Starfleet Jedi

Can you provide a link to that canon page, Robert? It would be interesting to look through the history of the page and see who might be responsible for removing your credit form it.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:Can you provide a link to that canon page, Robert? It would be interesting to look through the history of the page and see who might be responsible for removing your credit form it.
-Mike

That means looking through all the updates...
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:_-_-_-_-_-_:_:_:_:_:_:-:-:-:-:-:-

Yes, that usually is what it means. But there are at least a few ways to narrow down the search parameters.
-Mike

The last version before Ritchy made a "new page":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=93045277

The last revision before my comment to Ritchy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =140603615

And the talk page mentioning CanonWars.com where Ritchy defends it but some SDN-sounding dude who naturally went anonymous claims it is "biased", "reads like overblown legal blurb", and mentions "the "Trek vs. Wars" community":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_ ... rnal_links

In any case, the Ritchy version of the page isn't quite as bad a paraphrase as I remembered . . . I think the main thing is that he borrowed so much original research (quotes and whatnot) but hasn't really kept the real source of all that on the page.

But like I said, it's Wikipedia.

Thanks for the references to whom did what, when, and where there. Makes for very interesting reading. Especially interesting to note "Anonymous Trekker" there, who definitely had the stench of SDN or some similar related group from SBC about it. I've noticed in a lot of the Wikipedia and Wookiepedia articles discussion, there are quite a few of these types roaming around as attack dogs ready to pounce those who dare to commit heresy against ICS, Wong, or Saxton.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:Thanks for the references to whom did what, when, and where there. Makes for very interesting reading. Especially interesting to note "Anonymous Trekker" there, who definitely had the stench of SDN or some similar related group from SBC about it. I;ve noticed in a lot of the Wikipedia and Wookiepedia articles discussion, there are quite a few of these types roaming around as attack dogs ready to pounce those who dare to commit heresy against ICS, Wong, or Saxton.
-Mike

And that's the problem of the wikia since it doesn't try to filter nonsense, it tries to put everything together, so one article can easily contradict another, although sneaky editors will try to level things up to ICS grade when possible.

I seem to remember once hearing that the tech manuals are written from an in-universe perspective, and had pages in them that say they may contain incorrect information for security reasons, is this true? It has been years since I read one.

Yes, I think that's true, at least for TNG TM, probably for others.

Lucky wrote:I seem to remember once hearing that the tech manuals are written from an in-universe perspective, and had pages in them that say they may contain incorrect information for security reasons, is this true? It has been years since I read one.

Well we have the words of the man himself "scotty" in regards to being conservative when putting things down on paper in TNG: relics.

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:

Lucky wrote:I seem to remember once hearing that the tech manuals are written from an in-universe perspective, and had pages in them that say they may contain incorrect information for security reasons, is this true? It has been years since I read one.

Well we have the words of the man himself "scotty" in regards to being conservative when putting things down on paper in TNG: relics.

It's not so much putting things down on paper as giving the Captain a "boosted" repair estimate to look like a genius when you do it faster... :)

Praeothmin wrote:

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:

Lucky wrote:I seem to remember once hearing that the tech manuals are written from an in-universe perspective, and had pages in them that say they may contain incorrect information for security reasons, is this true? It has been years since I read one.

Well we have the words of the man himself "scotty" in regards to being conservative when putting things down on paper in TNG: relics.

It's not so much putting things down on paper as giving the Captain a "boosted" repair estimate to look like a genius when you do it faster... :)

He mentions that earlier in the episode while in the E-D engine room.

On the USS Jenolan geordie mentions that a auxiluary tank cannot withstand the pressure from the main cryo pump, then he quotes rhyme and verse from the impulse engine specifications.

Scooty laughs and says "regulation 42/15 pressure variances on the irc tank storage?".."forget it i wrote it, a good engineer is always a wee bit conservative at least on paper"....ect ect.

The tank obviously holds.

Lucky wrote:I seem to remember once hearing that the tech manuals are written from an in-universe perspective, and had pages in them that say they may contain incorrect information for security reasons, is this true? It has been years since I read one.

Picard wrote:Yes, I think that's true, at least for TNG TM, probably for others.

It is true, for the TNG TM's forward.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:

Lucky wrote:I seem to remember once hearing that the tech manuals are written from an in-universe perspective, and had pages in them that say they may contain incorrect information for security reasons, is this true? It has been years since I read one.

Picard wrote:Yes, I think that's true, at least for TNG TM, probably for others.

It is true, for the TNG TM's forward.
-Mike

Could you provide the quote? I keep seeing people claiming the numbers are canon, and it seems the numbers are often off for what is seen in the show.

It would be amusing if the the intelligence officers of the Galactic Empire fell for the United Federation of Planets's disinformation campaign. ^_^

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html

Even better, you can read it for yourself here at Amazon.com. Just click on the Look Inside feature, and flip to the Author's Introduction on page vii.
-Mike