User talk:AllyUnion/Archive12

1138:

Yorktown (original name for the Enterprise) and other tidbits of the characters originate. About 10 years ago, Robert Justman and Herbert Solow, who produced TOS, wrote Inside Star Trek: The Real Story which covered the entire run of TOS and included a number of controversial claims (such as the affair between Roddenberry and Nichelle Nichols, the fact Gene composed an "impossible to sing" set of lyrics for the theme song so he'd get a cut of the royalities, etc.). And of course all the main cast either wrote autobiographies covering the early years, or biographies were written about them. For post-TOS history, as in the rise of fandom, I'd recommend "On the Good Ship Enterprise" by Bjo Trimble who organized the 1960s equivalent of Trek United, and Making of the Trek Conventions by Joan Winston which chronicles the beginnings of that element of Trek fandom. Of all the books I mentioned, these last two are the hardest to find, as you can imagine. Hope this helps.

1149:

don't have the time to work on such a project at the moment. I could give a general outline from memory (Roddenberry pitching the show to CBS who turned it down in favor of Lost in Space; NBC and Desilu rejecting the show until Lucille Ball championed it; the controversy over Spock and the initial plan to have a female first office; the decision to air a monster-of-the-week episode first which some feel doomed TOS from the start; the write-in campaign that saved the second season; Harlan Ellison vs. Roddenberry, etc.). Problem is if you want sources cited I couldn't do that given my time restrictions. But maybe if we just created an outline and worried about sourcing later, it would give us a start?

711:

scratch, which isn't feasible (not to mention unfair to past contributors). I imagine some folks treat Knowledge like they would a thesis or essay, but I don't really work that way - not with a simple website. Anyway, I started the list so hopefully something can be done with it. If push comes to shove, I'd recommend citing only those books dated in the 1970s since those are key works and the sum of their knowledge forms the basis for what longtime Trekkers like me know about the show. Cheers.

954:

concerns). But beyond that, I could see us having some fun describing the different TOS, TNG, VOY, and ENT bloopers that have been released. I wouldn't suggest summarizing every Trek blooper - that could get boring - but some of the more popular ones might be worth noting, stuff like Shatner saying "Have no fear, Sargon is here" or Tuvok running away from a dark cave, or the newly classic "Martinis at T'Pol's" blooper from the season 1 gag reel. Thoughts?

1089:. I can barely see an edit war last night. I am in the middle of major edits to try and resolve the problem, and feel I am being punished (I wanted to continue my edits this morning) for the sins of others. The only real solution to this page's problem is a thorough rewrite, but that cannot happen if the page is protected. Protecting will never solve the deeper problem, 722:

Deforest Kelly, Leonard Nimoy and Walter Koenig as well -- yup, they all wrote books (except for Kelly who was biographed posthumously). I recall there being two biographies of Roddenberry published, one of which was considered quite controversial but I can't recall if it was Star Trek Creator or the other one the title of which I forget.

953:

I wanted to bounce an idea off you. What do you think about an article based upon Star Trek bloopers? The original tapes have some notability because of their proliferation in the 1970s (in fact it could be said that the controversy over their unauthorized distribution anticipated current film piracy

656:

Hi AllyUnion - the vote over at tfd was for Template:Substub to be deleted, and it's in the queue awaiting deletion. General feeling at WikiProject Stub sorting is that turning it into a redirect for its last few days would make sense, to sort of ease the transition. I could go ahead and unprotect it

164:

I was thinking that we could remove them periodically, like every hour or fifteen minutes. That would still allow people to test how it works, but make it less worthwhile to spam. Do many people use the public sandboxes for large-scale tests? I suspect most do it on their own subpages. Other options

990:

is the first and only page I have protected, and I unproteted it and removed the tag simultaneously, after 24 hours. Did I miss something? Nothing is more likely, mind you, as the whole protection/unprotection procedure is a little intimidating the first time. Or, hey, did you simply mean that this

1137:

Your question is pretty broad. There are two major works on the subject. During TOS's second season, Gene Roddenberry and Stephen Whitfield co-wrote "The Making of Star Trek" which described in intense detail how the show came to be. It's from that source that names such as Captain Winter, the USS

721:

I'm willing to bet the explanation of who Berman is probably got lost in a previous edit. Good catch, there. "Star Trek Creator" could be considered a reference along the lines of Shatner's books (I could also have listed autobiographies/biographies of Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, James Doohan,

710:

I added a list of the major reference works that are often cited when writing about Star Trek to the main article. It has been mentioned that this is not quite what is meant by references, but IMO the only way to do a fully cited article is to abandon what has been written and write something from

46:

Hm, good point, marking all of Knowledge namespace is rather controversial. The point is that the Knowledge namespace is a mess, and it's sometimes difficult to distinguish relevant content from old debates. I'll see if I can think of a better way of doing that, or failing that it would be good to

1317:

It is my lucky day when I do not revert a dozen of anon vandals in my watchlist. Therefore each time I refresh my watch I browse thru anon contributors. In my watchlist at least 30% are vandals. If a bot runs, I don't see these anons, so to spot them I have to look into histories of articles last

1200:

It's been established that WikiProjects may reside in userspace for whatever reason. If the user tags something as cat:wikiproject, and it becomes inactive, then cat:inactive wikiproject is appropriate. That includes Peregrine 981 and Gracefool. Also, some WikiProjects don't have 'WikiProject' in

265:

frequently, there would a window of opportunity for someone to vandalise an image after it appeared on the main page and before it had been protected. The times when new images appear on the main page are quite predictable (e.g. midnight UTC for the selected anniversary) and the images are chosen

31:

Hi there! Template:inactive sounds good (I've changed the layout to a colorful box though, as per most such templates). I think two months for the talk page sounds fair. Thanks for your help! What about doing something similar for any page in the Knowledge namespace? Or is that unfeasible? Yours,

1148:

This is definitely something that's worth doing the research for, but what one needs is time and resources. I have the resources - most of the books I mentioned including Trimble's book and the Trek Conventions book which is selling on the collectors market for a lot of money. Problem is, I just

1044:

Thanks. I'll look at the workframe when I have the time. I will also need to read about Python first, but I think it mustn't be too hard. As for the task I intend to do, these are mainly about automation. Automatic categorization, automatic redirections, etc. Detail will follow on my talk page.

310:

The reason I recommend this is that some newbies are afraid to edit the sandbox and don't know what it's exactly for. Even with the header template message, "Feel free to try your formatting skills here" and "We politely ask you to leave the line above alone" could cause them some confusion.

1065:

If I weren't laughing so hard, I'd be writing up an Rfc on you for - what did someone recently accuse me of so eloquently? "Eternal demonising" of me or something similar. Bless you - the pain of being demoted to BJAODN's 2nd Curmudgeon by that new guy has been alleviated by your work.

874:

to be a featured article. However, I feel that the article as it stands is a mess and requires a complete rewrite. The information presented is fine, but it seems to be lacking certain information and links. Please help by contributing your opinions to

1033:

I want to perform some archiving tasks and also some categorization and stub categorization. I know I need to ask permission to do it (use a bot), but before that I wanted to know how to program one... Does it use C, Java, PHP, wikilanguage? Thanks.

277:

you protect the image before updating the template. There are similar steps in the processes for updating the other templates. So I think the right thing to do is to assist in automation of the existing processes, which is what I'm doing with

1318:

edited by bots. If the last edit was by a logged user I trust he spotted the vandal (with the exception of redlinked user name: chances are it is a newbie or even vandal too). Looking into histories is a burden both for me (I have : -->

491:

page - which is not a priority at this time. Sandbot (and vigilant users like Stevey) are the best "header policing" solution for now. If (and when) Knowledge reaches critical mass, then we may have to revisit the idea of a permanent

470:(I think this has the right emphasis without being confusing or intimidating. Also, IMHO we don't need to be overly specific; newbies might be confused about what the "header" is for instance. Just say "edit below this line".) 561:

The problem is that Sandbot would have to be more active without it, I bet. Some people may take the whole "Please leave this line alone" as a joke and change it... Then to discover the header is gone.

183:

so that headings start at ==2nd level== instead of =1st level=, per the MoS. However, now the bot's transcluding the new archive day between two '='s, breaking the table of contents (see

353:

Feel free to try your formatting and editing skills here beneath this header and notice. As this page is for editing experiments, this page will automatically be cleaned every 12 hours.

306:

Please leave the line above alone, but feel free to edit the sandbox below the header. As this page is for editing experiments, this page will automatically be cleaned every 12 hours.

155:

Some people have taken to silly link spamming of sandboxes. Would it be worth to remove external links when checking the sandboxes? Giving spammers any slack just doesn't feel right :)

254:

I think that the only way this is going to work is by integrated the protection and unprotection for images into the processes that update the templates that appear on the main page.

533:"We politely ask you to leave the line above alone" sounds like Knowledge has administrators who are strict schoolteachers in everyday life. "Hello" is very friendly to everyone. — 831:

upload it to the commons? Also, are the following free licenses allowed on en? I thought that they were, but the current wording on Upload seems to me to exclude them from en.

1322:

Of course, simple-minded vandals will be spotted anyway. But in rarely edited pages and with deliberately clandestine vandals one better be on an early warning alert level.

138: 122: 334:

Feel free to try your formatting skills here beneath the first two lines. As this page is for editing experiments, this page will automatically be cleaned every 12 hours.

133:

themselves watched. It seems like the only reasonable way to do that, barring source code changes, is to have a bot populate talk pages with some new template resembling

1291:

I think this is how World War I started. Actually, it was while I was trying to plot revenge that you became an inspiration. So consider yourself a muse. (omg, I did

823:

Sorry, I may be being dense, but I'm still not really clear what the policy is. Are you saying that if I find an image licensed only under the BSD license, then I may

468:

Hello! Feel free to try your formatting and editing skills *below* this line. As this page is for editing experiments, it will automatically be cleaned every 12 hours.

1179:

which are in the category? Should I only change pages that have a format of "Knowledge:WikiProject *"? (Where * means any word, phrase, name, etc). What about

1109:. I see that you were the one who created Category:Knowledge guidelines. Can you point me to any discussion that were done before the creation of that category? 803:. Fair use is permitted, but that small notice is against anyone who wants to exclusively use a free license such as the BSD License to license their images. -- 657:

myself and do the job, but would feel happier getting your okay for the unprotection first (since it was your (good) idea to put it on there). PS - nice photos!

209:

Seven days sounds reasonable, because after that any discussions are likely to be closed. They are still accessible, of course, as the naming is rather obvious.

1175:

Hi Radiant!, I told you that the archive is 6 months if the page is not edited, and 2 months if the talk page hasn't been edited. What do you for pages like:

1106: 1046: 1035: 1015:

is protected. So, I can still edit it, but is it a faux pas and abuse of my superpowers to do so? Anyway, thanks for telling me, that'll come in useful!

1049: 896: 682: 783:

OK, but what about the non-GFDL free licenses which are allowed on the commons? Is uploading images under these licenses actually disallowed on en, or

1339:

I see. I didn't think about this. But again, how does the "recent changes" work? I don't think it accesses full histories in the whole my watchlist.

910: 298:

We politely ask you to leave the line above alone. As this page is for editing experiments, this page will automatically be cleaned every 12 hours.

432: 1251:

Oh yes, and please make an exception for subcategories (which shouldn't be moved period, otherwise cat:inactive may end up in cat:inactive :) ).

1038: 552: 569: 411: 372: 343: 1233: 893: 1158:

I just added a very fast and dirty outline from memory to the Temp page. There are no doubt some errors to be smoothed out, but it's a start.

748:

Is this true? For example, is the uploading of public domain images to wikipedia prohibited? My understanding was that the following is true:

1346: 1274: 1162: 1153: 898: 726: 699: 487:

a few months ago about somehow permanently "cementing" the header in the sandbox but she said it is not really possible unless we make it a

1127: 973: 853: 810: 645: 187: 1194: 958: 145: 582:

Hi there! I've noticed that for the past few days, VfD/Yesterday doesn't update and instead links to the day before yesterday. FYI.

1303: 620: 257:(It would be straightforward to write a bot that would (1) protect all images on the main page; and (2) unprotect all images with 184: 1028: 1142: 542: 326: 225: 1170: 1096: 948: 528: 1277:

should be removed from the Votes for Deletion List. I turned the personal research article into an acceptable stub. Thanks.

679:

I would feel much better if a bot could go through and change all the substubs into stubs... but a redirect is fine for now.

777: 715: 67: 1281: 603: 169: 159: 615: 137:. I'm willing to rough-in a bot that would do that, but I do not want to step on your toes. Would you care to join the 1070: 791: 765: 1361: 1329: 1023: 886: 627: 1176: 609: 113: 671: 976: 165:

are to check manually (yuck) or suffer the spam (yuck yuck), or hope that it's just a fad (which would be nice).

190: 1223: 1184: 452:

I think the current warning is acceptable, but it could be a little better. To state the obvious, we want to:

1286: 1102: 100: 770:

Public domain is ineligible for copyright status... I don't believe it can be re-licensed under the GFDL. --

1132: 274: 1319:

3,000 pages on watch) and for wikiengine. That's why I'd like for a bot to report who edited before him.

261:

that do not appear on the main page. However, this wouldn't really be a solution: unless you ran the bot

1201:

their title, such as the LGBT notice board and Statistics Department. I'd say the sole exceptions are

507:

DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR THE ONE ABOVE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES OR YOU MAY BE BLOCKED WITHOUT WARNING.

150: 1269: 1053: 629:

If you know anything about HTML comments, an HTML comment begins with

548:

Do we even need the header message? Doesn't the Sandbot put the header back in if it disappears?

289: 705: 630:. The reason why the bot blank the page was not its fault. It was because someone took out the 390:

As this page is for editing experiments, this page will automatically be cleaned every 12 hours.

969: 732: 26: 1202: 577: 270: 505:

P.P.S. I remember what the warning was like several months ago... it was along the lines of

1206: 1122: 931:

I finally dragged it to a global discussion because the local discussions weren't helping.

538: 510: 368: 322: 8: 1314:

I am not sure what is unclear: the reason or the implementation. I guess the former one.

1230: 1191: 883: 807: 774: 642: 600: 566: 525: 408: 340: 258: 231: 64: 17: 1358: 1343: 1326: 1309: 1255: 1242: 1213: 1180: 1020: 981: 939: 917: 692: 664: 586: 429: 213: 200: 76: 51: 36: 1060: 1011:

I'm replying on your page, as I usually do, but it unnerves me a little to note that

1001: 987: 963: 932: 863: 47:

get consensus first. But am I correct to understand that it is technically possible?

1354:

Bot hiding: This will not help me to see anons that edited immediately before bots.

123:

Knowledge talk:Categories for deletion#Visibility of CfD votes on categorized pages

107: 1300: 1110: 1067: 651: 549: 534: 364: 318: 279: 230:

You asked on sourceforge for protection and unprotection for pywikipediabot. See

174: 142: 96: 428:

Works for me. I think it sounds a little too authoritarian, but only a little. -

1227: 1188: 1090: 880: 876: 804: 771: 639: 597: 563: 522: 509:

LOL, that is not very inviting and it is a tempting invitation for vandals! --

405: 337: 61: 1355: 1340: 1323: 1252: 1239: 1210: 1159: 1150: 1139: 1016: 997: 955: 936: 914: 841: 723: 712: 686: 658: 583: 210: 197: 180: 73: 48: 33: 125:

about the desire for CfD candidates to somehow show up on the watchlists of

1258: 1245: 1216: 1086: 942: 920: 837:

GNU General Public License (GPL) / GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)

589: 216: 203: 134: 79: 54: 39: 753:

If you want to use an exclusive free license other than the GFDL, you are

404:

If you're going to be that specific... Might as well clearly define it. --

99:

is now marked as a bot. If you ever need this flag removed, please ask at

1278: 484: 104: 1008:

Right? I have mysterious editing powers that override the protection?

850: 788: 762: 617: 314:

Please change the sandbot script and use my version or a similar one.

166: 156: 926: 739:

If you want to use an exclusive free license other than the GFDL, you

1101:

I've been looking into the history and rationale for the creation of

871: 864: 243: 596:

For some reason, the bot was logged out. Wait a few days please. --

283: 247: 235: 386:

Feel free to try your formatting and editing skills here beneath

681:

Well currently there aren't any, so a bot isn't really needed.

294:

Currently, the private notice in the sandbox looks like this:

904: 250:

08:13, 2005 May 13 (UTC) P.S. Why is your talk page protected?

90: 196:

As to automating the 'old debates' infobox - great idea!

614:

Not sure why, but the bot left the page almost empty.

870:

Hi Coolcat. I would like to work together to push for

461:

Discourage header vandalism (deliberate and accidental)

1187:? Can you give me your list of exceptions please? -- 1238:

No, because nothing links there in the first place.

1080: 266:some time in advance. So I don't like that idea.) 186:). Could you fix that when you have a chance? -- 1004:(just to put the {{protected}} template in there) 911:Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 11 179:Someone recently fixed all the heading levels on 1073:wait a minute - now that song is on my talk page 834:Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 757:to upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons. 1275:Knowledge:Votes_for_deletion/European_English 913:? Did you add the header? I kind of like it. 521:I like FP's suggestion. Changing to that. -- 743:upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons. 636: 1228:AllyUnion 1189:AllyUnion 1091:SqueakBox 1061:My Titles 964:FFXI Wiki 881:AllyUnion 872:Star Trek 865:Star Trek 805:AllyUnion 772:AllyUnion 640:AllyUnion 598:AllyUnion 564:AllyUnion 523:AllyUnion 492:solution. 406:AllyUnion 338:AllyUnion 244:Main Page 62:AllyUnion 1297:thinking 1222:But not 1160:23skidoo 1151:23skidoo 1140:23skidoo 1017:Bishonen 998:Bishonen 956:23skidoo 894:Cool Cat 724:23skidoo 713:23skidoo 687:Grutness 659:Grutness 489:Special: 986:Uh...? 845:EFF OAL 652:Substub 175:CfD bot 118:Hello, 95:Hello. 1279:Nobbie 1256:adiant 1243:adiant 1231:(talk) 1214:adiant 1192:(talk) 940:adiant 918:adiant 884:(talk) 808:(talk) 775:(talk) 643:(talk) 601:(talk) 587:adiant 567:(talk) 526:(talk) 485:Angela 409:(talk) 341:(talk) 280:DYKbot 214:adiant 201:adiant 181:WP:CFD 105:Angela 77:adiant 65:(talk) 52:adiant 37:adiant 1356:mikka 1341:mikka 1324:mikka 1118:Verse 1113:Blank 1081:Fidel 994:: --> 974:Gahoo 851:Lupin 789:Lupin 763:Lupin 632:: --> 618:Kappa 188:Azkar 167:Zocky 157:Zocky 16:< 1335:... 1226:? -- 1054:talk 1021:talk 972:. -- 741:must 694:wha? 666:wha? 638:. -- 539:talk 369:talk 323:talk 263:very 1359:(t) 1344:(t) 1327:(t) 1293:not 1075:!!! 829:may 825:not 689:... 661:... 284:Gdr 248:Gdr 236:Gdr 1306:) 1259:_* 1246:_* 1217:_* 1066:-- 1019:| 1013:it 943:_* 935:. 921:_* 590:_* 562:-- 541:) 511:FP 371:) 336:-- 325:) 282:. 234:. 217:_* 204:_* 141:? 103:. 80:_* 55:_* 40:_* 1253:R 1240:R 1211:R 1124:∅ 1056:) 1052:( 937:R 915:R 584:R 537:( 367:( 321:( 211:R 198:R 108:. 74:R 49:R 34:R

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index