Knowledge Base Wiki

Hi Cyberia23. Thanks for notifying me about User:Dan Frederiksen. I have commented on my Talk page.

I have also left a lengthy message at User talk:Tedder#Blocked user has returned, asking Tedder for some information about the strange decision to permanently block Dan Frederiksen. Dolphin51 (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current discussion on whether to mention the Bilderberg episode cliams on the Bilderberg group page, or on a separate page. The discussion is taking place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jesse_Ventura_and_Bilderberg_Group John Hyams (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our anonymous friend from 117.x.x.x is back.[1] --AussieLegend (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would be appreciated at Life After People: The Series#Gateway Arch. If you agree to the proposal, we can remove the roublesome table altogether. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, please help clean up Mega Disasters (tone issues), Is It Real? (looks copied and pasted from TV.com), and the first 2 TV articles listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/to do? Thanks so much. --Twinsday 09:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous user has just added the case #'s (of which the first 2 of 5 digits seem to be the last 2 digits of the sighting/event year) to the episode titles of UFO Hunters. --Twinsday 02:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to thank you for expanding the articles on How the Earth Was Made and other History channel shows. ;) twinsday 02:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Cyberia23 (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For expanding and improving various articles every week. serious hat 06:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The TV Star
		For expanding and improving articles on television series, especially those on Syfy and History. serious hat 06:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		For expanding and improving articles on various paranormal television series, like those on cryptozoology and ufology. serious hat 06:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Science Fiction Barnstar
		For expanding and improving sci-fi-related articles. serious hat 06:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Twinsday, but you didn't have to do that. I've ticked off a few people along the way which kinda evens things out. Cyberia23 (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not clot-up articles with garish colors like that. Also, please do not revert others without an edit summary, while marking the edit as minor. Regards, Jack Merridew 06:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like your not wanting color on the list is a matter of your personal preference there buddy and there has been color on that list for a long time now until you come along and get rid of it. Is there some policy you can direct me to that says the color cannot be there? Cyberia23 (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a policy. It is, however, a stunning poor practice to hard-code markup like that. It does not matter that it had been there a while, and I do note that you put it there in the first place, so it's your personal preference we're discussing; I merely wikified that page. Regards, Jack Merridew 06:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop reverting my clean-up efforts; I'll have a discussion with you, if you're willing. Regards, Jack Merridew 06:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's to discuss? Your obviously one of those people who enforce your own stupid agenda and personal preferences like it's part of Wikipedia policy and here is what happens: If I decide to revert you again, you'; declare an edit war, threaten me with either a ban (if you're an admin) or go cry to the admins who'll then talk down to me like I'm 7-year old, then I try to defend my reasoning and point out the real issue here and then I get blocked for a week while you destroy this place. That's what happens. It's happened before. Nothing gets resolved. So do what you want. Thanks. Cyberia23 (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Stupid"? You've been here long enough to know better. I see on your user page that you're a graphic designer, so I expect you know that pure red is rather meretricious. I also see that on some other pages you've edited, today.

If you've nothing to discuss, I will do as I believe best; for the moment, however, I'm off. And, please, keep threads on one page, as they make little sense when half is on one page, and the other half is on another. Jack Merridew 07:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted the colors changed then why didn't you just change them? Why gray everything out? To me that looked like you didn't want colors at all and I found that "stupid". Anyway, I added lighter colors. If this ok with you then I guess the situation is taken care of. Cyberia23 (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I commented on the red does not mean I merely preferred less "harsh" colors. Do you have a reason, beyond a personal preference, to mark these table up with colors? It seems to me to just be gratuitous ornamentation and unwarranted. I didn't "gray the out", I standardized them use wikitable's color-scheme, which is muted for maximum web accessibility (nb: WP:COLOR). I've revisited some of the pages in question and have cleaned them up, but a have held-off on removing the coloring while we're discussing the problem. For background (pun noted), see separation of presentation and content; the article rather sucks, but the principle is widely accepted as best practice. Regards, Jack Merridew 18:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for adding colors is:

1. There is an option in the script for adding the color to begin with and that means it can be used. If not then it should be removed from the script.
2. I believe it helps to indicate when looking at the list, what season the episode is in, for the case of programs with multiple seasons.
3. I'm not the only one adding colors to episode lists, in the beginning I didn't add color, then I saw others doing it, thought it looked good and did it for the shows I've contributed to.
4. I disagree with keeping this place looking like a sterile hospital room (as you observantly pointed out I'm a graphics designer that shit bugs me). I'm not asking for flowered wall paper here, but if you say adding a color bar or two does harm in some way I'd have to say it smells like a heaping pile of bullshit.

Although you might not be one of them, I'm simply taking up defense ahead of time just to let you know what you're getting into in dealing with me (just an FYI, no threats or personal attacks intended) – I absolutely despise people around here who crawl out of the woodwork and start changing things just because they don't like it, or say it's messing up their computer, or say that it's policy when it's clearly not, or it's the proper methodology when it's over a stupid article they'll look at once and never come back to (unless of course they get reverted).

Most so-called "policy" around are nothing more than general guidelines and are not absolute law. I've dealt with people like this in the past many times, and it always results in stupid arguments over rather trivial matters that turn ugly rather quickly. I am willing to work with said individuals on a compromise to the limits of my ability, but if you're dead set on getting rid of colors permanently then I will do what I can to stop you because I know its not up to you to solely decide what an article should look like.

This "machine readability" thing you linked to, I don't know who wrote it, but it gives me a damn headache. The gist I think I get and seems as lame as concept as the last shitstorm I was involved in where I was told by a user that I have to set up an article to conform to their computer monitor size, which they said was using "the computer standard" and there was Wikipedia policy to back it up.

I laughed because computer monitors vary widely in size and they failed at showing me this rule that I had to somehow edit table widths so the information sidebar wouldn't leave white space gaps. Nonetheless the arguments with this individual skyrocketed out of control, others got involved, I got blocked for making personal attacks when I was merely responding to their scathing rants. The admin eventually saw she was in the wrong and unblocked me, but I lost some editing privileges. It eventually ended with, and I quote a "fuck all ya all" response form the individual.

Anyway, I really don't want to go through shit like this again. It's a stupid thing to argue about. said I try and stop you, but this place is going down the toilet fast and I don't think I wanna jump in with it anymore. So do what you want, but it's no guarantee you won't piss off others in doing so. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what script you're referring to, but it's something that I would be interested in looking at. Things like season numbers are best done with explicit text (and are, in the articles we're discussing), and indicating such detail with color is problematic for about 10% of people due to differences in their vision (color blindness and other issues). And, ya, I'm aware that others are enamored with all the crayons in the box. Having spent some time in hospitals, I know too well that they favor things like awful shades of green. I see the riot of color that some prefer as noise distracting from the actual content. The sea of advertising most editors are exposed to probably has a lot to do do with this. It's all attention-seeking and intent on manipulating.

I have a lot of background in color and user experience. A core concern is the hard-coding of markup; it's ridiculous to allow control of color on a line-by-line basis (what {{episode list}} allows for LineColor, not what you're doing). If color is warranted in certain cases it should be determined by a solid consensus, not individual preference, and the implementation should be centralized in a template or (and better) in a CSS style sheet. *That's* the core idea of the principle of separation of presentation and content. It's unclear to me just what piece you're referring to as being about "machine readability" but all those links are worth reading and applying.

I'm unfamiliar with whatever past disputes you've had. From your comments, I'd say some of the criticism was off-base. For example, many people have trouble with the concept that others use screen resolutions other than their own; even professionals have a lot of trouble here. A lot of graphic designers have this trouble, too, as they're focused on media that has a fixed size. It used to be that screens didn't vary so much, but these days people are using small handheld devices and displays a meter across. Fixed widths are often inappropriately hard-coded, too, and can result in silly layouts on devices whomever doesn't use. Jack Merridew 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By script I meant the LineColor tag to put color bars between the episode entries. I did manually add the matching colors to the headers at the beginning of each episode list for sake of aesthetics. Sorry, but the 10% users who have color blindness thing doesn't make sense to me. I mentioned hospital decor as an analogy to drabness, I was being rhetorical.

Anyway, I don't agree that the colors distract from the content. As for machine readability I thought your point to all this was a problem with how things like iPods and Droid phones display the content to this website. If it doesn't show up properly I don't think it's a big deal and it because this site wasn't meant to be displayed on small screens. Technology is forcing us to shoe-horn shit into place so everyone can have smooth access to it. Although there are problems in such displays, I highly doubt the table colors are a major problem. Really there should be two internets, one for computers and one for little toys like these stupid cell phones.

As for reaching consensus on allowing the colors to stay or go, if you want to go that route then fine, but I feel consensus largely fails for low traffic articles like these TV shows which deal with niche information only a handful of people care about. If these were major articles, with lots of people involved with them then consensus might be reached quickly. In this case, no one gives a shit and attention only gets drawn if the debate over it gets into a screaming match. In that case someone gets blocked (usually the more vocal opposition) and nothing gets resolved.

Anyway, I disagree that the colors are distracting or muck up the works for shoehorn technology. I think they should stay as I see no evidence against it. Cyberia23 (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyberia23, I have made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Proposal and thought you might be interested. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this music sound familiar? MonsterQuest, and perhaps also UFO Hunters. I love how it sounds fitting for mysterious and evasive cryptids. serioushat 09:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it does sound familiar, especially toward the middle there. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance to the MoS guideline on words to watch, should we use words like supposed, alleged, purported, etc. especially in those paranormal-related articles? serioushat 05:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you undid my edits to that article, then added them again, without an edit summary. What was wrong with my edits? I was making some changes in line with discussions on the project talk page. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is jumping the gun. Per several ex-cast members on the show, several people have left. This is coming straight from former cast members. This news IS NOT rumors or speculation but valid statements. I have forwarded you several official blog entries that state FACTS. Please edit the GHI page accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.197.145 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Forwarded me what? Cyberia23 (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyberia23. I noticed that you made the edits to the Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura page indicating that two episodes in Season 2 (BP Oil Spill and The Pentagon) had been "removed for rescheduling at a later date." Do you know what's going on with that? It also appears that S02E04 (The Police State) has disappeared from the TruTV website entirely, as if it was never aired; however, it's still listed on the Wikipedia page.

Thank you!

Jimulacrum (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Jimulacrum[reply]

Im sorry, I either think your confused or someone else wrote to you on my computer. Either way I have no clue what you are speaking of in reguards to "the Conspiracy Theory." That be stated, your more than welcome to delete what was written because it did not come from me and I do not want my IP address linked to that.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.165.166 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to see if I can resist the urge to be pure a******e here, because, I am an a******e.

I made the change as soon as I finished tacking my reply to your wall, because your justification for changing the article in the first place relied on an unreliable source. That is my biggest issue in all this. Since you didn't have the book, you found another source to try and justify your change instead of not making the change at all.

As for the other issues, the book itself isn't much of an issue. You saw it, and you missed the reference. That happens. Claiming the "niche" Traveller fan would go by the main rule book is simply funny. As a member of the Citizens of the Imperium forums, I have yet to find anyone that plays the game with "just" the main rule book. In fact they freely cannibalize from other editions of the rules.

P.S. No, I'm not losing any sleep over any of this. Getting into an argument is a welcome relief after spending five hours changing passwords to every single website I frequent. ;) Sege1701 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, I didn't verbally berate you over your edit, so I don't deserve your smartassed comments. I reverted your edit on a hunch that you could have been wrong and seeing the Wikia site spelled it the other way as well, I took that bet, but having said "I can't be sure" (in case you didn't get it, and you obviously didn't), I invited the change back to how you had it. All you had to say was, "the Alien's Archive said it was misspelled in the main book" and that would have been good enough but you'd rather insult me as well.

You say what irked you was me citing an "unreliable source," but what I really think is your problem is that you don't like to be challenged on something, and if you wanna be an editor on Wikipedia you better get used to it. What makes this situation laughable is that it's over something so trivial - the name of an alien race in some obscure sci-fi game – which to be honest isn't worth running out to try and verify so much. So, by saying "I could be wrong" means I would gladly take your word for it (whether I thought you were wrong or not) because it's stupid niche info and nothing so critical as to shatter the stability of the world. It's not like we were arguing over abortion rights, gay marriage, or other major political issue, which in that case I'd work to try and make sure I was correct on something that I changed.

Get where I'm coming from? Probably not, so in closing I'd just like to say if you're looking for an argument over something, try tackling a real issue worth arguing about. As for dumb, made-up geek info like alien names, I suggest using some constructive criticism perhaps and not sweat the small shit. Cyberia23 (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, howdy and salutations; You restored: "In the episode, Ventura and guest Alex Jones stated that Vantage's business connections to Halliburton, (a major government contractor with ties to leaders in Washington), only deepened the conspiracy that the bins were part of a secret depopulation program." in the Conspiracy theory article. Is there any way that we could cite this with reliable sources? I realize you are referring back to the program itself but it has been my experience that anything "conspiracy" related can get pretty out of hand if you don't stick with verifiability. Cheers, V7-sport (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I bet I could probably link my local dry-cleaners back to Halliburton in someway." LOL, Cheney must be the one starching the heck out of my shirts. I appreciate you looking into it, Thanks again. V7-sport (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "The flags to be displayed for GHI are the national flags. Wales, Scotland and England are all part of one nation, the United Kingdom. If you don't believe me, then look up their respective articles. Also Puerto Rico is a United States territory, therefore it gets the US Flag as it is not an independent nation. The hidden notes indicating this that you deleted without regard, were placed there for a reason. Using regional flags is incorrect. It is an "InterNATIONal" show "NATION" being the key-word here." Cyberia23 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was your entry page and wanted it to be "national" flags. I did change all the UK flags because I thought it would be better to represent individual countries of the UK: England, Scotland, and Wales, which I know make up the United Kingdom, but I was trying to show each nation's flags, that is all. I also changed the Anerican flag someone had next to Puerto Rico, which is not an American state, but its own country. I am still new to the "rules" of Wikipedia and will respect your wishes, even though I don't totally agree. Sue Kastle (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2011.

I think an actual photograph which a reliable source (the UK Ministry of Defence) considers to be a "Black Triangle Class UFO" is more appropriate/informative/encyclopedic for the Black Triangle article header than an artists rendition that looks like it was done in MSpaint. I won't revert your change myself, but you should think about it.

Boatscaptain (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of citation is itself what I was showing. No political or corporate person or body has shown proof contrary to evidence shown in that episode. Right now the controversy section reads like an opinion piece; siding against the shows evidence. Balancing that blatant opinion with the statement of fact that there is no cited reference from ANY G/C body should stand to neutralise that section. Lostinlodos (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you are like the only other person that seems to edit the Ancient Aliens page with positive things.... It's really sad that they've found ways to incorporate all of the negative views, the episode descriptions are really our only hope for trying to show what the show is about. I'm sure you saw the big argument I had with the other editors, I got accused of vandalism and the whole bit. I'm fed up with it, I'll just try to avoid looking at the page and getting disgusted. The show is obviously about defying mainstream science, but they feel that needs to be all over the article I guess. *sigh* Anyway, I was just going to say thanks for your work. I can see why you silently edit the page, It's impossible to get through to those people, don't know why I even tried. --Xm638 (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For being the only one to contribute positive things to the Ancient Aliens page, and keeping it updated weekly. Xm638 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what the show said? Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had started a conversation on the UFO Hunters page July 25th. We talked about the Dulce episode, and law that was potientially spawned by it. I've provided another link under that same section. Since you were the only person who commented on that section, I would like to invite you back to view the information, and give me your input. Thanks! -Poodle of Doom (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

This may sounds very stupid as a question but I saw you did much updates on the "Digital Poodle" page here on wiki and I was thinking maybe you were one of the members of digital poodle ? I would like to know how the track "Output Expander" sounds on the "Crack" vinyl released on DOVe in 1994, can't find samples anywhere on the internet :(

Thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirnoff103 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for your reply, do you know how that particular track sound ? I can send you a sample of the track I'm looking for and you could say if it's that track or not ?

Ok, thanks for your time :) (you may delete this msg if you want) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.118.137.203 (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know discogs since awhile, I'm even moderator on the website :p But it's hard for people sending a sample of the track i'm looking for because it's only on vinyl and it's more "work" to encode a song than from a simple audio cd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirnoff103 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merged Seasons 5 and 6 into one Season 5 to make it match up to what shows on Netflix and Amazon.

Nailsandangel (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Amazon, it's listed as one Season for 5 and 6 and the same is true for Netflix. So I am assuming the DVD release will be the same way.

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Room-HD/dp/B004XGXQF8/ref=sr_1_6?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1319739779&sr=1-6

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Paranormal_State/70148137?trkid=2361637

Jason (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Thanks for letting me know about the summaries. I will keep my additions shorter.

As for the personal opinions, I guess it's all in the wording. I will be more careful about that, but one thing I want to inform you is that much of the existing Blakes 7 material is highly biased. Whoever wrote it may have coached it to 'sound' neutral and objective, but it shows strong leanings to encourage inaccurate views about the show and its characters by deliberately omitting certain types of canon facts and making up other ones.

There are a lot of claims about the character of Blake saving all kinds of people, but in those episodes, it was not Blake who did those actions, it was other members of the crew. There is also a lot of mentions of the crew being saved, but deliberate omission that it was usually Avon performed those acts. That is a clear bias towards Blake and against Avon.

It is also claimed in the articles that Blake was increasingly successful, which is a personal opinion which has no basis in canon fact. Any careful observation of the series will show that Blake was rarely successful in reality, he only acted like he was.

The articles also completely ignores all the moral issues raised by Blake immoral actions, while continually mentioning Avon was self-serving, when in canon there were only a few instances. That is highly biased writing, done by omission and 'facts' that are made up rather coming from canon, rather than what I did which was clearly opinionated writing.

There is no mention of Blake's betrayal of the human race which was the key fact of his final episode in season 2, but which is suspiciously omitted in the original article. That is not an opinion. It is canon fact. And it is bias by using omission.

I personally think Blake was a terrorist. He committed regular acts of mass murder, blowing people up or attacking them without warning, just to meet his own political agenda and using mass murder as a regular form of eliminating people not even related to his cause or people who had never done anything wrong, something which even his own crew on the show objected to. But I guess I'm not allowed to mention that kind of canon fact.

It is because of that rampant bias that I was moved to fix the article in the first place.

If you don't mind, I will try to fix the canon errors and biases in the articles and try to keep it short and neutral this time.

The Wiki rules for neutrality are to portray information fairly, proportionately and without bias. I recognize that mine, by itself, wasn't. But looking at the entire article, I was providing the fair and proportionate details that were missing in a highly biased article. I would also like to remove the biased descriptions of the characters in the original article, and I will try not to use biased language in my own descriptions.

Kalinda001 (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Thanks for your quick replies. It's much appreciated that you show such care in your edits.

In terms of watching the show, I've been studying it in detail since about 3 years ago when I first watched the show. I watch each episode back to back, all four seasons in the space of a week the first time around. I'm also a systems analyst so I compile details and stats obsessively and the more I gathered the more I realized Blake was much worse than his surface portrayal and Avon was far better than his attitude suggested.

Facts are the facts. The opinions of them are according to the viewer.

"For example the episode where the crew get sick from radiation poisoning on Cephelon, you say Blake forces Avon to research Orac. I remember Avon walking on the flight deck, ready to plop down in the lounge and Blake asks him to watch the video of the shuttle explosion and to see if he sees anything unusual. Afterward Avon gets light headed and said he was just tired. Blake didn't tell him to research Orac - how could he anyway since Orac was top secret and Blake didn't even know what Orac was because he hadn't seen it yet. That's just the way I remember it going down."

The scene was like this. Avon and Jenna are already not feeling well by the time Blake does his research. During this research, Avon twice has physical symptoms showing he is not well. We know this is a fact because we are told by Cally that he's suffering from severe radiation poisoning and is dying. He is feeling horrible, not just a 'little' lightheaded.

The first symptom, Avon winces in pain. That is very clear in the episode. Blake ask if he's alright. Avon says, "Ah, yes. I, I just felt a little dizzy, that's all." Avon may say he's alright, BUT he also says he's feeling dizzy and Blake knows he was exposed to a lot of radiation on the planet. I don't know about you but dizziness is never a good sign. Most caring people try to find out what is wrong or they decide that maybe the person needs a rest and shouldn't continue working.

The second time, Avon doubles over, there is no question he's in trouble. Blake asks if he's alright and Avon again says, "Yes, of course I'm all right."

Again, if a friend of yours doubles over like that, would you continue pursuing your own agenda or conclude that the person is in trouble but is too proud to admit it? Well, Blake continues working Avon and shows not a bit of concern that this man exhibited pain and dizziness, and then doubled over.

Even after Cally tells Blake that "Jenna is very sick. Gan is, too." And not only that, Avon, Jenna, Gan and Vila are all dying and "need treatment and...need it quickly", meaning the last thing they should be doing is working.

But what does Blake do despite knowing this? He continues pursuing his own agenda even though Avon is lying down, trying to rest. He keeps talking to him, doing more research, not giving him the chance to rest. Just like he doesn't give Jenna a chance to rest even though he and Cally are both perfectly fine and can pilot the ship.

Speaking of "I wonder if perhaps you are watching an entirely different version of the show as your "facts" seemed more than a bit skewed."

Blake had Avon continue researching Ensor. And yes, Blake knew about ORAC even before the episode, "ORAC." That is in canon.

Blake: "He also spoke of something called 'Orac' and claimed the Federation was willing to pay one hundred million credits to obtain it."

Blake: "Well, if the Federation is prepared to pay one hundred million credits then Orac must be fairly important."

Blake: "I think it's the importance the Federation is placing on Orac that bothers me."

Blake: "Ensor went to Federation Space Headquarters. He wanted medical assistance. He also wanted to sell something of enormous value."

This is all from the opening scene in the episode. If you don't believe me, watch the scene.

Blake was very clearly after ORAC. He had no interest in Ensor as a man, something which he very clearly revealed when he met him and made no moves to save the man's life until Ensor snarked at him. He researched Ensor because he wanted to know about ORAC.

I am always careful about canon facts and I am rarely wrong when referring to them because I have all the episodes, plus I use the transcripts religiously (though the Horizon transcripts are also full of biased errors if you compare them line by line to the original show, which I did). I find that the difference between my own analysis and other people's is that I look at the entire scenes and episodes, not just portions of them. It gives a very different perspective when you look at it that way, or at least, I have found it that way. Perhaps others don't see it that way. In the end, for fans, it is all personal opinion and judgement imposed on 'facts,' my own included.

Please don't claim that I'm "watching an entirely different version of the show" while you claim "They are not as I remembered them and I actually watched the show all the way through quite recently because I found a file share of them so the memories are kind of fresh." when Blake clearly knew about ORAC in that episode and was after it and it is in canon, and not some "skewed" version of my own

Perhaps we are watching different versions of the show, but mine contains those lines and has Avon and Blake acting like that.

And I don't agree that the article shows that Blake is an anti-hero. He seems to be portrayed as a heroic savior without any flaws because none of them are mentioned and no negative adjectives are used in his description whereas there are clearly negative things said of Avon. I am just looking for a little parity and fairness in the article. Kalinda001 (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cyberia23. I'm really impressed with the immediacy of your responses and your objectivity. Much appreciated.

I will try to fix the errors and inaccuracies I see in the articles and give them a more balanced view. I will also try to be neutral and stick to canon facts.

I noticed negative descriptions of Avon, and descriptions of Avon doing bad things, while not one positive thing he does is mentioned or attributed to him, at least not in S1 or S2, which is about as far I could go into the articles without trying to fix it.

Can I similarly use negative descriptions of Blake, and list the bad things he does, without being accused of not being neutral?

The problem with this is that most fans seem to remember canon facts wrong, which usually comes out when they watch the show more carefully. The reason why I provided more detail was to show the canon facts in its full context. Kalinda001 (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to work on it over the next month or so. I'm currently busy finishing a novel and just took some time off to take a break today and decided to do some research on B7.

Does that mean that I can remove some references in the original article that makes Blake look good and uses negative references for Avon? I will look at the character pages. Thanks for the suggestion.

Kalinda001 (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't received the email notice yet, but thanks for the heads-up. Kalinda001 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry about that. I'm new to editing on Wiki. Sometimes my line formatting doesn't seem to come out.

If you don't mind me asking, how do I preview before saving it? Kalinda001 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Of course. I wasn't paying attention. Thanks for the help. Hopefully I'll get better at this and can add some useful material.Kalinda001 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Brad Meltzer's Decoded, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, remember me? Happy 2012. We edited a number of entries on documentary/paranormal-related TV programming. How do you feel about the current state of such networks?

Apparently, formerly documentary-themed channels like the History and Discovery channels have given way to "reality" programming. Other topics such channels exploit include 2012 and paranormal events. Many documentary viewers criticize this trend. Here are some grievances that might interest you. Hope you enjoy.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utDHcbiOfKY
• http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd112711s.gif

serioushat 10:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. As you might have read on the Ancient Aliens page, South Park spoofed the channel.

Here's a funny clip showing how History and Hollywood exploited and profiteered from the 2012 hysteria.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcc_KAhwpa0

serioushat 12:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:STSurvivors.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyberia23,

Nice to be able to talk someone about this !
The plot about MCoG titles is a long and complicated story I have detailed years ago in the magazine of the fan-club "Les Enfants du Soleil" and discuted with the author Jean Chalopin many years ago. I try to summary it here.

As I assume you know, titles don't appears in the show, neither in France nor in US version. Only japanese version has titles. When first broadcast in France, some titles were published. There were the exact translation of japanese titles. When web sites appeared in the late 90's, many has completed the list with titles of their invention. Years later, when the show was edited in DVD in France, the titles were taken from this sites, then translated in english... Thus, these titles have replaced the original ones. Nevertheless, some of them are not good, for several reasons. Here are some examples :

Titles incompleted :
10. Secret of the Temple (underground)
11. Messengers of the Region (of the mysteries)
13. Mystery of the Parents (Esteban's parents)

Bad translation from french title :
15. The Subterranean Secret (underground would be better)
17. The Great Condor (in the US show, it is talked about The Golden Condor)
18. Maiden Flight of the Great Condor (same reason than above)
27. The Doors of Night (it is talked about A door)
38. The Great Legacy (in the US show, it is talked about The Great Treasure)

Titles non fitting with episode :
3. Heroes again (why again ? which heroes ?)
20. The Spaniards' Cannon (this title would fit with episode 14, not 20)

And so many titles not translated from japanese ones, because they are invention of french fans.
We could talk about titles not very good for the plot but this is subjective.

The titles I have put on Wikipedia are from UK video tapes and translated from french original titles. They were validated by Jean Chalopin then used in french DVD edition in 2008, not in UK because when I contacted Fabulous Films, the DVD were already made. But if this "big mistake of information transmission" is repaired, the next DVD editions will be corrected...

So, what could we do for this ?

Regards
Viracoche
www.enfants-du-soleil.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viracoche (talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um actualy, I havent updated this wiki in almost 6 months, actually probably more than that. It's not called laziness, its called having a life. You can delete this if you want I dont care, but I have to know why you are such a friggin DICK to me all the time? You think because you edit on wiki that you are someone. Well, I might not edit mine because I am "lazy", but you must have no life at all to be on here 24/7 complaining and fixing "your" wiki's. My wiki is NOT your wiki to edit all the time. Just who in the hell made you god of the ghost hunters wikis anyway? Just delete mine, cause you will anyway like you always do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.5.62 (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Brian? As in "Brian Haronis" of Ghost Hunters? LOL! Explain to me sir, how am I being a "friggin dick" to you "all the time" when I don't even know you except for what you write about yourself here and seeing you on a stupid TV show. I'm sorry if you're mad that edited your Wikipedia article, but I was just trying to make it conform to proper Wikipedia writing standards, you know, so it looks like someone educated wrote it instead of a 3rd grader. But I'm sorry, I bet your "life" is so busy since you're a famous celebrity and all, that you don't have enough time to learn proper English and how to type when you're not chasing "ghosts." But whatever dude, I really don't give a fuck about your article, so you can write it however you want. I won't bother with it anymore. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of correct grammar rules in English and Wikipedia-wide standards with regards to the use of commas in the following examples:

1) He grew up in San Francisco, California, during the 1960s (a comma MUST always follow the state of California in example one). 2) She grew up in Jalisco, Mexico, during the 1960s (a comma MUST always follow the nation of Mexico in example two). 3) The Golden Gate Bridge is a popular San Francisco, California landmark (a comma should NOT follow the state of California in example three because "San Francisco, California" is acting as an adjectival phrase of the noun, "landmark"). 4) Mariachi is a Jalisco, Mexico style of music (a comma should NOT follow the nation of Mexico in example four because "Jalisco, Mexico" is acting as an adjectival phrase of the noun, "style").

I would like to request that you please revert the Fact or Faked article back to the edits that inserted the NECESSARY commas after all the states and nations where applicable. If you are unable to re-implement the previous edits, then please do NOT change future edits that insert commas after states and nations in order to adhere to correct grammar rules in English as well as to conform to Wikipedia-wide standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.107.218 (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you edited Destination truth Season 5. Is it true that there is only going to be 6 episodes? It would be annoying if it was true. Please reply TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Cyberia23, do you think you can find a "reliable" source for this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Coppens_%28author%29 ... I'm sending you this message because it seems that you edited the Ancient Aliens page. Cheers. --Hydao (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you for basically summing up my feeling regarding Justin Koaf's nominating images from television articles for deletion. It's annoying things like this that finally made me stop editing on a regular basis. Shinerunner (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted 10 or 11 images where you removed the fair use rationale. (not all of them) If you wish, I can upload a new image myself for these images--or in maybe 2 images revert back what I did. Is this acceptable? Then I will face any image deletion notice. Please reply on my talkpage. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC) OK then. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! This whole thing is ridiculous. Under prodding from another editor, Cyberia23 has removed the one-and-only image that illustrates Requiem for Methuselah. But if you go over to the privately-owned Wikia that hosts the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha, you'll see 30 screen shots used in the gallery that supports that article, all of them uploaded ostensibly under fair-use. [2] The difference being that Memory Alpha is actualy a commerical site that generates advertising revenue-- so they make money from the "free-use" of these photos! As such, if THEY don't get take-down notices from the Paramount lawyers, I'm sure U.S. Wikipedia can support a few Star Trek screenshots (so long as nobody tries to upload one to COMMONS). As long as it's less than Wikia's Memory Alpha, we should be okay.

You know what's pernicious about this? Every time we see Star Trek-related content material, including screenshots, disappear from WP and wind up on Wikia's Memory Alpha, that's money going into Jimbo Wales' pocket. Do we not sense a conflict of interest in the fact that rogue editors are allowed to bedevil their fellows about this kind of copyright crap on en.WP, yet at the same time we know they would be crushed like a Pringles can at the bottom of the Mariana Trench if they tried that kind of thing (claiming violation of NFCC) on Memory Alpha? Kind of makes you wonder, eh? There are people here working for Jimbo, in ways they can't even fathom. SBHarris 04:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: Cyberia, do not remove the use of images that I just uploaded an image for myself. I uploaded an image for Turnabout Intruder, Devil in Dark, This Side of Paradise, Enterprise incident, Savage Curtain, Tholian Web, Cloud Minders, Ultimate Computer, Immunity Syndrome. These images were uploaded separately by me with slightly different names. You will not face any notice for their use. I said I would upload a few images and I have. Since you were first, you managed to upload the best trek screenshots that I cannot easily improve on...except in the case of the Enterprise Incident. (I have not uploaded any ST TNG images)

Before you remove a picture, please just check and see who uploaded it. That's all. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just put in my upload of Where No Man Has Gone and Trouble with Tribbles Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the last image: Doomsday Machine. I don't have any more time for images. These seemed the important ones. As for Doomsday Machine, I couldn't find this clip anywhere but you did. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I uploaded 3 images altogether here: Paradise Syndrome,

Galileo Seven and Menagerie

I may upload one or two last images but I will stop permanently after that. I have also been a bit ill this Monday. Kind Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read some of your exchanges with user:koafv, and I still do not understand your rationale for removing your own image upload, which just gives the robot a rationale for removing it as an orphan image. [3] Can you explain why you'd do this? I have some guesses, but finally decided it would be a lot better to simply come to your talk page and politely ask you. Thanks! SBHarris 02:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Admin reverted your edit here since this image was kept in the image DR. I have already uploaded another image that is now in use for this article but I have not reverted this edit. I suggest that you merely revert this edit--and don't send a message to the Admin as he likely assumed the image was kept. I don't want to revert the edit of an Admin. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, saw it, they reverted a couple so far because the pointless deletion "discussions" for each one is still on going and I broke the link back to the image when I orphaned them. It's just delaying the inevitable that I thought I'd speed along, but I guess not. Can't forget the bureaucratic red tape! Cyberia23 (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:STPatternForce.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To request an uploader speedy delete request for your images, type in this code for your non-free image files that have not yet been deleted:

{{db|author}}

Of course, it will not apply to any free Commons images you uploaded at WikiCommons but you likely know this already. Hopefully it will help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was deleted I see so the problem is solved. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from talk pages; this image has nothing wrong with it. The original intent of G7 is to permit immediate deletion of things that got created in error (e.g. you uploaded the wrong image) and things that are no longer useful/relevant/helpful/etc., such as File:Society of Biology.png, whose author requested deletion because it had been replaced by File:Society of Biology.svg. It's not meant for the deletion of images that have been in use for several years and that remain useful. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "G7" is, I want the image deleted and that's the code I was told to use to make such requests. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Cyberia23. I'm an administrator here, and I understand that you would like us to delete all of the Star Trek screenshots you have uploaded. That's fine, I'll do this. I'm sorry this has been stressful for you, and I hope we can get this squared away. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 11:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Automan, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

As I already told you, this image is not problematic, and it was in use at a talk page — talk pages may not be stripped of their images. G7 is the uploader-requested speedy deletion criterion, which I quote: If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move.) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Your comments make it clear that you're not doing this in good faith, so the image is not eligible for speedy deletion; if you continue removing this image from the page where it's used, you will be blocked. Finally, please observe that the only way to decline an inapplicable speedy deletion tag is to remove it: there's no other way to remove it from CAT:CSD. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing you are the guy making cool SF ship models in sketchup. Unfortunately the warehouse doesn't have feedback at the moment. I just found your second star frontiers model, freighters. Thanks for honoring my request with another model. You have developed some fans here: http://www.starfrontiers.us/node/7752#comment-35241

If you are the right guy, stop by our star frontiers forums and say hi.

Cool freighters!

-iggy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.217.130 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stan Lee's Superhumans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pellet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Limbo (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limbo (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where No Man Has Gone Before, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyberia23! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 22:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of spacecraft in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of spacecraft in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:StarGateNox.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Principiablack.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Principiablack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sword map.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samuel T. Anders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel T. Anders (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terran Federation (Blake's 7) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terran Federation (Blake's 7) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jontesta (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on behalf of Wikipedia and Star Trek fans for being a part of the Star Trek project. In case you did not see the article alert, Martok was put up for AFD today here. Lets try to avoid a repeat of Weyoun, which was deleted with one vote! Starspotter (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dracula 3000 movie poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QuicoleJR (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuicoleJR (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:B7Servalan.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. MarcGarver (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Principayellow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]