User talk:Starspotter

Hi Starspotter! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Star Trek: Voyager does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered. Eric ^talk 19:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Eric Starspotter (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reginald Barclay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Best of Both Worlds. 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) 09:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the talk page. You might want to create separate sections for the content you keep adding which is becoming wp:clutter and also you add too many details in the intro and inappropriate sections. You are better off looking at the talk page and taking a different approach. I also suggest it would be helpful for you to read the whole article before you add more material since it appears the things you want to add belong in specific sections as I mentioned but you keep adding them (eg commentaries by Shatner which already exist). So please read the entire article and look at the talk page. Thank you for reading.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you've put into the Spacedock article. To be honest, I doubt the subject meets the notability guidelines: most coverage of this topic is fleeting, and it's not been subject to significant third-party coverage. In addition, the article you've recreated needs some work just around structuring. I'll keep an eye on it and help as I can (although I'm not particularly active on Wikipedia). Worst-case, some of the information you've found might be better integrated in other articles (e.g. Star Trek III, which introduces the design) and the article returned to being a redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We will see how it goes for the article. One factor that lead me re-start it was its numerous appearances across the Star Trek franchise beyond just the Search for Spock. Starspotter (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, List of space science fiction franchises, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so I have moved it to Draft:List of space science fiction franchises so that you can continue working on it. If you have any questions, please leave a note on this page. Please consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. - MrX 13:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Extinction (Star Trek: Enterprise), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well there were sources there, but in time we can establish good sources as there is a lot out there. Starspotter (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding information that your (potentially unreliable) sources do not explicitly state. This is the textbook definition of synthesis. Please stop, or at least discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a big range including a direct quote, I don't want to get to close to the source material in other cases. Thanks for the input! Starspotter (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding DonIago's and MrX's posts, and asking once again that you provide edit summaries and familiarize yourself with the "show preview" button instead of making multiple consecutive edits. Eric ^talk 20:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm trying to address DonIago's concern's about those edits. I have also tried to improve use of the show preview button. I do appreciate the input though. Thanks. Starspotter (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to run in here and say that I've reverted a few of your edits - nothing personal at all, everyone's got to learn guidelines at some point. It was the addition of uncited information, and the addition of unnecessary detail to lead sections. Don't worry, it's totally stuff I used to do myself when I was first getting started. These only really become issues when you're doing it to articles which are at Good or Featured Article status. For the rest of the articles, any activity is appreciated really, and any issues created can be fixed when/if they go through a Good Article process. There are about 600 episode articles alone which aren't at GA/FA, so by all means have a play around with those if you want to get started. I'd suggest you have a look at the GA/FA articles and see if you can replicate those in the other episodes, I still do that myself as a refresher when working on a specific article. Miyagawa (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starspotter. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maquis (Star Trek), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Susan Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Tasha Yar. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Miyagawa (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who is reverting without a clear reason. You claim the style guide as authority, yet it endorses this type of information including appearances and biographical information. Starspotter (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starspotter. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, List of appearances of Tasha Yar, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme, this split off to as part of compromise on the Tasha Yar page, and another editor agreed. Thanks Starspotter (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guinan (Star Trek character), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Imaginary Friend and In Theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starspotter,

I've noticed your edits on Star Trek related articles. It's clear that you're very enthusiastic about the franchise. I have to ask you to please slow down a bit, and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. For instance, you made 49 consecutive edits on The Next Generation. You've added this to the lead:

Some of the highest rated shows by Nielsen ratings were the pilot, the finale, Unification (Diology), Aquiel, A Matter of Time, and Relics. Unification included the classic characters Spock and his dad Sarek, and Relics includes Scotty. Other famous episodes include the Best of Both Worlds diology, Inner Light, and The Measure of Man, which was released in an extended version in 2012 in 1080p

First, episodes are written with apostrophes, so it's "Unification", "A Matter of Time", etc. Dialogy is not a thing - do you mean it's a two-part episode? That some of the episodes features "classic characters" is not notable in this context, so I would remove that regardless. Wikipedia uses a formal tone, so it shouldn't be "Spock's dad", but "father". You as a fan might know who Scotty is, but Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for people familiar with Star Trek. "Other famous episodes" isn't a formal tone either; words and sentences like "well-received" or "critically acclaimed" are fine. Again, this is the lead of an article about a TV show; that an episode had an extended version released in 2012 in 1080p is not notable here. It also misses a period at the end.

Further down, you wrote Stephen Hawkings, instead of, you know, Stephen Hawking. Below the table of characters, you added "The character Q is very famous, and appeared in the first and last dioligies, but overall only appeared in 8 shows". Again, not a formal tone, and how is the character "famous"? Dioligies is not a word. Below the picture of console, you added the caption "A diagram of the Enterprise-D is shown on console from the "main engineering" set from hit sci-fi show Star Trek: The Next Generation which aired from 1987 to 1994". "Hit sci-fi" is not appropriate - and by now, readers would know that they're reading about The Next Generation; adding the years of its original run is unnecessary.

You've been editing Wikipedia on your account since May 2017, with 1,343 edits to your name. While your edits are greatly appreciated, you can't add those kind of POV-pushing sentences. If hope you understand. If you have any questions, let me know. Kind regards, soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and thanks for the input! I hope in time we can increase the quality of the article, and others. Thank you Starspotter (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starspotter, I can only concur that you need to calm down with your edits. The best thing you can do is to look at the articles already at Good Article status and Featured Article status and try to replicate that level of information and structure in other articles. However, what you seem to be doing is adding information to articles that simply doesn't need to be there. For example, I just went through and removed a list of James L. Conway's Star Trek credits from what appears to be every single one of his Star Trek articles - while relevant to the Conway article itself, it simply isn't relevant as a list in an individual episode article. This is the manual of style for episodes and characters: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television. You need to read this as well: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, as I notice that you've been breaking a few of the requirements there. I thoroughly encourage your enthusiasm, but try not to create work for other editors. Miyagawa (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for the input Miyagawa. I am sorry I am not familiar with all these rules, there is really I think too many rules but I do appreciate taking the time to let me know. Thank you for all your additions to the articles, it is really quality reading especially about the show. Cheers Starspotter (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Empok Nor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miles O'Brien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Inquisition (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. I would beg you to follow the advice of other editors and slow down. Besides adding information without citation, you're failing to use proper formatting. DonIago (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at List of Star Trek races, you may be blocked from editing. DonIago (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did add a reference in addition the other content. What I wrote comes straight out shows and references thank you very much. Starspotter (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you added two paragraphs, one of which didn't include a citation of any kind. DonIago (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Afterimage (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). For the last time, you need to be more careful not just to ensure that the specific information you're adding is explicitly supported by reliable sources, but also that you're using proper grammar and formatting. You are not improving articles with the edits you're making if you force other editors to have to review and frequently revert your word. I beg you to be more careful and pay attention to the advice I and other editors have been giving you. DonIago (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Afterimage (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dax

Image in the Sand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dax

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ex Post Facto (Star Trek: Voyager), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vulcan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warlord (Star Trek: Voyager), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starspotter - I'm writing to you with similar concerns to those expressed above by Doniago, Soetermans, Miyagawa, and others. Today I spent quite some time cleaning up a number of Star Trek related articles where your contributions, although the effort is appreciated, on balance seemed to do more harm than good. I'm concerned that your command of the English language may not be strong enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles, and also that you have a habit of introducing personal reflections and unsourced commentary that are not acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines. For example, I removed the following from the Star Trek (film series) article:

"Later when Nemesis was poorly received with a Trek rookie for directing TNG, but unlike The Final Frontier, halted Trek films for over half a decade."

Due to poor grammar and structure, this sentence is essentially incomprehensible. And even if the basic meaning is finally understood, it is a synthesis and overall is more of a personal commentary or speculation, than a reporting of material that is verifiable by reliable, published sources. As another example I reverted your change of:

"The following table shows the cast members who played the primary characters in the film series." to:

"The following table shows the cast members who played the primary characters in the film series, as additional examples of characters from the franchise or movies"

As well as rendering the sentence incomprehensible, the change is missing punctuation, the period at the end of the sentence. I noticed this same pattern in numerous other articles where you had added material to the lede paragraphs, with no closing period. These are just a couple of examples. In reviewing your previous contributions to other articles, I have seen many examples of major errors in English usage, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc., as well as extensive additions of unsourced personal reflection and commentary. I also noted that you have introduced in numerous articles, redundant text that repeats information already in the article or its parents, such as condensed plot summaries, as well as excessive details, trivia, quotes, and so on. Finally, what citations you do provide consist of bare URLs; properly-formatted citations would be much preferred. I started to revert some of your previous edits, and tried to fix some of the problems, but realized that it would take far more time than I'm able to put into it. Perhaps some of the editors I mentioned above, or others from Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek, could review your contributions and help to clean it up, if you are not able to do so yourself.

Again, while your enthusiasm is appreciated, I strongly urge you to take more care in following Wikipedia guidelines, especially about adding unsourced personal commentary, and checking your usage of English. If it's determined that your contributions require too much clean-up work from other editors, there is a very real possibility that you will soon be asked (or even forced) to stop editing Wikipedia. --IamNotU (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starspotter. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harry Kim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review and possibly chime in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Top X Lists, in which we're building a consensus for establishing where significance on a Top X List ends, at least with regards to Star Trek-related articles. Given that you updated a number of articles to include mentions on such lists, I believe you will find this pertinent.

Please note that, if the consensus becomes contrary to some of your recent additions, I would prefer that you chose to self-revert, but I am willing to make the appropriate edits if necessary. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Don, and thanks for checking my work. I have really tried to improve the quality of edits since we last talked, though I don't imagine its at the highest level of editing here at wikipedia. Starspotter (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome! Sorry if I come across as a bit of a hard-ass at times. Don't feel bad about making mistakes; we all make them sometimes! I'd just suggest that before you make large-scale changes to numerous articles it may be worth asking at an appropriate Talk page beforehand, since it's a lot easier to "get permission" than to have to revert afterward. Thank you for your understanding! DonIago (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I reverted your edits to Arena (Star Trek: The Original Series). While the info might be a good addition to the article, the reference formatting was incorrect. See here for guidance: {{Cite web}}. It would be a help to the rest of us if you would take the time to follow it. And, once again, please get in the habit of leaving edit summaries (see above). Eric ^talk 16:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by Eric, the formatting code is quite frankly difficult to understand sometimes. However, I will take a look at the citation guides. Something that I think would appreciated also, is adding more writing to the articles. There are a lot of "deleters" but many articles are short on content. Cheers. Starspotter (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of the guidance pages leave much to be desired when it comes to clarity. When I'm adding a source to an article, I copy/paste these with basic parameters into the article, then just fill in the info: User:Eric#Article_sourcing. Eric ^talk 19:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Eric, thanks for the tip and for trying to help on this issue of the citation coding. Cheers Starspotter (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Somebody reverted my edit to Arena, so I'll leave it alone and maybe you can go in and practice on those refs, eh? Eric ^talk 22:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working to improve those Arena refs. I made a couple adjustments. Don't forget to preview your edits before saving them -- this will help you catch typos and other errors, and please leave edit summaries. Eric ^talk 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for the help and your welcome! Like so many things here, its a work in progress!! Thank you and, q'plah! Starspotter (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add information to each individual ST episode's article saying essentially "now it's available on Netflix". This may be appropriate for inclusion on a more general Star Trek page, but has little bearing on the episodes themselves. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it's The Hollywood Reporter. The "The" is part of the title and it should be italicized. Also, when noting a publication for the first time, you should link it. I would appreciate it if you would take it upon yourself to make any necessary edits. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the new source into the above article. It is always nice to get more information to incorporate into an article. I hope you are having a wonderful day so far! Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, and thanks for edits. Starspotter (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dark Page, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bring It On (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 16:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your sprint through the various Enterprise-related articles to add e.g. this io9 ranking was well-intentioned. But FYI, the listicle has been used/cited twice in the 1701 article for almost a year. I largely removed where you added it to the 1701 article, though kept a bit about the ranking/opinion of the refit design. --EEMIV (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Paradise Syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love Story (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starspotter, thanks for another helpful ref for the 1701 article. For what it's worth, it looks like you have these manic sprees of finding commentary and material worth adding to a wide range of articles. However, in your haste to drop them into the article, I don't often see you integrate your addition with the prose/content previous editors might've set up about a subject. Instead, looks like you're adding the material in as a new, standalone paragraph at the end of the critical reaction (or equivalent) section. Please consider slowing down to see if whatever you're dug up might fit well in a particular spot in an article -- or might not fit at all in case it's e.g. already been cited (NB my earlier talkpage comment) or is otherwise sufficiently covered/cited that one more might not make a difference. For the Popular Mechanics list you've found, with thoughts on Chekov's seen and the Enterprise's destruction, you might just consider posting a link to it at the [Star Trek talk page] and inviting editors to pick up the details and add it to whichever articles they tend to shepherd. Thank you for your contributions. --EEMIV (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly amazed and astounded at your dedication to finding and posting reviews of Star Trek episodes. However, I am a little concerned that we are now piling on too may references and directs to links. I'm also worried about the relevance of the sources for some of these lists. I, too, would urge you to slow down and examine the relevance of the source, and if the addition of the "top 10 list" (or whatever it may be at the time) really adds to the article. Lastly, and unfortunately, I feel I have to mention that a great many of your edits/adds to these articles use poor grammar. I don't know if it is wiki-acceptable to urge an editor to use a grammar checker before posting. I did just complete a task of editing each and every TOS episode article to clean them up and I don't want to have to go and do it again. I don't mean to be offensive here, just asking you to take care. StarHOG (Talk) 15:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your addition of a SyFy review from the 1701 article. It's not integrated with the rest of the commentary, and the ref isn't even necessary: "People like the design of the ship, 1701 #1 woohoo!" has been beaten to death in that article. Again, please consider the feedback above about slowing down and more tightly integrating your refs in articles -- or, if you're disinclined to do that, stop adding them to the articles themselves and instead leave a heads-up on the article or wikiproject talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add onto others' comments, If you're going to continue to add lists of lists to articles, can you please prosify and condense them? This looks ridiculous and I shouldn't have to clean up what you add to featured articles. None of those mentions are important enough to have their own lines, let alone identically-structured ones right after another. This is frankly approaching the level of disruptive editing; other editors shouldn't have to clean up your edits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your feedback, and as per the Wikipedia policy your welcome to edit it (as are others). However, the quality issue you see can be adjusted in time, that is part of collaborative process. Starspotter (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I speak for many Wikipedians in saying that we find it challenging to see a spirit of collaboration in a campaign of hasty or careless additions of material by one editor with an expectation that others will come along and clean them up. Eric ^talk 17:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the expectation of Wikipedia, that others will edit our work. I'm sorry your finding issues, and I will certainly work try incopoprate your suggestions, indeed where possible I fix it myself. However, a major issue is that many of these articles are out of date. Starspotter (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some articles are "out of date" or merely in need of significant cleanup. However, articles like USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and Space Seed are incredibly well written, thorough, and timely -- and that's where you see the frustration at "drive by" edits mentioned above. --EEMIV (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starspotter, from your replies above, I get the impression that you're not taking the complaints, requests, and advice from other editors seriously enough. I appreciate that you are trying in good faith to improve the articles, and that you have improved your own use of citations, etc. But I agree for example with the comment above that the June additions to Space Seed look "ridiculous". If your contributions to Wikipedia continue to require more cleanup work by the rest of the community than they are worth, there is a real possibility that you will be blocked from editing. I've already expressed some of these concerns a year ago in § Multiple problems in Star Trek articles, and others before me in § Please slow down, § April 2018, etc. Please review these comments again, and try to slow down and discuss on appropriate talk pages, before making mass additions to many articles. It's true that Wikipedia is a work in progress, but consistently making changes that may be seen as bringing down the quality of articles is likely to be seen as unhelpful. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the feedback, and honestly everyone here I think has the best interest of the other editors at the core of what they are saying and also the quality of the Wikipedia. One of the major problems on most articles, is a lack of sources in general. You welcome to express your opinions, and edit these articles. However many of the specific issues about page content can be addressed at their respective pages. For example, in one case an editor deleted content because he could not find it on the page, but eventually they were able access the website. Starspotter (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In certain cases such as "Space Seed", you were in fact duplicating references that were already in the article. If you're concerned about sources but aren't going to spend the time to see what's integrated into the article, just put the links in a {{refideas}} template on the talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Starspotter- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally (and check them for errors) before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 22:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to have stopped editing here for the time being. If you come back, please follow the advice above, especially to preview – and before saving, check the spelling and grammar of what you have added. Some editors have had to fix a few typos in your edits, e.g. [1]. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 21:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to write 1988 or 1968? Someone changed the date without explanation and I reverted it, but then again maybe it was an appropriate correction after all.

I thought maybe that although the footage was reused I thought maybe that the original unedited pilot was not broadcast until 1988, but you didn't include any sources to that effect, and a typo seems more likely. Please correct the article or if it really was your intention to write 1988 please add a source. I really should sleep. -- 109.76.142.35 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Arena (Star Trek: The Original Series) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Eric ^talk 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Man Trap. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Eric ^talk 22:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Dauphin (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Eric ^talk 03:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Journey to Babel. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Eric ^talk 11:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to vote keep - can I just say keep on the talk page? Dbutler1986 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your reply! Yes, you just say "Keep" like a comment (other common votes are things like "redirect") and include any relevant points. If you like another person's reasoning you can say that also. Starspotter (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop canvassing, edits like this are directly against our policy. YODADICAE👽 21:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are part of the Star Trek project, and there is been an issue with notifications. Starspotter (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not do it again. This was plain canvassing. YODADICAE👽 21:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are improving lots of Star Trek articles and that's great, but I saw an edit of yours from back in January where you added TV.com to the Reception section of an article[2]

Please note MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC. Audience or fan scores from user voted web polls should not be used. Scores such as those from IMDB or TV.com should not be added to TV articles. I would usually delete them but I don't want to leave episode articles with no Reception information at all and make bad articles worse. I hope as you continue to improve articles you won't add these anymore and will try to replace them with other better sources.

For Voyager episodes in need of Reception information you might be able to use the Tor.com Voyager rewatch series of reviews I've been trying to improve episode articles too and had some luck finding sources using the episode listings on TrekToday combined with the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive since so many of the links are often dead.

Apologies if you've learned all of this and I'm telling you what you already know. In any case, thanks for your work to improve episode articles. -- 109.77.204.50 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rare exception to the rule, when another source mentions the IMDB score you might be allowed to include it. For example there were Screenrant lists based on IMDB scores that are maybe acceptable. I would not recommend it, but other editors might allow those as exceptions is all I'm trying to say. -- 109.77.204.50 (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by and in that case, I was using TV.com to source the UPN debut not the user based ratings (I have not used them as much any more though). It is hard to navigate what other editors find acceptable, some sources do not seem to carry as much weight with some as others, other times they are counted as solid reliable sources (and yet others will delete them with little explanation). Starspotter (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago I learned a little bit about history and politics ... it often suits people to have more rules than most people can understand, that way they can selectively enforce them and punish or exclude. Even when you think you've learned the rules then they go and change them too.

But that's not relevant in this case, it is a simply that user voted web polls are not a reliable source, so we make do with Nielsen TV Ratings as an imperfect measure of audience response. Too many rules, not enough time. -- 109.77.204.50 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is good enough quality then it is best to just remove the Stub template.[3] Your edit didn't work but I have gone ahead and removed the Stub template. -- 109.78.203.76 (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sounds fine. Starspotter (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That scene is just great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yea! Star Spotter Talk 21:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should mention "Vox Solis" in the article Vox Sola. Please comment at Talk:Vox_Sola#Episode_title_explained. -- 109.76.129.26 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't understand why you added a duplicate book reference (diff:[5]) and I reverted it. Maybe there is something that could be changed but I don't think there need to be two references to the same book. -- 109.76.129.26 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I think you figured out, I was trying to fix a broken reference. As it turned out there was just one missing slash! I salute your excellent research and edits, I will try to update the article (Vox Solis) this weekend. Lets hold off on including that until there is a more solid reference. Star Spotter (Talk) 23:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment, I think it's being overly-generous to say that Immortal Coil is Mid importance. As such, I have reverted your edit. If you disagree, please raise the question at the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to message you again so soon, but given that you didn't participate in the discussion regarding "must-watch" episodes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Must-Watch episodes, I feel I need to ask whether you're planning to revert your own additions, or whether you're going to leave it to other editors. Obviously I think I and other editors would prefer if you took it upon yourself to make the appropriate changes. DonIago (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Another editor raised some questions/thoughts about your contributions at the Star Trek wikiproject talk page and I want to make sure the notification icon doesn't get overlooked. The convo is over here. --EEMIV (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever do return, the discussion was archived. Short version is you were asked to use edit summaries more often and to take greater care about low quality sources. Anyway I hope you're well and have better things to be doing, but I keep noticing your many edits to Star Trek articles and I appreciated your efforts. -- 109.76.194.218 (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earth Spacedock, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth Spacedock until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]