- Renegade54's Talk Page Archive 1 (27 Dec 2005 - 17 Oct 2006)
- Renegade54's Talk Page Archive 2 (23 Oct 2006 - 12 Jun 2007)
- Renegade54's Talk Page Archive 3 (15 Jun 2007 - 14 Mar 2008)
- Renegade54's Talk Page Archive 4 (17 Mar 2008 - 27 Dec 2009)
- Renegade54's Talk Page Archive 5 (26 Feb 2010 - 6 Oct 2014)
Hey, whenever you're adding a new category to someone that doesn't already have a DEFAULTSORT tag, add it before the language tags and remove standard sort keys on the specific categories. Cleaner and allows easier category addition in the future. Also, the bot that adds the language tags leaves no space between them and the categories, so may as well do the same thing. :) -- sulfur (talk) 19:29, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Will do. I've been adding them to the ones that have a bunch of cats, but I've been lazy on the ones that only have a few. I'll be good and keep it consistent from now on. :) -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:32, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
Sidebar starship Edit
- No... a number of people have used it on their user pages, and it's been used on various talk pages as well. Just do a "what links here" on the template to see. I wouldn't have made the change unless there was a (perceived) need... but if you have a better solution, go for it! ;) -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:16, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
Star Trek maps project Edit
Hi Renegade54. I'm Brandon, Senior Community Manager at Wikia. We're working on a new Star Trek project as part of the Wikia Fan Studio. To give a bit of context, Fan Studio is a program where fans on Wikia can be connected with brands from the entertainment and video gaming industries. Fans get to interact with brands and share opinions that could impact final products and releases, or whatever it may be that a partner brand is working on. This project doesn't have a partner brand involved, but it will let you be part of Fan Studio and other future projects.
This Star Trek project is based around Wikia Maps, and participants will be mapping different parts of the Star Trek universe. Participants will get to help decide what we should map as well. It could be the layout of the Enterprise, or Voyager's journey through the Delta Quadrant, or even more light-hearted subjects like Captain Kirk's romantic liaisons throughout the galaxy. Whatever the participants end up deciding. The maps that the project participants create will live on Trek Initiative, plus any other community that wants to can embed them.
As an active Memory Alpha contributor and admin, we think you'd be great for this project. Would you like to join? Let me know on my talk page. Thanks! - Brandon Rhea(talk) 07:15, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed you doing this copyedit on a section that I was mostly responsible for. I suppose I must have missed a memo, but is https not ok? And why? I'm puzzled why it would matter to what version of an external site people are sent -- Capricorn (talk) 19:47, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, no memo. :) To answer your question, there's nothing inherently wrong with https vs. http, and indeed, you'd *want* the secure connection for, say, financial transactions on the web. The secure connection can potentially cause problems for some people if their browser and/or firewall and/or computer aren't configured properly, so using the KISS principle, if you don't need the secure connection, don't use it. On a minor point, the icon for the https url isn't working any more for the Monobook skin, so it leaves an unsightly gap in the text when using Monobook. At some point, I (or someone else) should fix that... -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:25, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
Featured article nominations Edit
Qwizards: Star TrekEdit
Hello! We're starting to get things ready for the Trek 50th Anniversary, and we're looking for fans of the franchise that might be interested in participating in a Star Trek-themed Qwizards, Wikia's original quiz show! As an active admin on this community, I was wondering if you had any interest in participating in Qwizards: Star Trek? If you're not sure what Qwizards is, this landing page will give you a bit more information. This would probably happen around August, so let me know what you think! Grace (profile)•(talk) 21:27, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! Just checking in to make sure you saw this :) Grace (profile)•(talk) 16:11, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
I did, thanks! -- Renegade54 (talk) 16:12, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
Forum post Edit
- Take a look at it in the history... aside from wording, it's almost exactly what you said! lol -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:02, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
The situation Edit
I am like Charles Evans on the good ship Enterprise. Well, I am like him and not like him. I am like him as I am isolated and haven't learned how to live in the world of people. I am not like him in that I don't have his powers and that I have placed a value on life. A high value. I have reached the point where he and I are saying, Everything I do or say is wrong. I'm in the way, I don't know the rules, and when I learn something and try to do it, suddenly I'm wrong! I felt rage - the rage that is common to Autistics yesterday night. I have learned how to control that rage to my benefit and when not to use it.
Communication is a struggle for everyone. I have come to learn that people live in "bubbles". Communication is so easy when the people you are communicating with are in the same "bubble" as you are. When a person speaks to you, who is not in your "bubble", you don't understand them. In so many ways, they are alien to you. I have read over and over again how a failure to understand the other has led to misunderstanding and to conflict. You are the Roman, I am the barbarian. Or is it the other way around? What does it matter? My world is as alien to you as your world is alien to me.
When I do attempt to communicate why I do an edit, I am constantly told many negative things about how I write. I have read that I don't communicate clearly, that I am incoherent and rambling, that the pathways of my thinking are poorly laid out. One person has even stated that my posts are unreadable and refuses to read them. People can identify me in the way I write. I believe this has created a bias - a bias that they might not be aware of. I might not be attuned to the nuances of neurotypical behavior; however, I can feel when someone is negative to me. Any creature of sufficient awareness can detect negativity from another creature. It's in the way that you write. It's in the way that you phrase sentences.
I have to read your words for us to communicate. The experience is excruciating. It's like walking through a dense forest at night with only the light of the Moon as my only companion.
Although I would like to continue to be an editor, the truth of the matter is that there will always be misunderstanding and conflict. I can adapt to a small degree; however, for me to able to communicate like you and the other neurotypicals, well, that's impossible. We are biochemical computers (genes) with programmed software (epigenetics). For me to communicate in a way that is not alien to you, that would require a reprogramming. This is a skill far beyond our current science and technology.Lakenheath72 (talk) 12:38, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
Destructive edits? Edit
Hi, Renegade54. I notice you've recently made a few edits which seem to me like they may be destructive, on pages like Caretaker (episode) and Command chair. I'd appreciate if you could show me where policy has been changed to such an extent to allow for these changes. As far as I've been told, we're to use duplicated links if the links are in different sections from one another (owing to long pages which reference the same subjects repeatedly). Is this wrong? Also, where does policy now state that episode pages are to have small letters in the section headings, rather than using title case (which they've apparently had up to now), and please cite where it says we can veer away from quotes by inserting spaces before and after the punctuation "–", rather than copying quotes verbatim (which, up to now, I was under the impression we endeavor to do). Also, please explain why it is better to state ", and", when "and" seems to be sufficient and the comma is superfluous. I certainly don't disagree with all your many changes to those 2 pages, but I would like to learn your opinion about the points which are baffling me. I definitely appreciate your perspective on these matters. Peace and long life. --Defiant (talk) 11:49, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
Also, using the four-dot punctuation (i.e., "....") definitely seems a normal formatting procedure to me (applied to end a sentence, as opposed to the more usual three dots for mid-sentence usage) and is used in such works as Star Trek Magazine and Star Trek: Communicator. Please explain your aversion to using it. --Defiant (talk) 11:59, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're terming these edits as "destructive", unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of the word in this context. In my mind, they're just edits for stylistic consistency.
- Linking only once to another page within an article: For the life of me, I can't seem to find that policy anywhere now... I *know* I've seen written reference to that *somewhere* here at some point in the past. I'm still looking...
- Section headings: See Memory Alpha:Manual of Style#Headlines and sections. We've been using this style for years now (as has Wikipedia), but there are still quite a few articles that have remnants of the older style (in particular, "Memorable Quotes" and "Background Information" sections). I typically clean these up in conjunction with other edits. I think there's a technical reason for this header style, but I can't remember what it is.
- Quotes: We do strive to keep the content of a quotation consistent with its source, but not necessarily the formatting. In many cases, we reformat quoted text to match our formatting and layout standards on MA. This includes replacing "--" or "—" with "–", for example, or tweaking spacing for readability. And we also strive for consistency.
- Serial (or Oxford) commas: See Chicago Manual of Style, MLA Style Manual, Publication Manual of the APA, etc. per Memory Alpha:Manual of Style#Other styles. There is no universal agreement on this subject, but the consensus (in American usage, at least) is that they should be used in most cases. The long and the short of it is that serial commas aren't superfluous, and MA uses them.
- Four-dot versus three-dot ellipses: I have no real aversion to using [....] to indicate missing text, as long as that's the consensus. My reason for changing it has been, again, consistency. You'll frequently find both [...] and [....] on the same page; I picked the three-dot version to standardize on.
- One overall comment here, though; we have to decide if we really want a rule (or guideline or policy) for everything. Take the four- versus three-dot issue as an example. Barring any rule to the contrary, one editor could (rightly) claim "There's no rule saying I can't use four dots." But, assuming we started holding to this style widely, another editor could come along and say "Why are we doing it this way? Show me the policy that says that's the way we have to do it." And we wouldn't be able to. Yet we still strive for consistency... so, does every little stylistic decision require a written rule? I don't have a good answer for that, other than if there are too many rules, then a new editor will quickly be overwhelmed and frustrated. -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:52, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
My intent wasn't to "term" your 2 cited edits as destructive, but simply to ask whether they were. Sorry I wasn't clear enough about that. I've found it very interesting to discuss these matters with you, and I do accept the majority of your reply (was insightful to find out about Oxford commas, used in US formatting, for example). The one point that I still have some confusion about is whether the four-dot ellipsis is acceptable, as the answer seems to be dependent on which style guide is consulted (they apparently say different things about that subject). I reckon we should leave it up to editor discretion. Thank you very much for conversing with me, regarding all this. :) --Defiant (talk) 08:06, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
- No problem... that's one of the drawbacks of e-mail, etc... you often can't glean nuance from the text. As far as the serial commas go, I think it's interesting that the majority of the publications in the US have adopted that syntax, yet in the UK, where it apparently originated at Oxford, they do not... and true of other UK-derived countries, such as Australia, and perhaps Canada, as well. My wife recently completed her Batchelors degree after almost ten years of mostly online classes, and in the process was required to write many papers, all in MLA format. She was dinged a number of time for not using the final serial comma in a list of three or more, and so I became her proofreader (looking for other mistakes as well, of course). Thus, I developed an eye for them... heh. One example of the ambiguity that can occur if the last comma is omitted is "I'd like to thank my parents, Mother Theresa and God," which, without the comma after Mother Theresa, can be read to imply that my parents are Mother Theresa and God... most definitely not the case. :) -- Renegade54 (talk) 16:27, April 21, 2015 (UTC)