User talk:Cbbkr

This user has departed Wikipedia. Cbbkr has not edited Wikipedia since 1 May 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Cbbkr}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

---

Please note that not all articles on (actors who appeared in the Star Trek franchise) require links to the corresponding article on Memory Alpha. This should be restricted to actors who had substantial roles in the Star Trek franchise. Thank you. DS (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Our Man Bashir, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you added 'DSN' as an abbreviation - whilst you are correct that it is technically valid, I have never, ever heard anyone call it that. I thought I'd bring it up here as I don't want to edit war on it, but can you provide some sources as to where it is referred to as that? In the meantime I have removed it pending the outcome of this discussion! ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 05:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wasn't adding 'DSN'. I was simply re-placing an edit that had been mistakenly bot-removed as vandalism. As for sources, no I can't. I just know that I myself have been using it for years and have been trying to acclimate myself to y'alls 'DS9' (in print, that is...). Cbbkr (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies. Are you happy for the article to be left without it? ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 20:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, it doesn't matter. I won't lose sleep over it either way. However it was Special:Contributions/86.19.153.136 that added it in the first place... Cbbkr (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 21:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in edits such as this one, you are bolding the link to the series article. This in not recommended and in fact advised against in the Manual of Style, see MOS:BOLD. Only the name or the most common names of the article subject (the episode name in this case) should be bolded, as a visual cue for the reader's convenience. Excessive bolding defies that very purpose for which we bold things in the first place. --87.78.138.148 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have been de-populating non-character pages from categories about Star Trek alien races. The categories for alien characters were merged with the head categories for the races, so the categories now hold both character and non-character pages. See Category talk:Vulcans, likewise Klingons, Romulans.

If you would like to re-split the categories between characters and (?) society, I would support this at DRV. – Fayenatic (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was in mid-edit of another such instance when I read the header, so I aborted.

I would like to see a separation of "alien" and things pertaining to "alien", but I was thinking more along the lines of a sub-category, rather than a complete break. Any possibility? Cbbkr (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to various Star Trek articles, such as this one. However, some aspects of these edits had to be reverted, in particular, the addition of unsourced material or original research and synthesis. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. In addition, Wikipedia frowns on miscellaneous lists of trivia, as per WP:TRIVIA, and any evaluative or analytical material regarding the significance of material that is usually already given in the plot synopsis (specifically, that which is found in sections like "Arc significance" or "Notes") requires a secondary source independent of the article's subject, such as a critic's review or an analysis found in a book on the series. Adding such material without this type of citation is called synthesis, which violates WP:SYNTH, as it is a form of original research.

Lastly, the Lead section of an article is intended to be a succinct summary of the article's most salient information, so there is no need for an additional "Overview" section, since this is essentially a second Lead, and is redundant.

If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbbkr - just a note re adding Reference sections. While it is true that many articles are tagged for not having references, simply adding a blank reference section and reflist is not enough to fix this problem. Actually, now some automated bots are adding new additional warning messages at the top of articles stating "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." So, while I think it's ok to add a reference section, you need to also ensure that there are actually references listed there - and if there are none, you should add at least one rather than leave it blank. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Jabberjawjapan (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm often in favour of categorising redirects, but noticed that you added categories to some redirects [1] [2] even though those categories are already on the target article, in which case I don't think the edits are supported by WP:Categorizing redirects. – Fayenatic (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for all the maintenance/cleanup on those redirects. --EEMIV (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... Just tedious, time-consuming work... Cbbkr (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition, as the information you supplied appears to be original research. When stating that "x is a reference to y", we need a reliable source for verification purposes. Thank you for your understanding, and please feel free to re-add this information with a citation. Doniago (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And mind you the fans of Star Wars, and thousands of other franchises, don't do such a thing. (Thank God.) --Niemti (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll understand I've got absolutely nothing againt any and all notable Star Trek characters being well categorized, but redirects should be kept in Star Trek related categories, or else it's mess (I know, because I was looking for video game characters to recategorize them by year: [3] - all articles there are of course notable, no redirects). --Niemti (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to tell you that because more people questioned my de-categorizing of redirects, it's your call, you can revert back if you really want. (I still think it would better to keep only directly related categories, but I don't care all that much after all.) --Niemti (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that Course:Oblivion (Star Trek: Voyager) has been recently moved to Course: Oblivion (Star Trek: Voyager) but please assume good faith as I did not intend any vandalism. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 03:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know about this DR request--which I feel is a little unjustified given Rod Roddenberry's profile in the Trek world. Feel free to make a brief comment--or not--if you wish. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my change to the display title of The Way to Eden. That is perfectly cool. I noticed that some episodes have (Star Trek: The Original Series) as part of the page title and some do not. I thought I would experiment with adding that to this episode because it was one that didn't have it. It didn't change it. Anyway, what is your take on adding this to all the TOS episode titles, is it a worthwhile mission for me to undertake, or are we only doing that for disambiguations? Akuvar (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not just TOS but all six series. I personally would like it for uniformity sake, but the "powers that be" use ambiguity (or lack thereof) as the key. If there are no other articles titled "The Way to Eden", there's no need for any kind of disambiguation. To that end, one of the things I'm slowly working toward is for every episode that doesn't have the series name in its article title to have a redirect that includes the series name pointing to it. That would make things less troublesome for editors so that when including wikilinks to episodes they wouldn't have to determine whether or not its necessary to tack the series title on the end. Cbbkr (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny because that's why I started looking into it. I noticed that there are whole ton of episode names referenced on the main ST:TOS page and thought I would go in and make them links, then I had to start checking the page titles for those episodes and thought, hmm, why aren't these all uniformly titled with the appropriate series name. What do we do next? Post something on the wikiproject page and see what others think? or has that already been done? Akuvar (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as naming all the articles to contain the series title, it can't be done. There's been way too much discussion about the ambiguity requirement. Unless you have something else in mind, there's no need to post anything to the project page. I've already finished making sure all the TOS Season One episodes can be linked with the series name and am well into Season Two. If there are any specific episodes you need from further in the series, feel free to create a redirect for it yourself. (Please just be sure to add an {{R from modification}} template for administrative tracking purposes.) Cbbkr (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you've been making a habit of categorizing Star Trek related redirects. Do those categories fall under the exceptions mentioned in Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects? Because in almost all cases, redirects should not be categorized.--Atlan (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just been continuing on, rather agressively, a practice I'd seen already in wide use when I first started editing Star Trek redirects, so I've considered it a matter of unstated consensus. If you think this is wrong, maybe it should be hashed out for a proper consensus at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Star Trek. Cbbkr (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines such as Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects are already considered a "generally accepted standard", i.e. consensus. Wikiprojects such as the Star Trek one cannot override site-wide policies and guidelines.--Atlan (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on Wikipedia better! In November 97 people made a total of 899 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you haven't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Ched :  ?  22:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like the tv.com link for this one is unfixable. if you go to [4], which is episode 20, then click on "previous episode", it jumps to episode 18. if you go to [5], which is episode 18, and click on next episode, it goes back to episode 20. if you look in the list of episodes, there is no episode 19 on tv.com. so, I am going to remove the tv.com link from that article since it seems like it is completely unfixable. tv.com is a low value source anyway, so we aren't missing much. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your cleanup and edits to my Diana Muldaur revisions. they look great, mate
johnandmitchy

There is a discussion on possibly deleting some Voyager images but one guy named Fut Perf forcefuly interjected himself into the discussion and already wants to delete them all before the discussion can even end. That's just disrespectful I'd say but I provided you a link if you have any comments. I suppose some people have no respect for the contributions of others but its people like him who turn off contributors from wikipedia. I wish we had more people like Masem around. I've had my say. --Artene50 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Dear Cbbkr, The people in the discussion are asking if the narratives of the Voyager images can be improved--as an act of good faith--to fit in better with the context of the significance of the use of the images used in them. If you can do some of this, FP is willing to allow some of the images to be kept. This is a reasonable idea too. Perhaps you can expand the plots more, --Artene50 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this question, try asking at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cbbkr; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Dragon (story) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cbbkr

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your script-assited date changes, like this edit [6]. Citation dates may be left as YYYY-MM-DD, and their change should only be done by consensus (following WP:CITEVAR). While normalizing dates to one style is acceptable, mass change of all the citation formations is not. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've finally gotten to read your reply to my message on this village pump thread; I've been away in Hong Kong for the past week and a bit and haven't had as much time as usual to check up on Wikipedia. I find the arguments you presented compelling, so I've put the RdCheck tool back on the whatlinkshere page. Enjoy! Graham87 12:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the problem with the Chase Masterson filmography update? The movies I added were credited to her birth name (as mentioned in the Wikipedia article itself). Was it removed just because the table format wasn't correct?

If she personally doesn't want that information displayed on Wikipedia, that's another issue (one that I would respect).

70.54.85.107 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb differentiates between "Christie Carafano" (from the entries you added) and "Christianne Carafano" (which is what it says her birth name is). If you can find some concrete evidence that the two names are one and the same person, I won't mind the entries being re-added (with a citation to the evidence).

And my apologies for the uncommented reverts; Popups has changed its behavior and no longer allows me to append a reason on them like I used to... — Cbbkr (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of fictional scientists and engineers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * '''[[Dr. Richard Daystrom]]''' ("[[The Ultimate Computer]]" (''TOS''}) – Inventor of the duotronic computer systems, the basic principles behind the computers on all

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you have been creating talk pages for a large number of redirects, and adding them to {{WikiProject Television}} and {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}. The Redirect-Class should be used primarily for links that were once articles, because they are are now redirected to other articles. While I applaud your intentions, it is not necessary to add EVERY SINGLE redirect to the project, especially for links that are just multiple variations in spelling. Please consider redirecting these pages to the appropriate talk pages, instead of needlessly adding wikiproject banners to talk pages, for redirects that are unlikely to become articles or be discussed separately. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate all the things you did for the article at "The 37's", they're great! I did change back two little things to be more in accord with templates and other good/featured Star Trek articles, but I didn't want that change to negate my appreciation for everything else you did for it! — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your formatting help at Portal talk:Star Trek, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Why this or this? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because {{R from character}} is itself just a redirect to {{CharR to list entry}} which populates Category:Fictional character redirects to lists and Hackers (film) is not a list of characters (such as List of The Big Bang Theory characters, List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters or List of Star Trek characters (A–F)). — Cbbkr (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a list article, but it's an article that lists characters from the movie. Why are you being so inflexible about this? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the same issue. Admittedly, I knew the template was probably wrong and shouldn't have used it when I was retargeting the redirect; I would have used {{r to work}} except that no such thing exists. It sounds like we might need a new template to handle the "redirect from character to work (where target is not a list)" case, though. Does anyone agree? Or is your opinion that such redirects should not be categorized, or should not exist? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC) (+ 02:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hackers (film) is (again) not a list of characters. It is an article about the film and contains a small section listing characters. For both it and The Time Machine (2002 film) and all other such, if y'all really want them to qualify, then modify the redirect target to include "#Cast" (or whatever section name might be appropriate for a given article) at the end and replace {{R from character}} with {{CharR to list entry}}, either that or create an anchor in the target article at the character's entry and point the redirect to it.

I know it seems common sense that a redirect from a character should use the "R from character" template, but the problem is the erroneous population of Category:Fictional character redirects to lists. Maybe y'all should chime in on the discussion here. I, personally, would prefer a distinctly separate "R" template (with associated Category) for character redirects that points to non-list articles/sections. — Cbbkr (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is now titled all crossovers. and having people playing different characters is a interesting fact that im sure people would be interested to know and I did explain that even though they are playing different characters it is the same person. but further more you are erasing a lot that are actual character crossovers. Plus on mine Q is linked yours is not. And who ares if they were discussed prior it is nice to have a complete list. so Please leave it the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draftlok84 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my latest entry on that episode's talk page, regarding the Berserker similarities. Any help with refuting the "opinions" that there was a conscious lifting of Saberhagen would be appreciated. Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally a bad idea to change date formats like you did at Loud as a Whisper. Once someone establishes a date format, you should raise the issue at the talk page and establish consensus to change it. It's not a major deal, and I'm not going to revert your edit, but you should keep in mind that there is a guideline on this matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a {{Use mdy dates}} in place in the article dated more than two years prior. I'd assumed that that established the standard for the article... — Cbbkr (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taxi seasons, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fuddle (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Entourage (TV series) episode redirects to lists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 02:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There is now a Korean TV series by the same name, so members have been moved to Category:Entourage (U.S. TV series) episode redirects to lists. Happy New Year! PS left by  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sean Hawk. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 28#Sean Hawk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) episode redirects to lists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on behalf of Wikipedia and Star Trek fans for being a part of the Star Trek project. In case you did not see the article alert, Martok was put up for AFD today here. Lets try to avoid a repeat of Weyoun, which was deleted with one vote! Starspotter (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ja'rod and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 30#Ja'rod until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. JIP | Talk 18:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]