|This is an archive, not a talk page.|
The following conversations are preserved for posterity's sake only. If you have any new comments, please add them to my talk page. Thanks!
Military References Edit
I did a lot of hand-editing to convert the format while still keeping the structure intact. I removed much of the wikification, keeping the links to MA pages about military topics (Starfleet and real world).
Any updates? Anything I missed or I could improve? Bernd 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- WOW...that's the coolest thing I've ever seen. There might be some minor updates to the episode list and if I find any new veterans for the military chart I'll let you know. Thanks a million for creating that webpage, you did a awesome job. -FC 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and you're welcome. I will include any updates as soon as possible.
I don't know where to look for the edit history of the page, and I so can't reconstruct which members were involved in its creation. Can you tell me anything more?
Here are two possible additions: 1) In TOS: "Balance of Terror" the Destroyer-Submarine conflict is particularly based on the old movie The Enemy Below. I only vaguely remember the film, someone brought that to my attention. Anyway, while it is not exactly related to the "real" military, it may be a nice addition.
2) The MACOs on Enterprise. Because people will ask "Are these the Starfleet Marines?" It may be also interesting to note that their rank structure is different than that of Starfleet. (Of course, Colonel West may deserve a mention for the same reason.)
-Bernd 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I actually didn't get a chance to expand the article to include Enteprise military; when I do (in my shipyard page) I will let you know. Regarding "The Enemy Below", I've read at least two texts which state the Star Trek producers didnt base BOT on the film and actually have gotten angry in recent years that this has been suggested. I think that is mainly a fan assumption since the two plots are kind of similar.
- I was curious if the page you created is linked from the main page of your website. I would like to think a visitor to the wqebsite could go in and find it. I tried to find it from the main page and the database page but didnt see a link. Will it be a stand alone to your website? Just curious. It is, after all, YOUR website! ;-) Thanks again for the trans-wiki. -FC 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I am going to announce the new page right now. I was just making sure that everything was all right. Bernd 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
A visitor notified me that the US Army Air Corps (USAAC) was renamed to US Army Air Force (USAAF) in 1941, so the USAAF should have encountered the Ferengi in 1947 (only to be renamed to USAF later that year). Can you confirm that? Bernd 19:47, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
- That's probably true, but the dialouge of the episode must be checked. I recommend bringing this up on the episode talk page. -FC 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops on that bg note. I got an edit conflict, and didn't notice the bg paragraph that went missing. My apologies there. :) -- Sulfur 10:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for keeping me straight with these images and updating the country template. I cracked a smile when I watched the Cage and realized that there at least 6 geographical regions which can be made out on that map! And none of them have articles yet!! :-) -FC 10:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a phrase I often use to denote the "first article" on a page...not my particular first article. That can be found here. Thanks anyway for the congrats! -FC 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yah, it's a bit silly to use it, since it ain't your first article. If you can't think of something better, how about "starting article"? It's more accurate. -- Sulfur 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A little help Edit
- Yes, thanks! I can't figure out why it wasnt working before. Must have had the "/" in the wrong place. -FC 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Also, in following with the title of this section, I battled a vandal that had something against the fact that you are a Naval officer. In fact, he did it twice, until ThomasHL was kind enough to block him. Some people just don't have any respect, sir. ---- Willie LLAP 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that was someone who was just trying to cause a problem on the internet and/or see how long people would feed the troll. I'm glad it was only blocked after 2 edits. Wikipedia is even worse. I completely separated myself from that website since there is a large amount of anti-American/anti-U.S. military feelings over there, mostly I think becuase the majority of Wikipedia users are now from Europe or the UK. I could tell some stories about that site to be sure. -FC 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Archival matters Edit
Glad you liked the tag. ;-) – Cleanse 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- To quote Golem from The Hobbit: "Thief!! Thief!!!" :-) -FC 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
United Fleet of Planets Edit
Fine, we both support merge. What part of your comment(s) do you think I failed to read? --TribbleFurSuit 01:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- ""Away, away, spirit! And let honest men approach!" I would suggest keeping comments about this on the talk page of the article. Coming to my personal talk page with that kind of statement is somewhat akin to the bully following me out from the cafeteria at recess because they didn't like something I said at the lunch table and wanting to start a fight. Not that this was your intention, only that it really appears that way. Keep it on the article talk page, please. -FC 13:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, as a neutral bystander, I think that implying such "bullying" on the talk page in the first place isn't really any better. -- Cid Highwind 14:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly why I kept this on my own personal talk page. Best thing to do would be just to wish eachother well and go back to the main article. As TFS said, we both support a merge so there is nothing really further in dispute here. So, I wish everyone well! -FC 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- No offense FC, but you started this one, not TribbleFur. TribbleFur was making an on topic contribution to a talk page, with no personal comments or anything directed at you, and you came back with this, implying that his presence there was only because of you, and basically only to be annoying to you (given your history). You made this personal, not TribbleFur, and he has done nothing in this to be antagonistic or combative. You have now, twice. Even TribbleFur's comment opening this discussion on this page is not antagonistic or aggressive. Certainly it isn't bullying. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The matter of TFS following me about to various articles is part of a much larger issue which I am handlng off of Memory Alpha. Nothing good can come of discussing it here and I cant go into it. As for the merge vote, its a dead issue now since as stated above, we both agree to a merge. Like I said, I think the best thing would be everyone just wish eachother well and have a nice day. Thats what I intend to do and don't plan on flaming it up any further. -FC 14:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- You can't just make an issue and decide you don't want to play anymore and kill it. TFS has been on a LOT of articles lately, and a LOT of talk page discussions. To suggest that an action which, as I said, was not personal, antagonistic, aggressive, or combative was out of some "personal malice" seems to suggest more about your ego than TFS behavior. No offense, but that is how I see it. TFS has certainly been antagonistic in the past (and has been warned against such behavior), but he was not in this case. You should have been the "bigger man" and not made this personal, and not brought it up on the article talk page at all. You brought your supposed "feud" into this, not TFS. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Matters outside of Memory Alpha I can't discuss here. But thank you for your comments and opinions, they were read and appreciated. -FC 14:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Look, FleetCaptain, I'm sorry (not apologetically sorry, but pityingly sorry) that you take it personally that I keep appearing in discussions where you also happen to be, and that frequently my comments are contrary to some position of your own. Look, disagreement happens, nobody else makes a personal thin g of it. But you and me? Even when we agree, you go wild and get personal. I promise you there's no personal intent on my part, and that I'm not "following you around", "bullying" you, as offensive as those accusations are to me. You think your personal arguments belong on community Talk: pages? They don't. I (defensively) brought it here because nobody else wants to see that. You know what? Now that I remember your hypersensitivity and your tendency to escalate this kind of thing, I realize that you're just a person I should just never, ever address personally. You and I will likely continue to cross paths on Talk: pages and the like, but you take notice right here and now that any comment I ever make from now on in such a discussion will be addressed to the community and will concern the matter under discussion, and will most carefully not be directed at, nor concerning as a subject, you, personally, at all. Frankly, I'll appreciate it if you take the same attitude. If I don't agree with some future idea, opinion, position or action of yours, deal with the argument, don't freak out at the arguer. That is all. --TribbleFurSuit 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)