Recent split offs Edit
Hey. Following your split off from the article Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel several images are unused. Please add them to the appropriate new articles. Thanks. Tom (talk) 22:34, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Just a FYI, I am working on this when I can. Sorry it's taking so long. - Archduk3 17:34, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- That's cool, it seems I was right behind you on this one overall, since I hadn't even started to revert the changes when I blocked the ip addresss, only to find out that you were doing that at the same time. :) - Archduk3 01:14, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
I'll pass that up the food chain. Edit: I also wanted to point out that I only added the new images; the article itself has been here for a while. Just don't want others to lose the contributions they made. Raylan13 (talk) 06:38, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
First time editor please !H!E!L!P! Edit
looks like some one moved my images (I'm cool with that I really did't know where to put it) its at the < - bottom of the M-113 box from the bottom link. The problem is whats the point of a panoramic image (Just when you want to view it alone) the res is so low that now its not panoramic its just a medium res'd imaged cropped in half, It should be 2568x881. This Makes all the time i took negated completely. M-113 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justinalpha (talk • contribs).
- Flickr is an acceptable source, as long as the licensing on the image allows, but those images must be marked with the flickr license template. -- sulfur (talk) 12:19, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the original image is not marked as CC, but as "All Rights Reserved". Permission was given strictly to Wikipedia for use, so to actually use that image, we'll have to ensure that all checks/etc are covered off. -- sulfur (talk) 12:21, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Sulfur, have you already contact the flickr user on this, as it's my understanding we need his permission to use this, or should I? - Archduk3 19:48, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
- I've not contacted them -- I just gave the various images and such a quick glance-over. -- sulfur (talk) 19:54, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Email sent, I'll update when I get a response. - Archduk3 20:20, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
Removing edits from historyEdit
Please do not remove edits from the history of pages unless they are vandalism or copyright violations. The Star Trek video game page history contained neither of these.
Furthermore, Wikia was not creating content here, they were sharing content here. Please pay attention to discussions that took place before calling things "copyright violations". This was not the case here. -- sulfur (talk) 10:50, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I did pay attention, or at least I did for all the parts of it that happened on site. It's impossible for wikia employees to make contributions here (creating content) that don't lead to commercial use of that work. All contributions here have to be non-commercial, and wikia's marketing team dumping a bunch of images on a page to increase the traffic so the ads sell for more is the very definition of using the work for commercial purposes. If they want to share content, they can let us know where we can get it, because we have to be the ones that choose to add it, not them. Please pay attention to the terms of the CC license before calling violations of the copyright anything less than such, as that was the case here. - Archduk3 18:03, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
I know the CC license. The edits to the video game page in no way contravened it. At all. Dumping ~20 images? Yes. A problem. Wikia knows about it now. Giving us a few images? Not an issue, as long as they are licensed properly. Those images were all over the web, and us using 2-3 of them would be fine.
Regardless, there was never a copyright violating edit to the article. There was issue with the plethora of images uploaded, but simply linking to them is not a copyright violation. -- sulfur (talk) 18:43, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
- How exactly were those edits non-commercial when they were made by an employee of the company that makes a profit on the traffic to that page, and presumably would have lead to increased traffic, and thus more profit? They can host MA and run ads, or they can contribute to MA and not run ads; they can't do both. - Archduk3 18:56, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
The edit to the page is still not a copyright violation. The image uploads may have been. Short answer: In future, before deleting edit history like that, please talk to other people. -- sulfur (talk) 19:28, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
Was the entire video module reactivated, or did some user simply upload a large number of videos to the wiki?
- It was my understanding that Special:Video was suppose to be disabled, as we didn't want any videos at all. I haven't seen the video rail module, but the video link in the nav should still be removed. - Archduk3 02:19, April 17, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Special:Video can be removed. It also looks like he simply took advantage of the default mediawiki upload to link to the videos of the entire episodes from hulu (which are free for a period of time, but not guaranteed to be free in an ongoing situation). When mediawiki sees such uploads, it "creates videos" for them, though they're not actually hosted here/etc. In this case, it appears to be a user problem. Perhaps we need to clarify the MA:IMAGE and MA:NOT a bit more. --
- I was wondering how someone had downloaded a hulu video, since I have plus and even I can't do that. Regardless, if we don't already actually say we don't want videos on one of both of those pages, then we should add it for sure. As for the video upload page, I seem to remember a time where you couldn't upload a video because the special page was disabled. That was most likely several "upgrades" ago, but I was under the impression that since videos were going to remain off here completely, you still couldn't, which makes me wonder what would happen if someone tried to upload a video "for real", which is bound to happen eventually so long as the default menu options on every page contain a video upload link. - Archduk3 18:09, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
Want to be in our Star Trek Expert Showcase? Edit
I'm Brian with Wikia. I wanted to invite you to participate in our upcoming Star Trek episode of Wikia's Expert Showcase. We'd record it on a Google+ Hangout some time next week.
Could you drop me a line AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and let me know either way, please? We'd love to feature you, but are on a deadline. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
--18.104.22.168 23:21, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
- No. - Archduk3 03:07, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
Welcome msg & personal info Edit
- Good catch. - Archduk3 15:33, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
Wikia staff can upload images, even with the license we use. As long as those images are properly cited, sourced, etc, and publicly available.
They cannot upload publicity images, but if those images are available elsewhere, there's no issue with it. Please do not unilaterally delete these images next tmie, without a mention in advance. -- sulfur (talk) 19:15, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
Note to self: clean up the rest of the links later today when you're not on a Xbox. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 17:07, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
My email Edit
Hi Archduk3, I wanted to just check in with you here about if you got my email (I used the address attached to this account). The date for the visit is approaching soon, so if you could let me know in a day or so, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, --Sarah (help forum | blog) 16:58, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Archduk3: Did you get this email? Are you considering going...? -- sulfur (talk) 12:54, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
Yes. We'll see how this goes. - Archduk3 07:46, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
McCoy on shuttlecraft Edit
- I would prefer if you could upload a .jpg version of that image here (link under the file history box in said tab), since we don't want screenshots as a .png. Also, yes, I can do that if you can't convert the file. - Archduk3 17:27, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Done. - Archduk3 17:56, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
So...not 2260? Edit
Hey, this isn't really anything major, but I was just wondering if you knew why Star Trek Into Darkness and any related pages have reverted the film's stardate setting to only 2259? I've noticed a lot of the people and things that exist in the alternate reality list to being 'alive' or 'active' as of that year when it was originally 2260. Was it decided that the movie's epilogue no longer officially take places one year after stardate 2259.55?
FTR, I know full well that Memory Alpha is likely to be a more accurate, if not the most accurate outlet on Trek lore than any other source, but according to the movie's Wikipedia page, it finishes "one year later". --FaNbOy1988 (talk) 18:39, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
- The film ends almost one year later, and since the main events of the film take place in February, it's possible it was still 2259. Without knowing either way for sure, we tend to go with the known date. - Archduk3 07:45, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the Remaster issue, it has made life a lot easier in the editing world, [[TOS-R|... and [[TNG-R|... is a marked improvement! Thanks for that.--Sennim (talk) 13:30, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
Please add me to the list of administrators/bureaucrats for Serbian wiki.
Also, please add Serbian interlink to Announcements. Interlink is:
- Done. - Archduk3 18:13, June 16, 2013 (UTC)