Enterprise-E revisions summarily reverted
Please review the recent activity on the Enterprise-E page. Sulfur has summarily reverted my revisions for no specific reason, instead opening a discussion in a section of Talk unused since 2009. I explained my reasoning and have no problems discussing specific points of contention without an edit war, but this open-ended, "no good reason" approach could easily leave an erroneous article on Memory Alpha, simply because one or more careless writers came first. QeylIS (talk) 19:15, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Without discussing the merits of what you have done or the reasoning of others in reverting it, in general our policy is to revert pages or edits in dispute back to a pre-dispute state until the dispute is discussed. 31dot (talk) 23:22, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
But there was no dispute. Sulfur reverted it because he had a gut feeling there might be one, based on previous history, not because he disagreed with a specific change of mine. I told him I would discuss specific issues if and when they occur, but he just kept reverting preventively. Now the article is in a worse shape than before my revisions and there is no roadmap for when my revisions will be accepted. You and the other admins are responsible for that state, because you could've examined my revisions but chose not to. I'll move on to the regular Wikipedia, thank you. QeylIS (talk) 18:50, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
A comment made by someone in April 2009 (!) or earlier, going by the Talk page, one which I took into account by leaving the reference to Deck 29 while merely removing two unfounded assumptions made by the earlier editor and explaining my reasoning for removing those assumptions. However, I suppose any progress is a scary proposition, as is discussing specific issues raised by my edits, as opposed to merely reverting with thinking caps off. QeylIS (talk) 21:06, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm truly sorry you feel that way, but there are reasons for the way things are. It's up to those suggesting changes to state why they are needed, especially when there is already an extensive history behind the underlying issues and a previous consensus.
- Also, I merely hadn't had the chance to review what you had done; I didn't "choose" not to review them. 31dot (talk) 22:19, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
Important image deletion request
Hey - could you please delete File:TNG S3 theatrical poster.jpg at your earliest convenience? I learned today (from a source at TrekCore) that it leaked onto one theater's website, and that CBS has been trying to keep it from being posted anywhere online since there are apparently some copyright issues being worked out between the studio and the poster's artist - CBS has already been notified about the theater's site, and I don't want MA to get in trouble.
Thanks if you can help! - Aatrek 23:02, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Done. :) 31dot (talk) 23:06, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
That was fast - thanks! - Aatrek 23:07, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
Things are cleared up with the poster now; I've re-uploaded the image. - Aatrek 14:40, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. 31dot (talk) 18:59, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
Our Man Bashir Director Connection to Scarecrow and Mrs. King
I threw it on the episode page because of the fact that it was a spy centric episode. 188.8.131.52 21:01, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I realize that, however, there needs to be citeable evidence that one has to do with the other, such as a statement from other Trek staff that he was chosen to direct OMB because he worked on that prior show, for it to be on the episode page. If there is no direct connection, it should go on his own page. 31dot (talk) 22:49, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
I thought MA was about collaborative editing and facts. Not privileging certain opinions... 184.108.40.206 17:34, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I will not debate this in two different places. 31dot (talk) 01:06, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
You locked the page, asked for a lot of explanations and then left without responding. 220.127.116.11 10:51, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
- I did not lock the talk page. 31dot (talk) 10:54, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say you did. You locked the actual page, asked for a lot of explanations to be made on the talkpage and left.
So it seems you won't debate this anywhere, let alone two places. 18.104.22.168 08:05, February 14, 2013 (UTC)