Revision as of 21:52, 5 December 2006

User:Cool Cat/Talk Template This user is no longer active on wikipedia. You may reach him at Commons:User talk:Cool Cat --Cat out 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Posts: 22:08, 3 January 2025 UTC

Don't go

I saw your note on the deletion page. I would urge you to stick around despite the occasional aggravations that occur around here. Take a break if you need it but I hope you'll return and resume contributing. Newyorkbrad 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. - Basically, with the recent improvement of the main Serial Experiments Lain, the episode list is a duplicate of the information. Sorry if this causes you any grief.Malkinann 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not prod that page nor try to get it deleted. The duplicate info can be removed from the article can be removed but see List of Planetes episodes. I had been meaning to nominate that for a "featured" status. I will do so soon. --Cat out 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the article is duplicated on the main SEL page, though... I won't prod it further, but you might want to confer with User:$yD! on what exactly is going to happen with regards to the episode list, and the main Serial Experiments Lain article, which is currently in FA nomination. - Malkinann 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a reason to further discuss. And please do not get that the wrong way, I just feel this would satisfy all parties involved. I will put a note to the main lain page to explain my actions but I think he would prefer having two featured articles/lists. I'll however wait for that FAC to conclude and nominate the episode list after it for FL. --Cat out 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Insignia

Thanks for updating the page. I personally am intriqued by the subject but lack the knowledge and wanted to save the article before it gets deleted. Agathoclea 08:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Starfleet_alternate_ranks_and_insignia drama?

I'm confused by your repeated use of the word "drama". Is there something inherently dramatic about redirects that I'm not seeing? Friday (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I continue to be very curious at your use of the word "drama" in this case. Are you using this word to mean "something I disagree with"? Friday (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

drama -noun see meaning #4 and perhaps #5: 1/2 --Cat out 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet Security

Of extreme interest is that one of the people heavily involved with the deletion votes of both the Warrant Officer and the alternate ranks article showed up within 5 minutes of my working on this article, blanking parts of it and challenging the sources on all of it. I've asked that user to tone it down, I think there might be some personal feeling at work here. Will this never end? Anyway, your help on this new article would be welcome. -Husnock 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend arbitration. WP:HA is not tolerated if thats the case. I am sorry but the other guys do not care about what I have to say and frankly I am sick and tired of repeating myself to them. --Cat out 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is now to the level that I am trying not to laugh. How can one seriously propose deletion of this article? Do these people not like the articles, not like us, or a bit of both? You are so right what you said on the page. It is the same people, the same type of articles, and yes they are making a mess. In this case, however, I am hoping the AfD gets laughed out of court. -Husnock 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You know... this series of incidents almost reminds me the nature of my medical emergency (rfar #2). Were these guys following you around or attacking star trek articles randomly? --Cat out 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Star Trek Encyclopedia

Hi, this is a sanity check thing. Either the majority is wrong or I am right... I asked the same question to several people... Would it be OR research to cite Star Trek Encyclopedia as source? --Cat out 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to answer such a generalised question as it depends what exactly the claim being made is. I have cited the Encyclopedia for things in the past, generally real-life behind the stage info that it is a reliable source for. Drawing your own conclusions from things the a source says, then citing it, is still original research, regardless of whether the s source is the Encyclopedia or the episodes themselves. Morwen - Talk 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific the claim is that Star Trek Encyclopedia is a "self-publication" and hence not meeting "WP:RS". --Cat out 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any such claim there. I see a claim that you are citing the Encyclopedia whilst actually extending your own claims. You would do well to acknowledge and address the point actually raised, rather than misreading what is being said and addressing that, people might think you are using strawmen arguments. Morwen - Talk 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)