User talk:Starspotter

1446:

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

526:

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.

1410:, 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 Knowledge guidelines. For example, I removed the following from the 2540: 200: 1115: 2802: 2726: 2652: 1077: 2931:. 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. 3382: 3291: 2567: 2342: 1476: 565: 986:

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:

944:. 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 1999:

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 (

1190: 2427: 694: 409: 365: 95: 2024:

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

933:. "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. 2317:

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

2003:

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 and inviting editors to

985:

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

3412:

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

2964:

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

2180:

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 Knowledge. One of the major problems on most articles, is a lack of sources in general. You welcome to express your opinions, and

1676:

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

295:

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

2979:

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

923:

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,

2139:

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

2023:

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

1629:

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

525:

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

323:

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 Knowledge). Worst-case, some of the information you've found might be better integrated in other articles (e.g.

2066:

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

1445:

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

1998:

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

1008:

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

928:

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. Knowledge uses a

2047:

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

1453:

Again, while your enthusiasm is appreciated, I strongly urge you to take more care in following Knowledge 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

3158:

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.

577:

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.

2994:

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

1488:

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.

2165:

on appropriate talk pages, before making mass additions to many articles. It's true that Knowledge 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.

3266:. 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. -- 2284:

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.

2144:

look "ridiculous". If your contributions to Knowledge 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

2102:

It is the expectation of Knowledge, 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.

955:

You've been editing Knowledge 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,

2181:

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.

736:, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Knowledge is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. 2092:

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.

2195:

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

3224:, 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. 1797:. 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. 2998:

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. --

2048:

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. --

1728:

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.

1614:

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.

2245:

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

1691:

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:

3334: 2610: 2385: 1516: 605: 2259:

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.

2844:

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.

1599:

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.

3318:. 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 3243:

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

2594:. 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 2369:. 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 1500:. 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 589:. 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 2078:

I welcome your feedback, and as per the Knowledge 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.

296:

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.--

496:

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.

911:

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 Knowledge guidelines. For instance,

751:

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.

1434:

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:

137:. 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. 3304: 2580: 2355: 2241:

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:

2918:

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

1818:

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!

343:

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.

929:

formal tone, so it shouldn't be "Spock's dad", but "father". You as a fan might know who Scotty is, but Knowledge is written for a general audience, not for people familiar with

1768:

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

210:

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 "

187:

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

412: 368: 2750: 511:

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.

2769: 2695: 427:. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses 3408: 1441:"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" 380: 732:

from editing Knowledge. 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

1666:. 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). 994:, 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. 26: 2730: 25: 3416:

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit

1098:

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.

3396: 1880: 662: 261: 2949:

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. --

1089: 991: 372: 717:, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a 3192: 2028:

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.

1246: 1205: 43:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge and get help from experienced editors like 1254: 2462: 1653: 1430:

Due to poor grammar and structure, this sentence is essentially incomprehensible. And even if the basic meaning is finally understood, it is a

1093: 432: 482:

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!

2762: 2688: 1876: 807: 658: 257: 3078: 1327: 3357: 3267: 3244: 3221: 3144:) 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. -- 2632: 2407: 1596:-related articles. Given that you updated a number of articles to include mentions on such lists, I believe you will find this pertinent. 1589: 1530: 987: 619: 2768:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

2694:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

1210:

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

1153:

Actually, I did add a reference in addition the other content. What I wrote comes straight out shows and references thank you very much.

3145: 3127: 3027: 3000: 2966: 2950: 2319: 2813:. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. 2062:

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?

1369: 1315: 875: 420: 2125:

are incredibly well written, thorough, and timely -- and that's where you see the frustration at "drive by" edits mentioned above. --

2431: 2314:? Someone changed the date without explanation and I reverted it, but then again maybe it was an appropriate correction after all. 416: 99: 464:

You are adding information that your (potentially unreliable) sources do not explicitly state. This is the textbook definition of

1719:

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?

1250: 778: 771: 214:" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the 3074: 1218:

improving articles with the edits you're making if you force other editors to have to review and frequently revert your word. I

383:

so that you can continue working on it. If you have any questions, please leave a note on this page. Please consider using the

3353: 3220:

Sorry to message you again so soon, but given that you didn't participate in the discussion regarding "must-watch" episodes at

2628: 2403: 1526: 1447: 615: 3201:

is Mid importance. As such, I have reverted your edit. If you disagree, please raise the question at the article's Talk page.

1127: 1123: 1085: 1081: 428: 424: 254:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1323: 948:

which aired from 1987 to 1994". "Hit sci-fi" is not appropriate - and by now, readers would know that they're reading about

648: 1969: 291:

Have a look at the talk page. You might want to create separate sections for the content you keep adding which is becoming

2470: 3392: 1656:. While the info might be a good addition to the article, the reference formatting was incorrect. See here for guidance: 1592:, in which we're building a consensus for establishing where significance on a Top X List ends, at least with regards to 3327: 2758: 2734: 2684: 2660: 2603: 2378: 1738:

Thank you also for the help and your welcome! Like so many things here, its a work in progress!! Thank you and, q'plah!

1509: 1357: 1119: 859: 598: 388: 1935:

largely removed where you added it to the 1701 article, though kept a bit about the ranking/opinion of the refit design

1276: 3417: 3339: 2615: 2390: 1521: 1365: 871: 767: 610: 2469:. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The 1454:

editors, there is a very real possibility that you will soon be asked (or even forced) to stop editing Knowledge. --

971:

Hi there and thanks for the input! I hope in time we can increase the quality of the article, and others. Thank you

2777: 2703: 2292: 376: 2523:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a

3400: 2938:

I've been trying to improve episode articles too and had some luck finding sources using the episode listings on

2781: 2707: 2118: 1559: 1195: 1135: 824: 814: 781:, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted: 729: 2004:

pick up the details and add it to whichever articles they tend to shepherd. Thank you for your contributions. --

1781: 2746: 2672: 1866: 1201: 1046: 714: 709:. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Knowledge this is known as " 384: 73: 3271: 2780:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in 2706:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in 3031: 2323: 246:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3149: 3131: 3004: 2970: 2954: 2481: 1411: 1131: 644: 251: 145: 3263: 1965: 1793: 733: 710: 698: 392: 2117:

Perhaps some articles are "out of date" or merely in need of significant cleanup. However, articles like

315:

I appreciate the work you've put into the Spacedock article. To be honest, I doubt the subject meets the

3315: 2834: 2591: 2486: 2366: 2289: 1957: 1497: 586: 150: 1705:

Thank you Eric, thanks for the tip and for trying to help on this issue of the citation coding. Cheers

1272: 2980:

they are counted as solid reliable sources (and yet others will delete them with little explanation).

1438:"The following table shows the cast members who played the primary characters in the film series." to: 450:

Well there were sources there, but in time we can establish good sources as there is a lot out there.

2506: 1870: 1853:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

963: 820: 652: 635:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

170: 50: 3427: 2754: 2680: 2533: 2529: 1630:

lot easier to "get permission" than to have to revert afterward. Thank you for your understanding!

718: 193: 189: 2167: 1455: 1450:, could review your contributions and help to clean it up, if you are not able to do so yourself. 1555: 999: 741: 636: 531: 301: 130: 57: 40: 1222:

you to be more careful and pay attention to the advice I and other editors have been giving you.

1862: 1042: 924:

Inner Light, and The Measure of Man, which was released in an extended version in 2012 in 1080p

3298: 3229: 3206: 2676: 2574: 2524: 2516: 2466: 2450: 2442: 2349: 2266: 2255: 2200: 2171: 2038: 1984: 1896: 1802: 1777: 1660: 1635: 1604: 1574: 1484: 1459: 1384: 1342: 1300: 1268: 1228: 1176: 1143: 1104: 1061: 890: 678: 573: 473: 440: 292: 277: 215: 211: 180: 134: 118: 110: 777:

Hello, Starspotter. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,

3346: 3311: 3161: 3090: 3042: 2981: 2943: 2884: 2861: 2846: 2830: 2810: 2622: 2587: 2511: 2397: 2362: 2207: 2182: 2104: 2079: 2068: 1834: 1823: 1739: 1706: 1678: 1616: 1493: 1154: 1010: 972: 937: 863: 839: 752: 582: 512: 483: 451: 344: 247: 230: 175: 3326:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2602:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2539: 2377:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1508:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 597:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 199: 3388: 3373: 3252: 2924: 2912: 2898: 2872: 2749:

with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the

2675:

with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the

2435: 2130: 2053: 2009: 1942: 1929:

was well-intentioned. But FYI, the listicle has been used/cited twice in the 1701 article

1431: 1403: 957: 941: 465: 333: 103: 1242:

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

2935: 1873:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1038: 655:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 429:

combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say

3422: 3323: 2883:

They are part of the Star Trek project, and there is been an issue with notifications.

2738: 2664: 2599: 2491: 2374: 2247: 1505: 722: 702: 594: 155: 3023:

If an article is good enough quality then it is best to just remove the Stub template.

1398:

Hi Starspotter - I'm writing to you with similar concerns to those expressed above by

1114: 3319: 3197: 3123: 2928: 2806: 2595: 2501: 2370: 2019:

I am truly amazed and astounded at your dedication to finding and posting reviews of

1887:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1501: 1407: 995: 737: 669:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

590: 527: 399: 325: 316: 297: 268:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

165: 3225: 3202: 2934:

For Voyager episodes in need of Reception information you might be able to use the

2656: 2029: 1980: 1976: 1892: 1888: 1798: 1773: 1631: 1600: 1570: 1566: 1399: 1380: 1376: 1338: 1334: 1296: 1292: 1224: 1211: 1172: 1139: 1100: 1057: 1053: 886: 882: 674: 670: 640: 469: 436: 273: 269: 3290: 2801: 2725: 2651: 2566: 2341: 1475: 1076: 564: 1858: 1819: 1547: 1189: 728:

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be

328:, which introduces the design) and the article returned to being a redirect. -- 3248: 3026:

Your edit didn't work but I have gone ahead and removed the Stub template. --

2126: 2122: 2049: 2005: 1961: 1938: 329: 2816: 2787: 2729:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge, as you did at

2711: 2655:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge, as you did at

2549: 2496: 2275: 2094: 1854: 1730: 1720: 1697: 1693: 1667: 1551: 1034: 867: 835: 706: 497: 220: 160: 3431: 3361: 3275: 3256: 3233: 3210: 3178: 3153: 3135: 3107: 3082: 3050: 3035: 3008: 2989: 2974: 2958: 2903: 2892: 2877: 2854: 2838: 2819: 2790: 2714: 2636: 2552: 2411: 2327: 2300: 2278: 2212: 2190: 2175: 2134: 2112: 2097: 2087: 2073: 2057: 2042: 2013: 1988: 1946: 1900: 1842: 1827: 1806: 1747: 1733: 1723: 1714: 1700: 1686: 1670: 1639: 1624: 1608: 1578: 1534: 1463: 1388: 1346: 1304: 1232: 1180: 1162: 1147: 1108: 1065: 1018: 1003: 980: 965: 894: 847: 828: 760: 745: 682: 623: 535: 520: 500: 491: 477: 468:. Please stop, or at least discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. 459: 444: 402: 352: 337: 305: 281: 223: 3119: 396: 3330:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2606:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2381:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1512:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

693: 601:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

408: 364: 319:: most coverage of this topic is fleeting, and it's not been subject to 3308:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3141:

Also I don't understand why you added a duplicate book reference (diff:

2584:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2359:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2939: 2829:

I'm not sure how to vote keep - can I just say keep on the talk page?

1422:

was poorly received with a Trek rookie for directing TNG, but unlike

1319: 387:. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read 1772:

page, but has little bearing on the episodes themselves. Thank you.

1214:, but also that you're using proper grammar and formatting. You are 2527:

you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting

45: 3343:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2619:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2394:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1956: