Welcome to Star Trek Answers!Edit
Welcome to Star Trek Answers, 31dot. Thanks for contributing! I hope you join in and ask or answer some more questions. You can find the new questions on the WikiActivity page. If you need any help, have a look at Help:Wikianswers. -- Sulfur (Talk) 2012-02-24T12:35:02
- The deletion template (currently appearing on this question appears white with (mostly) grey text to me, making it hard to read. Is there a way for me to change the color?31dot 15:00, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
Roddenberry questions Edit
Please note questions about Gene Roddenberry's politics, whether the output of a Cardassian disruptor rifle in comparison to a satelite is "believeable", the resiliency of Gorn, or how people pronounce Data seem to be general discussions not questions about actual star trek so if this place isn't meant for that seems like you've got a lot of work you're not doing22.214.171.124 22:10, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
- If you believe a question should be deleted, say so on that question's talk page; I will say that specific questions about Trek staff are valid questions, as their political views shape their activities. Questions about pronunciation are also valid. Neither of those are general discussions. 31dot 01:25, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Your question from the get-go stated that it was seeking opinions; that's not what this site is for. 31dot 01:50, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
Someone told me Spock should not have been messing around with Uhura on account of his betrothal to T'Pring dating back to childhood. Wondered if this was true, hence my question, re: should she have been accounted for.
If you can suggest a phrasing for the question that would clarify this, I'd be happy to repost. :-)
Weapons range questions Edit
I know that the questions about the range of phasers and torpedoes have been asked repeatedly. And I recently gave answers to those two questions. Would you say that they are candidate questions and answers for the FAQ page?Amphibiot (talk) 21:53, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's quite that frequent; we started that category in response to the question of "why did McFadden leave the show in Season 2" being asked about once a week. That said, it could always be removed later if the FAQ got too big to be useful. I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone adding it at this time. :) 31dot (talk) 22:17, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
It is you who has made this into your "soapbox". Specifically you have done that with regard to broadcasting and enforcing (1) your hatred of obese persons; and more importantly, (2) that, as a result, and more globally, it is your belief that the ethos of Star Trek and of Star Trek fandom should not be one of tolerance for diversity of opinion and for diversity of the person, nor should those values be reflected here.
You exhibit a fascination with, and enthusiasm for, many of the factual aspects of the Star Trek mythos, both in-universe and real-world. However, you have made it abundantly clear that you vehemently disagree with the ambience of tolerance and respect for diversity, both in-universe and real-world, that is intrinsic to the Star Trek ethos. And, that you further intend to use your admin privileges to enforce this political viewpoint on your part, on the other people here.
I intend to make it my business to take and transmit the evidence I have collected of your conduct in this regard. I intend to utilize it to communicate your lack of qualification. And, that the oft-demonstrated, abject lack of qualification you thereby possess is concealed by a veneer of deservedness through an apparent conversant familiarlity with the subject matter, but which coexists in the same person with a false enthusiasm for, and ignorance of, its true substantive meaning. I intend to prove that your advantaged position here is thereby undeserved, and that you should deprived of it by the proper authority. --ProfessorTrek (talk) 03:36, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is not your views and my alleged lack of tolerating them, nor it is my alleged hatred of obese or whatever you want to call them persons(I love my obese relatives the way they are no matter what they look like); the issue is your misuse of this site and general conduct here, which has contained veiled insults when not outright insulting people. That is unacceptable.
- And good luck with that, as I would be very surprised if any "proper authority" interfered with what goes on here(Wikia generally does not) especially after they review your conduct. 31dot (talk) 10:40, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I believe it was. Just fixing it, was all. :) 31dot (talk) 02:43, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
Registry Related QuestionsEdit
Would it be possible in some way add a redirect and/or a movement to the FAQ's category for all the various questions that have to do with starship registries? You know the kind that have that "If x-ship was commissioned blah blah...whenever why is it's registry number higher/lower than ship-y".........
I mean the answer is always the same everytime and they're all just the same basic questioned rephrased. Seems we get those here alot. Does that count as a FAQ?126.96.36.199 10:22, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
- It certainly might count. :) It sounds like a good idea. I won't be able to do it today but I will keep this in mind. Thanks for your suggestion. 31dot (talk) 12:50, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
Janeway vs the Kazon question Edit
In response to your deleting my original, I have resubmitted my question regarding Janeway and the Kazon with a specific request for concrete examples and with less emphasis on opinion. I hope it now meets the criteria for inclusion.188.8.131.52 20:13, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I've responded to you on the question page you created. 31dot (talk) 22:20, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fellow Answers Wikian!Edit
Hello fellow answers Wikian! I see you are an admin on one of Wikia's top WAM scoring wikis. Well, I have some news which might be of interest to you. A central place for editors of answers wikis has been set up at Answers Central for editors to discuss ideas, problems, and solutions surrounding answers wikis, as well as offering a place where you can talk about your wiki and maybe find some tips to make it even better! I hope you come check it out! Thanks, Imamadmad (Contact me) 11:09, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest that you visit TrekBBS or any other site listed when one googles "Star Trek discussion". Those are sites designed for general discussion of all kinds. 31dot (talk) 01:21, July 2, 2013 (UTC)
Recent Post Edit
I recently asked a question about whether it was possible that two particular Star Trek characters of the same gender had ever become romantically involved with one another. You deleted my question and posted a homophobic remark on my talk page. Is this website run by Fox News or something? 184.108.40.206 17:20, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Answered you on your page; please confine discussion on this there. 31dot (talk) 19:26, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
Your Latest Delete Edit
Hi there. You recently wiped out a fun question concerning the use of undergarments in the Trek universe, which is actually a valid topic and was supported by onscreen evidence. Would you please explain why you seem to have a habit of wiping out entirely logical threads arbitrarily whenever they don't conform to your personal tastes, but you allow questions like "do they be beam" to remain? Thank you. 220.127.116.11
- First, this is not a site for general discussion, but to ask specific questions about Star Trek content, in order to help people who cannot find answers at Memory Alpha or Memory Beta and perhaps steer them to the right page at those sites if available. The question was asked and answered, and it then turned into a brief discussion about the appearance of actors' private parts and whether or not they wore underwear, a question that cannot possibly be answered unless you have interviewed the actors involved and convinced them to talk about their private parts with you. Further, someone having an erection or hard nipples does not mean that they weren't wearing underwear. This is not the wiki to collect such information, regardless of what I think about the subject(which frankly, if I was such an actor, I would not find it "fun" and I personally find it a tad vulgar for a wiki visited by those as young as 13). The fact that one can nitpick and find such information on the screen is immaterial.
- If you don't like the scope of this site or the manner in which it is managed, you are free to go elsewhere, or start your own wiki with whatever criteria you want.
- Lastly, I tend to leave grammatically incorrect or misspelled questions for a time, to make it easier for the person that asked them to come back to them. If you come across such questions that have been overlooked, feel free to post to their talk page or otherwise mark them (perhaps tag them for deletion) and I can then deal with them. 31dot (talk) 12:49, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think that you're missing the bigger picture. What started as an inquiry as to why Catherine Hicks elected to go braless in Star Trek: The Voyage Home ultimately morphed into a very insightful look into Federation attitudes toward undergarments and modesty. Yes, Dr. Gillian Taylor's choice of bare breasts under her sweater is an anomaly (although it was most likely done as a holdover from the bra-burning days of the 60s and 70s); however, Matt Decker, Jean-Luc Picard, and Ishara Yar's decisions to abandon undergarments and wear clothing that revealed their genitalia is an insightful look into futuristic cultural norms. It also may offer some insight into the manufacture of clothing in the future - if Decker and Yar both felt comfortable doing away with the chafing and bouncing protection afforded by undergarments, then we can likely assume that their clothing must somehow afford this to them. We may further interpret that the shift toward abandoning undergarments must have begun after the Archer era, as there were no shortage of underwear scenes on Enterprise (the vast majority of which afforded unobstructed views of erected nipples and man-bulge). I believe discussion of such insights should not be censored here, and I fail to see why concern for 13-year-olds should be justification for your censorship, especially since all of the subject matter being discussed is readily available for any 13-year-old to view in Star Trek reruns on basic cable and OTA. Please reconsider your position and your logic regarding this. 18.104.22.168
- You can wrap the issue in the 24th century if you want but there was no philosophical or insightful discussion on that page. Even if there was, this is not the forum for such general discussion or speculation, regardless about what I think of the issue. This wiki is for answering specific questions; open ended discussion and speculation should take place elsewhere.
- As I said, the fact that one can nitpick and look for this sort of thing is immaterial. There are forums for such in depth discussion of minutiae like this.
- I might be willing to restore the original question if it was something that could actually be answered- but as I stated without additional information there is no way to know if the person was indeed wearing undergarments or not. 31dot (talk) 15:56, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
But that's just it - it CAN be proven, at least in the case of Catherine Hicks. Google "Catherine Hicks bra Star Trek" (minus the quotes) and skim the extensive list of results. There is ample commentary concerning Hicks' bra-free look, including one guy who says that her unrestricted cleavage was his favorite memory of the film. 22.214.171.124
- If that's the case, then the question didn't need to be asked now, did it? This is not the forum to give opinions about the costumes of the actors or debate philosophy about cultural norms related to underwear in the future or discuss whose erections, packages and nipples can be seen. That's not what this site is for. 31dot (talk) 17:47, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall that the subject of erections ever came up, but that's beside the point. I will defer to your judgment since it is your site and let the matter go. 126.96.36.199