough section to keep away from unneccesary specifics. The last thing I did, was reference pretty much the whole article with inline citations, something that has been missing and needed for some time. I did spend quite some time on this, so if you disagree with how the article is now, please just comment, or fix what's wrong. I believe this is the start that is needed to finally get this article to featured status. My one request is that you do not wholly or partially revert my edits until it is discussed. Hope everyone likes the article, Newnam(talk) 20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Revamp 

message: Previously, I changed this sentence, but was reverted by Newnam: "Star Trek, [...], depicts a post World War III vision of the future in which science has [...] helped humanity to largely overcome many Earth-bound frailties and vices."
My issue is that science is not what united Star Trek's humanity.  It was the Vulcans.  Humanity went through WWIII and was in the midst of a 'post-atomic horror' when the Vulcans intervened and dramatically altered the course of Human history.  This is why the TNG crew worked to restore the timeline in First Contact; they knew Cochrane's invention wasn't enough to save man from the dark ages.  Technology played no role in Human morality.  Left to their own devices, the US would still have been in conflict with the Eastern Coalition.  Can anyone present evidence that Humanity would still have been prosperous if the Vulcans never showed up?
IMO, the intro should be changed to say: "Star Trek, [...], depicts a post World War III vision of the future in which alien intervention and science have [...] helped humanity to largely overcome many Earth-bound frailties and vices." -- StAkAr Karnak 03:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, rather than simply reverting. It is my opinion, that you are correct in what you say, it's just that the information seems superfulous. The alien intervention is a resultant of a trip in space, faster than light, which results from the science of warp power. In the end, it was the science that allowed everything to take place. I feel that if we add alien intervention to the reasons, then we should add Zephram Cochrane's name, and the fact about a faster-than-light trip during a borg attack. I think I've looked at this article too long to see things objectively anymore, so if you feel that it should go in there still, feel free to place it there. Regards, Newnam(talk) 04:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it is superfluous, because if only science is mentioned, then it sounds like man did everything on their own.  If alien intervention is added, it is clear that man had help.  This makes a significant difference in what sort of future Star Trek portrays.  There is no need to elaborate in the intro, because is someone was curious and wanted to learn more, they could easily do a search for Star Trek history.  I will go ahead and readd the datapoint, since you've indicated your compliance.  Thanks. -- StAkAr Karnak 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "science has united human beings"?

message: Happy 40th birthday Star Trek! Keep up the good work guys! Marky1981 10:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  40th Anniversary 

message: I'm removing the following uncited assertion:
- the first Star Trek series 
Fact Check (Unofficial) 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited Assertion 

message: "(CNN) -- Trekkies set their phasers to bid this week, doling out about $7.1 million during a three-day auction of "Star Trek" memorabilia at Rockefeller Center, Christie's auction house said Saturday." 
Where should this infomation be put? dposse 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek auction 

message: 1. Add mention and picture of USS Defiant to portion about series Deep Space Nine; relevant because it was a warship, reflecting the darker tone of the series, as well as being a major part of the program from the fourth season on.
2. Authors of the article should attempt to get ahold of a television program called "How William Shatner Changed the World," (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814142/) which presents great interviews on the influence of Star Trek on science and technology. See official website for this program at http://www.discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/how_shatner/shatner_home/.
3. It might be worth to mentioning that second ship in Star Trek canon, Columbia NX-01, was named in tribute to the destroyed USA Space Shuttle of the same name, according to Memory Alpha. In addition, Memory Alpha claims that USS Challenger NCC-71099 was a tribute to the destroyed USA Space Shuttle of the same name. I do not know if they have citations for these, but they make a good argument and it might be possible to get Paramount to confirm.
72.77.64.142 04:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations for Improvements 

message: It might be helpful to get a main picture at the top of the page, like the current Star Trek franchise logo, or the delta symbol, or something of that nature. It would be more recognizable. Mnpeter 17:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: There seems to be too many images of the series' starships. I would have thought images of the cast would be more appropriate, or at least a mixture of both the ships and the crew. Marky1981 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Assistance is needed at Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia.  It has been nominated for deletion, however is well referenced article worked on by several major Wikipedia contributors.  Keep votes would be welcome. -Husnock 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had to vote Delete and my reasons match those of the others on that VfD page. Darcyj 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You attracted another vote to Delete the article.  I sympathize with you (see my vote comment), but the article is reaching, even for fancruft (and I like fancruft).  Val42 06:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Red alert on VfD

message: I would like to suggest taking out the following pictures: 
Animated 1701
Concept for Phase II
1701-E
The article seems somewhat overloaded with pictures, and these seem to be of the least importance. 
ChunkySoup 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures! 

message: Some Idiot Deleted the whole article and replaced it with "It Sucks!"
Of all the nerve! I love Star Trek! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.52.205 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam Alert! 

message: What I have seen on other pages is that when an associated web site is sufficiently noteworthy in its own right to warrant its own Wikipedia entry, usually the references within Wikipedia to that site go to the Wikipedia article page, not directly to the site. Hence my edit. It was reverted by someone who changed the link in the first place, which to me is a lack of consensus, hence this post. Avt tor 01:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just plain weird if that sort of thing is happening elsewhere.  If anything, this would prejudice articles to contain less notable links directly!  We absolutely have to the link to Startrek.com in the Star Trek article.   We can certainly have a internal link to the StarTrek.com article as well.  Morwen - Talk 01:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <shrug> I defer first to policy, second to consensus, third to prededent, and fourth to esthetic preference. Avt tor 05:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Morwen. McKay 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link v. See also 

message: Reading the article it looks like this:
(Talking about TOS)
Star Trek is about a gay Sulu....and a captain that can't keep his dick in his pants! debuted in the United States...
I looked in on editing it, but I couldn't figure out where the sabotage was, so thought I'd better chime in here instead.
Edit:  Looks like it's fixed now.
66.219.170.248 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone's having fun 

message: It appears I clicked the wrong button and restored the wrong version. My bad. Thanks to The_undertow for fixing this. Avt tor 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: haha. i passed the vandal torch to you!  i found a 'clean' version so we are both cleared of the vandal stigma. everything is once again cool! The undertow 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now I'm the vandal? 

message: I seem to remember seing the pilot episode of Star Trek, not having captain Kirk but a captain Pike (I think) in the very first show aired. And a woman as his commanding officer Anyone know anything bout that? Shouldn't we write something about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.105.34.219 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. I don't think that captain pike is very notable in Star Trek lore (3 total episodes about him). Q, and the Borg are much more notable, and aren't noted on this page. Captain Pike is notable to be included in Wikipedia. He is mentioned in the TOS article (and even the TNG article) and the individual episodes about him (As well as a few others), he's in the Template:Enterprise captains too. I think he's got sufficient coverage. McKay 14:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The first episode aired was "The Man Trap" (with the salt monster). The unaired pilot with Captain Pike, the female Number One played by Majel Barrett, was filmed in 1964 but not aired by the network. The unaired pilot was later recut as background footage for the excellent two-part first-season episode "The Menagerie". I'm sure the unaired pilot has been aired by cable channels here and there in the years since, but it was not aired by NBC during the series run from 1966 to 1969. Avt tor 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First aired show was not captain Kirk 

message: None of the starship images linked from this page have a correct fair use rationale.  This should be rectified ASAP. JulesH 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use 

message: An anonymous editor put the FAC tag on the article but did not list the article on the FAC list. There's been no discussion about this here. I invite people to comment on whether this nomination should be submitted. I'll start with my opinion:
*Oppose - I suggest (1) a review of reasons that the GA nomination was rejected, so that editors can satisfy themselves that all issues are addressed and clean up any outstanding issues, (2) a consensus that the article is ready for GA submission, (3) peer review, (4) GA nomination, (5) a further discussion about how to address remaining points to get the article to FA status. The article is pretty good and doesn't need a lot of work, but it won't help to have it shot down before it's quite ready. Avt tor 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidate?? 

message: I think there should be a section, just as how the Star Wars articles flesh out the Force.  IMHO, ST presents the Federation as Deist.  There are many notable examples of religion in the ST universe that differ from Western religion, while religion is prominent in most alien species and seemingly irrelevant to the Federation.  On the other hand, TOS seems more receptive to religion on the part of the Enterprise crew.  Dr McCoy is one of them, but most say "Oh my God" at some point or another.  What of V'Ger and its Creator?  What of Sybok's quest in The Final Frontier, or Soren's in Generations?  Even the Prime Directive seems in part based on Roddenberry's Baptist faith, in which a civilization is allowed to mature before they make a decision to join the Federation, as the Baptists do not believe in pedobaptism, but allow their children to make the choice to believe or not when they are ready.  Some of it appears to have a Jewish, rather than Christian inflection.  Regardless, the Eastern religions mostly appear to be part of alien worlds than the Alpha Quadrant Federation.
You may think this is frivolous and that Star Trek is the bastion or champion of left-liberal causes, but think again.  Star Trek has a distinctly American and sometimes, European approach.  I would find it hard to believe that there are editors here who refuse to hear me out, no matter how atheist/gay/communist you are.  Recall that James T. Kirk was a character vehemently on the other side of where you stand, the brash American cowboy captain.  Even the Enterprise is a euphemism for American capitalism, concieved of when the Cold War was at its social height--the 60's.  To be precise, Star Trek is a Great Society for the future.
Les Invisibles 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not a problem with that content in and of itself, but there really aren't any reliable sources that talk about it enough to become WP:NOTABLE. McKay 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you misunderstood me. First and foremost, you need to read WP:NOTE "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other", also, you need to see WP:OR, and WP:RS. I am *not* opposed to the content that was put in, but there were no sources, and no claims of such sources. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of fact, it is an encyclopedia of WP:VERIFYability. The content that was added to this page reaked of original research, and no sources were present. According to wikipedia policy I'm allowed to revert any unsourced assertions. This was the case for this new content (and it appeared to be WP:OR), so I removed it, and I stand by that decision. Feel free to add it again with sources that make the conclusions presented. McKay 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I shouldn't have to answer your personal attack about the James Earl Salisbury article. It's an ad hominem attack. But I'll briefly summarize why it's allowed. James Earl Salisbury is the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other". If you have further qualms about the article, you should bring it up on it's talk page. McKay 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let us all try to verify material from reliable sources. Let us also avoid personal attacks, original research, and conflicts of interest. Avt tor 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's good that you appreciate the value of WP:COI, but you need to look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. . The other editor did not "attack" you, he posted a one-sentence comment disagreeing with your long argument. Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, you're attacking the guy's dead father; that's pretty cold, and it is certainly completely off-topic in this discussion. Avt tor 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me put it this way: I want religious information in the article about Star Trek. I would like to see such themes there. The problem is that according to WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, the version you put up there needs to come down. Also, please do not bring up the article on my father here again. It is clearly an ad hominem logical fallacy to bring it up here, and will be considered a personal attack. McKay 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek and religion 

message: How hypocritically quaint!  James Earl Salisbury is an article you created about your father, yet you object to one section about the whole Trek U in which religion is noted?  You don't think that religion is important, so what?  The vast majority of people in this world do, whether they like it or hate it.  Les Invisibles
:I think you misunderstood me. First and foremost, you need to read WP:NOTE "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other", also, you need to see WP:OR, and WP:RS. I am *not* opposed to the content that was put in, but there were no sources, and no claims of such sources. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of fact, it is an encyclopedia of WP:VERIFYability. The content that was added to this page reaked of original research, and no sources were present. According to wikipedia policy I'm allowed to revert any unsourced assertions. This was the case for this new content (and it appeared to be WP:OR), so I removed it, and I stand by that decision. Feel free to add it again with sources that make the conclusions presented. McKay 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't have to answer your personal attack about the James Earl Salisbury article. It's an ad hominem attack. But I'll briefly summarize why it's allowed. James Earl Salisbury is the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other". If you have further qualms about the article, you should bring it up on it's talk page. McKay 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let us all try to verify material from reliable sources. Let us also avoid personal attacks, original research, and conflicts of interest. Avt tor 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's good that you appreciate the value of WP:COI, but you need to look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. . The other editor did not "attack" you, he posted a one-sentence comment disagreeing with your long argument. Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, you're attacking the guy's dead father; that's pretty cold, and it is certainly completely off-topic in this discussion. Avt tor 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me put it this way: I want religious information in the article about Star Trek. I would like to see such themes there. The problem is that according to WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, the version you put up there needs to come down. Also, please do not bring up the article on my father here again. It is clearly an ad hominem logical fallacy to bring it up here, and will be considered a personal attack. McKay 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability/reliability, hah!