This is my talk page. To contact me with anything regarding Memory Alpha, just click on "Start a new discussion" below. Thanks.
The small print:
- Discussion stays in one place - if you ask here, expect an answer here. However...
- Discussion might be moved - if I'm answering simple questions, I might move the discussion to your talk page, or some other discussion page that is a better fit (including an archive subpage of this page). If you're missing a section that once was here, check the page history. I will indicate in the edit summary where a specific section ended up. Eventually...
- Discussion might be removed - inactive discussions will eventually be removed completely if they don't seem to have any long-term value (typically requests for participation, technical questions that have been answered on other pages etc.). You can still find those discussions by searching the page history for the latest edit containing the relevant section title. Past discussions have been archived on these pages: 2004 - 2005 - 2006 (1-6) - 2006 (7-12), 2007 - 2008-2011
I own the domain: http://memoryalpha.co.uk
I would be willing to re-direct this or donate this domain to yourselves at no cost. The requirement would be an account (creatable for free) at 123-reg.co.uk to enable a free transfer of this domain. This domain expires: 2013-03-18 --Mikey87 15:03, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
"Facebook wall" on WikiaEdit
- What. The. Fuck? -- Cid Highwind 19:41, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Account Deletion Edit
- Accounts cannot be deleted, because they are necessary for contribution. Just stop using your account. -- Cid Highwind 20:43, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
- I do not want you to stop because of me- I only wished to inform you of the proper use of talk pages. --31dot 21:38, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
Dutch MA Edit
Hello Cid. I'm sorry to bother you with this, but you've helped us out on the Dutch MA version in the past. Maybe you could help me with this one also. On the Dutch version we've used a lot of "class="grey" but this class doesn't seem to be working anymore. This results in a lack of borders around certain areas. For example: this one used to have borders around the edges and around the different sections. Now the text and images are floating around a bit. I've noticed that the class still works fine on the English version so I'm guessing the problem is somewhere in our .css. I hope you can help me with this one. Greetings, Patricia 15:00, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. The problem is that some of the CSS instructions (which still exist) are not applied anymore. To change that, you will need to edit your Wikia.css file. I'm not an admin, so I can't do it myself. Just add the following line and save, and everything should be OK.
- You may have to clear your browser cache so that you can see the full effect. -- Cid Highwind 10:05, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help Cid. It worked! The class=grey is working fine again :) Greetings, Patricia 13:28, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if you folks are aware, but there is a new nav. menu coming out very soon which allows more drop-downs than the current limit of 4. I remember your old vertical nav. menu used to have cascading menus, so this might be something that would work better for M-A than the current menu. I thought I would offer to turn it on for you early, which would allow you more time to get it tuned in the way you want it. Otherwise it is rumored to go live around the 26th of this month. Let me know if you want me to flip the switch early for you.
Dutch MA - Number of Articles Edit
Hey Cid, I've got another question from the Dutch version of MA. Our version of NUMBEROFARTICLES doesn't add any pages anymore. A couple of days ago I noticed this for the first time, but I thought it was a browser problem that would be solved after the page was 'refreshed'. It didn't work and the articles were never added to the count, but the next day the number of articles increased again everytime when I added a new article. So I thought it was a temporary glitch, but today the problem returned. When I started editing this evening MA NL had 7021 articles. After adding two more articles it still has that number of articles. If you take a look add our Statistics page in general it even says that MA - NL has 7037 articles (http://nl.memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=Speciaal:WikiStats&action=main) I've been messing around a lot lately with the concealer.css, the wikia.css and other technical stuff so I was wondering if I could have been responsible for the problem or if its wikia related. Greetings, --Patricia 21:19, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing you add to a CSS or JS file can mess up a magic word like NUMBEROFARTICLES. What could be the case is that the page is cached - meaning that, even after more pages were created, an old value is still "hardcoded" into the page version that gets served. Typically, stuff like this fixes itself after some hours - or you can add "?action=purge" to the end of the page URL to force a reload. -- Cid Highwind 00:19, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Cid, Thanks for your reply. I'm relieved that I couldn't have been responsible. I've tried to 'reload' the main page as you suggested, but the value remains the same. http://nl.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Memory_Alpha_Wiki?action=purge I've contacted a member of wikia to see if it's a database problem. I've been testing the http://nl.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Speciaal:Statistieken page by adding new articles. Some testing articles are placed in the section that has all pages (templates, forumpages, categories....) on the wiki, while others are placed in the right category (just the encyclopedia articles) in which the article count increases. So I'm guessing that's where the 'missing' articles in the count have gone to. But since the article count has started to increase again I'm guessing the glitch is gone... for now at least... Greetings, --Patricia 08:34, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
Removal of admin status Edit
Hi, Cid. Sorry if I started to bring this issue up in the wrong place. Of course, I don't believe you're "evil" (or anything of that ilk); quite the opposite, actually. I always assume that your edits are made in good faith and I have absolutely nothing against you. I also believe you're quite impressively skilled at sarcasm. It was in that way – sarcastically and full of jest – that I meant my request for my admin status to be removed. I must admit that I found your response of immediately taking me literally as quite sudden, unlike 31dot's response here. I do concede that I was probably mistaken to take jest in something so serious. With my mental condition, I do find humor an extremely difficult concept. I really didn't mean to happen what clearly has, so I'm very sorry. --Defiant 19:28, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
- OK. While we're at it, something you should know is that I'm sick of your constant back and forth when it comes to accusations and later apologies. Typically, you will cry wolf about someone being after you, only to backpaddle if that someone brings up proof of his actions not being ill-willed but actually in accordance with our rules, or even common sense. I have been that someone once too often, so let me just get that straight: I am not after you - and I wish that you just stepped back from your browser after accusing me of such next time, and reread your own comment after half an hour and before publishing it. I guess that would save both of us some time and nerves. Now that you've brought it up - and without any bit of sarcasm intended: Maybe you do have a mental condition that makes communication difficult - but how should I know, being a continent away and only connected to you via text messages? If you recognize that there's a problem in communication, it is up to you to minimize that problem by acting cautiously. -- Cid Highwind 20:06, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
I'll definitely try to follow your advice, Cid, though doesn't everyone have bad days or days that they could be happier about some things, which could be entirely unrelated to MA but which could be affecting their performance here? But I do appreciate the other side of the coin; basically, any user could act out-of-sorts and then blame it on unrelated circumstances, which likely wouldn't create a nice editing environment. So, I will try to change that and apologies for the "back and forth" you refer to. Now that you do know what actually happened, I don't have that frustration nagging away at me any more. I do understand your difficulty of "how should I know". Being such a personal thing to me, I'm a bit insecure about providing proof or even more information (as well as doing so wouldn't seem to be in accordance with your advice of "acting cautiously"). I suspect it would make our reconciliation easier if you accepted that you did jump the gun on deciding to take me literally. --Defiant 20:35, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
Help with TOC in articles Edit
Hello. I am one of the administrators of a wiki for a computer game and we have trouble getting the TOC hidden by default in the articles, as you have here. Would you be so kind to tell me how you got it? Thanks --Magolossum 18:13, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
- __NOTOC__ -- sulfur 18:18, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
This makes dissapear totally the TOC. What I want is that the list of the TOC is hidden by default. --Magolossum 21:17, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean -- can you give me an example article? -- sulfur 21:34, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the TOC is initially collapsed for you, and only showing content if you click on "show"? If so, that surprises me, because it doesn't do that for me. ;) I don't see any custom JS which could affect that, but I guess calling the "toggleToc()" function on page load might achieve the trick. -- Cid Highwind 21:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. The first time I entered this wiki I found the TOC's closed but, yes, the TOC remembers if it was last open or closed. The problem we have is that some TOC's could be very longs and we need, for visual reasons, that these TOC's remain closed. I'm going to consult with my colleagues about the JS function you suggested, as I guess is a good option. --Magolossum 10:49, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I'm not yet totally sure what happened there - especially because the same IP user just merged two articles on MA/de about the same topic, and seems to give his changes here as a reason for doing stuff there. I'll keep an eye on it. -- Cid Highwind 20:40, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, see discussion de:Diskussion:Subraumreflexion. I think, that the (subspace) reflexion is the generic term and the (subspace) transition rebound a special case. In the German translation is an error, since rebound is not the same as "effect". Thats the reason for fusion of the both german articles and deletion of one of the interwiki-links. --Mark McWire 21:40, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
subspace reflection Edit
moved to Talk:Subspace reflection
- It worked. :) -- Cid Highwind 21:27, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in that Forum. I still disagree with you, as I would have to look at a phrase for a long time to decide if the italics or non-italics of quotation marks are semantically correct; but quotation marks that do not match the slant of the quoted text jump out at me as ugly, and that seems the bigger issue.
Your question on whether the quotes themselves should be italic is valid. Uncyclopedia (UnNews) abandoned that usage last fall after a former editor adopted it as part of a satire of hypertext. But I am too new on MA to tell anyone what their Style Guide should be; just wanted to air out my small point to see how deliberate MA usage was. Spike-from-NH 12:57, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
MAlf must die (or be given a guardian), for the good of Memory Alpha Edit
Rename/Delete User Edit
Hello, this account was created using a real name not belonging to the person who registered it. It is now a privacy concern. Please could you either delete the account or, if that is not possible, rename it? The account will not be used in future. Dara Barkhordar 19:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not Cid, but I posted a response on your page.--31dot 19:07, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
Your version of the main page Edit
I've archived, via deletion, your version of the main page. The panels and layout have changed enough from when it was created to make it obsolete, and the need to keep it updated every time something changes is a hassle. If you want it restored, just let me know, or I guess you could restore it yourself. :) - Archduk3 18:32, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:03, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
Countdown on homepageEdit
- It is certainly possible to do, and feel free to do it on the French site. We won't be doing it on the English site, at least not until things come much closer to the release date. -- sulfur (talk) 14:04, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Offhand, no, but I suspect that it's fairly easy to do. I'd suggest poking around some other wiki-front pages and seeing if anyone else has a countdown and then do what they do. -- sulfur (talk) 17:40, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
TNG-R making TNG non-canon?Edit
Marvel Comics Star Trek Issues Edit
Hi there. My name is Spencer, and I'm an admin at the Marvel Database Project, also a part of Wikia. I was hoping you could help with something.
As you may or may not know, over the years Marvel Comics, as well as some of its imprint publishers, have published a number of different Star Trek comics spanning through the various TV shows and films.
Now, being Marvel-produced comics, we cover these issues at the MDP, but, as a site rule to keep a rein on the wiki's content, licensed properties do not get pages for characters, teams, locations, equipment or the like. Instead, we link out to other wikis that cover the material in a more in depth manner.
I would like to link out to your site for the Star Trek related issues, but I'm not sure whether to link here, to Memory Alpha, or to Memory Beta (I hope I assume correctly that MA and MB are related sites). I'm admittedly a Star Wars fan, and my knowledge of Star Trek is limited, so I am unsure if the comics fall into the continuity covered here, or if they are better left to the non-canon side on Beta. If you can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it. --Spencerz (talk) 12:15, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm no expert on comics, but generally, we have an article about the publication itself (even if they are "non-canon", example: Ghosts (Marvel)), but not about individual characters (unless they've also appeared in a "canon" production, which means an episode or film). Your best bet for individual articles about comic-only characters would indeed be Memory Beta, which is a related wiki in terms of our shared topic, but not really in terms of adminship. I hope that helps - if not, don't hesitate to ask again. :) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 12:45, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
Canon issue Edit
I think I found an item which needs correcting (a canon issue). You can see the item in question under discussion here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Talk:Taurus_II_(Murasaki_312) . Even the admin who moved the original talk seems to agree that this is something that is incorrect. However no action was taken to fix the problem.
One of the things that makes Memory Alpha standout is it's commitment to accuracy regarding Star trek canon. Could you please look into this issue? I just hate the fact that Memory Alpha could get something wrong. :)
Hello. About the articletype template...Edit
How do you put in the backgrounds for this template? I'm trying to do something similar on Galactic Crucibles Wiki but I'm not having any luck searching for assistance on Community Central because they keep on telling me to access the Common.css page, which I can't, because I don't have admin rights. Is it possible to add the background images without accessing Common.css?
- WikiBuilder1147 21:16, May 5, 2013 (UTC)
Mirror MA Edit
Cid, could you make me an admin on the MU version? I'm doing some cleanup and formatting, and I need admin rights to do everything I'm trying to get done. Thanks! -- Renegade54 (talk) 14:22, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Done. :) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:46, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
Translation, please Edit
Canon issue (cont.) - Taurus v. Taurean Edit
This is a follow up to the canon issue mentioned above (planet name). I have tried correcting the issue myself, however it appears the moderators have automatically reverted the page in question without looking at the problem. This is the 'talk' I left in the discussion section concering the issue:
(Taurus II - Taurean system) This planet was never named in the TAS episode "The Lorelei Signal".
The closest thing to it was when Scotty stated that the ship was in orbit over the second planet in the Taurean system.
Using other planet 'naming' conventions in Star Trek such as Ceti Alpha V, Cestus III, Janus VI, Talos IV, etc, etc. this planet should be titled Taurean II after the star system it is in.
The name Taurus is definitely incorrect - as it is never mentioned at all - while the name for the system is used several times in the episode - the Taurean system (NOT Taurus system). Compounding this error is the fact that another planet - the real Taurus II (in Murasaki 312) is specifically named as such in its TOS episode.
It astounds me that the usually diligent moderators on this site haven't corrected this error. Instead they lazily threw a link to the 'other' planet using the same name (in listings for both planets) - somehow overlooking a major error that was staring them in the face.
Please Cid, could you look into this? The name Taurus II (while similar to Taurean) is definitely incorrect for this planet.
- Replied to on the article talk page - let's please keep this discussion in one place. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:24, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
Presence requested Edit
Chinese MA Edit
I'm from China and I am a user of Memory Alpha(zh-cn). My friends and I are making our contributions to MA(zh-ch). Since it seems that the current admin of MA(zh-ch) (DeltaFlyer) has been inactive for a long time, I would like to be an admin of MA(zh-cn), and I hope that you can help me. Please let me know if you have made your decision.
- Hi. Unfortunately, we over here can't do anything directly about it. I suggest that you try to contact User:DeltaFlyer via his talk page on MA/zh-cn. If that doesn't lead to any results, you can request an adoption here .
- Last but not least, while Wikia still allows random people to start random "MA-brand" wikis, we'd like to keep all the MA's together somehow. If you like, please read Forum:Other MA versions, Memory Alpha:Start a new edition in another language and, of course, feel free to ask if there are any further questions. It might be best to use our forum at Memory Alpha:Ten Forward for these requests. Welcome to the club! :) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:45, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
Wikia visit and coming stuffEdit
Other wikia wikis using MA text Edit
- Thanks. I see that sulfur already replied, so let's continue this discussion on User talk:Sulfur or wherever he will move it. :) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 12:01, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
Recent changes changes Edit
Is there any indication that hiding the peer review list on the recent changes page is degrading the loading speed by an unacceptable amount? I'm not sure how to test that myself. This ties in with this discussion to see if a list could be added to the recent changes that only displays if necessary. - Archduk3 19:50, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- You can check the serving speed as well as some preprocessor limits in the source code of any served page (search for "Served by" and "NewPP", respectively). In the first case, it might be best to just compare different pages to see if one takes much longer than others - in the second case, all values should be well below the limit that is given.
- For what it's worth, though, what I had in mind wasn't to display that automatic list on RC, but on the page for immediate deletions. I'm not sure that adding even more stuff to the already overweight template we have would be a good idea. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 21:15, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
I do have "Served by", but apparently no "NewPP", when I use firefox's page source option, so I couldn't check that. The time it takes to be served seems to be pretty consistent with or without the lists visible, though it can vary wildly on each load itself, and none of them are good when compared to Worf, though I do have it loading the longest RC list option.
I tend to agree that the RC mediawiki page is a bit big, but if there isn't any noticeable impact on performance doing this, at least hiding empty lists makes the height smaller. I would also think merging Pages for immediate deletion with Pages for deletion would be the most inclusive option if we're using an auto generated list for the former, since there won't be any watchlist edit notification when something is added. This is my thinking for adding a list on the RC page in case the addition of the template gets lost in the RC list itself. - Archduk3 21:47, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment, or something Edit
- Moving on from the discussion for a moment, Cid, I don't think the lesson from the previous discussion should be that people don't care at all. Rather then people not being able to agree, it was you specifically not agreeing to anything others proposed, based on standards for perfection that could not in the least bit be applied to your own arguments. (you're talking about things being part of a whole here, while previously rejecting any attempt to establish what that even means as futile). And by dismissing everyone that disagrees with you, and just starting over elsewhere when things don't go your way, you can either win every argument or at least prevent the other side from a clear win so your position isn't defeated. Cid, seeing you bring up the same stuff again here after you stopped participating in the other discussion rather then addressing concerns with your own position, I have no choice but to conclude that you must intentionally be trying to game the system. (yes, I know that that is a serious allegation). You criticize every opposing argument as not fitting into some hypothetical perfect policy, whereas you bring up only nebulous arguments for mergers, based not on any policy but on your feelings on how things ought to be and ignore any criticisms of that. (I'm not even going to go into the fact that since you are on the side advocating for a change from established practice, I have more right to ask you to outline limits then you have of demanding them from me). You keep saying what ought to be merged is obvious and needs no exact clarification, but several people have said that your reasoning was not clear enough for them (this is even appart from flat-out disagreement), and you have ignored them, and continued to ignore them, which can only be read as a refusal to cooperate and a willful setting aside of anything you don't like the sound of, so you can continue to do just what you want regardless.
- What kind of answer are you expecting, really, if by statements such as "against my better judgement" or "out of curiosity", you are implying that I will have nothing useful (in your opinion) to say? You may think otherwise, but you are setting the tone of our discussion by such underhanded comments. You are doing it with that statement, you are doing it by implying that your interpretation of what I wrote is what I really think (which is not the case!), and you were doing it time and again in the discussion I finally paused contributing to. If you want a productive discussion stop that, and also stop assuming things. I have told you, every time you came up with some new assumption about my "true intentions(TM)", that your assumptions are flat out wrong. The passage above is full of them again, so I will tell you that they are wrong, again.
- To add insult to injury, you are not only attacking me instead of my arguments in the most obvious way, you also continue trying to move discussions in the most unconstructive direction. That started with the initial "whale discussion", continued with what originally was a discussion about buildings that you turned into a full-fledged policy discussion, and now you are trying to do the same to another merge discussion of spacecraft parts by the comment above, and also by suggesting that we
- add stuff like Kyoto or West Virginia or Vernal Galaxy or Jonathan Raymond too for all I care if you feel like having those all in the same discussion.
- although that has never been (nor should be) the focus of that discussion. To top that all off, you are doing that mere hours after stating that you are
- affraid that if a new topic were to be created on the forum, a more wider discussion would just start over again, like what happened when 31dot valiently created this very page to just discuss the buildings.
- as if it was anyone but you who keeps bringing up stuff in places where it doesn't belong.
- So, to put all that in very clear terms:
- We don't currently have a policy or guideline in place that tells us what pages exactly can or can not be merged
- The discussion that may have led to such policy or guideline failed, at least for the moment
- That leaves us to discuss individual merges, with whatever arguments anyone of us may find sensible, often boilding down to personal opinion
- Don't try to make any of these individual merge discussions another policy discussion - continue the existing policy discussion we have instead
- Don't try to make any of these discussions a discussion about me, personally - do that on my talk page instead, but please do it in a way that allows for a proper conversation
- If you don't want to discuss with me directly, try to find some neutral arbiter between you and me among the other users of this wiki
- If you feel that I have treated you unfairly, try to bring it up with some neutral administrator of this wiki
- --Cid Highwind (talk) 15:08, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for "setting the tone of the discussion" that way, but yeah, at this point I'm having a hard time expecting anything much from you anymore. Aside from an early transgression which was a mistake, I went an aweful long time trying not to assume things about what you were doing, and it just ended. I'm still kind of open to believing you genuinely don't see any problem with your behavior, but I definitely think your behavior has been problematic. And it hurt the discussion. And frankly, while you've been effective in being outraged by me, and have taken offense to a few specific things, I still haven't seen you trying to refute my central claim except for just saying nothing of it is true. I might have been the one moving the discussion into less productive directions a more then decent percentage of the time, but I only did that trying to meet your moving goalpost demands (rather then assuming bad faith on your part, ironically).
Concerning your point that I've done something wrong by bringing up big picture points that I felt were relevant at the whale discussion, I know you think these things ought to be decided on a one to one basis because you've said so several times now, but not everyone agrees, and your feeling that I've made a mistake when I simply posted from a viewpoint that is so different from yours is rather egocentric I think. Although, yes, the discussion might have been resolved a lot more quietly if only I had not stuck my head in. But that would only have been because the original proposal wouldn't have been challenged that way, which defies the point of bringing it up for discussion rather then just assume they could be merged. Its a funny definition of what constitutes a productive discussion that you have. Ever since that, (ie starting with the new buildings topic), I've tried to keep things to topic, but yeah, I got drawn in again every single time, because you specifically took advantage of the narrower focus to ignore earlier discussion points. Which isn't a fair way to discuss things.
In your bullet-points just now you said merge discussions might currently boil down to personal opinion, an observation that I too made recently, but still in the parts discussion you were again rehashing your personal views on what arguments we ought to consider for merging. And yet you've also accused me of turning a narrow discussion into a general discussion about what to merge again. That specifically was what triggered the above-copied post, by the way. With seemingly no hope for a larger discussion, I think our best hope is narrow individual merge discussions as much as you do. And for the record I certainly don't think it is "anyone but me keeps bringing up stuff in places where it doesn't belong". However, I felt I needed to call out what I felt was happening. Especially given that over the space of those discussions I've also heard a small number of very extreme suggestions (seemingly borne out of frustration) which I found very disturbing. I guess you won't see it that way, but what you call making the discussion about you, I call unfortunately uneffective attempts to prevent further derailment.
To adres one more specific things you said : concerning the "Kyoto or West Virginia" and so on thing, I was merely suggesting that I thought the reasons brought up for merging the parts articles applied there too. It was a technical point, not a provocation. I guess if you didn't get that nuance you could blame for trying to create another merge discussion (as if I think that would do any good at this point), but incidentally, that comment shows that I'm hardly the only person making assumptions about the other's intention. The bigger issue, though, is that you seem to think that its obvious that those things are somehow different. Not everyone sees the same obvious logic as you, and you've just been categorically ignoring anything that goes against it. Heck, ever since people started getting driven out of the discussion, you've started painting me a as just on some bizarre personal crusade.
Finally, I've been thinking about bringing this to the neutral admin too today, but I'm unsure who. Most admins I know a bit with have at least passingly been involved in this. This may seem strange to ask you, but do you have any suggestions? -- Capricorn (talk) 16:56, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a strange thing to ask. Choose anyone who is active and uninvolved, or alternatively at least choose several, from the list of admins on Special:ListUsers. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:09, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was a real issue and I guess I hoped you could still advise me there in your function as a moderator, but given the conflict of interest I suppose you have every right not to. Anyway, I'm posting here to inform you that I've gone forward with that. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:10, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
MA fr Edit
- "Bonjour. Je toujours use la peau Monobook dans Wikia au lieu de la peau Oasis, et je viens te dire qu'il se voit mal, avec le fond en blanc et quelques articles ils ne se voient pas. Comme tu es administrateur, je te recommande que tu mettes ici le texte (ou quelque chose semblable) qu'il y a sur la Memory Alpha en anglais, puisque le Monobook de la version en anglais a été actualisé lorsqu'a actualisé le software de Wikia. En catalan, espagnol et portugais il est aussi actualisé. Merci. --Josep Maria 18. (discussió • contribucions) janvier 4, 2014 à 16:36 (UTC)"
- That description is correct. I just copied the CSS from here to MA/fr after a quick check for obvious differences. After this, the display problems should hopefully disappear, or we can have a more detailed look at them. :) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 18:04, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for update the Monobook. As you're admin in MA/fr, can you add the interwiki to the version in Catalan in the Main page? The interwiki should be: [[ca:Star Trek en català Wiki]]. Thanks. --Josep Maria 18. (discussió • contribucions) 14:24, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Done - although, in the future, it might be best to request such things on MA/fr directly. :) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 16:35, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
Links to sites selling merchandise -- are they allowed? Edit
Hi. I need an opinion on a link that has been inserted into the article "The Wrath of Khan." An editor has inserted a paragraph (chronologically in the wrong place) dealing with Samuel Peeples' unused draft of the script (called something like "The New Star Trek"). The link he uses to cite the information is a site selling the script. To me this seems like a bad policy for MA. Do we really want to even give this appearance? I reverted the edits, but they have been replaced, and I do not feel like getting into a pissing match with whoever is wanting to sell the script. Thank you for looking into this. Sir Rhosis (talk) 02:24, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
- It's all right to link to it as long as the purpose in doing so isn't to sell it, which, by reading the comment, seems to be the case here. 31dot (talk) 10:04, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I am the editor who inserted the paragraph. My aim was not to sell anything as I am in no way related to the external site. It was only added because it shows new information which are missing on the article. It was hard to add this information because of the long text in this section. The problem with the year is that the idea for having different villains than Khan was of course before Khan was chosen to be the villain of this film which is mentioned very early in this paragraph. I am sorry if I split your previously written text but maybe it is no good idea to write such a long text when the information are not complete? Please be open for new information and rewrite the section if you like. And I think the link stays even when the external site sold this item which is by the way no merchandise but (on set used) production material. Sorry Cid for using your talk page on this matter but I had to write something to (maybe) clarify my edit. Tom (talk) 14:49, February 20, 2014 (UTC)