Talk:Star Trek: Retribution/archive

Software question
may I ask what rendering program you used on this project? I would love to get my hands on those sets of yours.Cpthunt 08:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Bryce 7.1 for the sets, and Poser 7.4 for the characters. Tnpir4002 00:44, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Page Rework
This page reads like it was only written by the author of the project. It really needs some 3rd party folks to go over it and do a substantial cleanup. Perhaps the reception section should be expanded to include any controversies in the project (Particularly the author's apparent attack on helpers in one of the project threads listed under the external links) as well as general discussion points taken from these threads. After a brief runover the older scifi-meshes.com one, it appears the common complaint is the storyline is hard to follow with the author "out of universe" rationalizing what are apparently plotholes in the story.

There also appears to be sevearl comments on youtube that differ from the apparent "reception" as described below by the article writer. - 15.195.201.91 00:46, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it also absolutely necessary to include every little tidbit about the project? This isn't the projects website, it's an encyclopedia entry. - 15.195.201.91 00:47, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gotten started on cleaning up the page to meet wiki standards. A lot of biased and Non-POV material has been cited. Brandon Bridges or his team must provide corresponding information for this or it should be removed as per wiki standards. I have started to also include feedback on the project which includes negative responses to Bridge's decisions. - something that was scrubbed from the page initially and if it stays removed, it indicates the page itself is in violation of NPOV standards. Any material which needs citation and has not done so, should be removed. If the author is unhappy with that, the he should remove the page.
 * Again, encyclopedia, not product advertisment. - 15.195.201.91 01:40, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * You do have a point about balance and if you open yourself to criticism you should take the good and the bad. Plus there is nothing wrong with asking for a citation over claims in the article. However, you're demanding that cite some of his claims yet you enter new/conflicting facts without any citation, which does make it look like your more concerned about badmouthing than balance. That said, blanking away issues isn't what should be done either and as we can see it tends to end up in an edit war.


 * I've protected the articles (Retribution and Spectre) for now, if the IP still wants changes you are free to discuss them on this talk page, which Tnpir will hopefully choose to take part in, and if they are reasonable there isn't a reason why they can't be worked into the article. – 05:41, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * @Jono: I'll do more than participate, I'll start. The main reason I undid all of the IP's changes was because the timing and nature of said changes was suspicious to me (the same day I cease to be involved with SFM a bunch of what I see as negative and frankly mean-spirited changes, including what I see as an arrogantly self-proclaimed "cleanup" of the Specter page), all by someone who either doesn't have an account or doesn't want to sign in...as you say, it seemed more like someone more interested in badmouthing me rather than actually trying to help make anything better, and hiding behind anonymity while doing so. I know people aren't required to have accounts to make edits around here, but given the nature and tone of what I was reading it rubbed me the wrong way. Regarding why I add the word "popular" to describe Specter on both pages, the sheer number of discussion threads is proof enough, and the Director's Edition on YouTube alone has been viewed thousands of times. It's not a box-office blockbuster, but seeing the public YouTube stats (remembering that I have access to Insight stats that are far more detailed) should be proof enough. Reaction to Specter was largely positive, I've read through all the discussion threads on it I can find (even those that aren't in English thanks to Babelfish), and with some exception so has Retribution (I acknowledged that it wasn't all positive by saying reaction was "mixed"). Retribution is a different animal and yet people have still responded mostly well to it, the plot is involved but so was the first one. Regarding why I changed venues for the Retribution project thread, I made my reasons plain: I felt that the feedback I was getting was starting to be more trouble than it was worth, plain and simple, for the reasons stated in the article entry. I'll add that when I closed that thread at SFM (and the staff over there has indeed locked it), one of the users there registered at 3DGladiators and as their first post they replied to the Retribution thread there and seemed intent on engaging me about my reasons for doing so. 3DG's admins promptly deleted that post, and it was shortly thereafter that what I term the vandalism of these four pages (two articles and two talk pages) began. Regardless, my point is that if it came right down to it, I could cite posts from any number of discussion threads (for Specter) and from SFM/3DG (Retribution) to back up what I've said here about how these projects were received, and the preponderance of evidence supports a largely positive reception for both. If this one user chooses to disagree with that, that's fine by me as they are entitled to their opinion--it just happens to be one I don't share. Tnpir4002 11:12, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Timing can be all well and good as an understandable justification, but regardless of what happened. If you want to make statements like the ones I cited as needing references, they need to be backed up. It's an encyclopedia and users should not be forced to "take your word on it" if you say something, youve gotta put an external link or a reference link to the direct connection between the comment you make and the exact link that has information backing up your claim, that's how a wiki works.
 * In regards to "popular", on a normal wiki, popular has to be backed up by notability, if you claim it's popular and it ends up on the news, or on the youtube homepage, sure, yea, it's popular. But a few thousand views on youtube is nothing. It's not popular, it's just another video, but that comes down to the definition of popular.
 * My problem with this page was that apart from the fact that the line, "Users on 3D Gladiators widly approve of the move and said they'd do the same thing" was a complete lie. there was no such reference at all on 3DG, in fact, when I created an account on 3DG and asked Taranis (an admin who was watching this topic), he said that it was a flat out lie. But your entire section appears to be negatively geared and passively aggressivly attacking folks on the SFM board who, at least from what my trawl tells me, did practically nothing of what you stated. I see a few light hearted comments and jokes, one person did go off on a segway for a while but apologised for it due to a misunderstanding. The only real offensive posts came from tnpir directly where he blew a gasket and practically attacked the only 4 people on SFM that were helping him.
 * And pretty much, yea it does come down to... you HAVE to cite the posts that were made, I see statements that "viewed in 20 different countries", anything on youtube can claim the same thing, that's not notable.
 * Retribution's page is nowhere near as bad as specter's, I only found one section that needed citing and that was in reception. My problem was, (and you brought this to my attention when you posted your "dispute" section) was that even before you had your rage dump on SFM, you've received a lot of negative criticism as well... most of which was not even mentioned. "mixed reviews" can mean anything but you specifically go out of your way to hide any negative results by only commenting that it was well written and received. I added a section that discussed the common complaints against your series, based on a few youtube comments and mentions in forums you linked below, and you blanked it all away.
 * But my biggest problem here though is, if I were just a vandal, why would i go to all the effort to post in your talk page, and your two articles talk pages saying exactly what I was doing and why? You didn't even bother to read any of it (especially your personal talk page, and just engaged in a revert war).
 * I prefer to stay anomyous because I can't be bothered logging in anywhere if i can avoid it, not because i'm hiding or the like. And you'll find i've posted in a fair few wikis in my day, the Memory Alpha and Beta, Tardispedia, dragonballz wiki, lots of them, and none of them are signed in.
 * In fact, I believe the 70. address that signed in and removed your "dispute" section probably was from SFM, I tried to counter your commentary by providing a counterviewpoint to maintain neutrality there but another user removed it completely.
 * But that brings me to my final point too, your "change of venue" section is very one sided and again, passive aggressive. After i read through the problems you had and the responding posts after you quit SFM, there was easily two sides of the story and you conveniently removed anything that didn't agree wtih you, which makes that entire section non-neutral, again. Like in your reception, to keep things neutral you need to state both points of view, not just your own.
 * - 15.195.201.88 00:05, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me give you an example from your list, this is the comments you wrote:
 * Let me give you an example from your list, this is the comments you wrote:
 * Let me give you an example from your list, this is the comments you wrote:


 * The propensity of certain users to repeatedly suggest ideas he termed "silly"

This is an opinion, not fact. You've written that you thought the ideas were silly, but you've not stated whether others felt the same way. I'm betting from the looks of things that enough people appear to have thought otherwise. If you wanted this to be non-biased, you would state something along the lines of "The Author and contributors had a dispute in relation to value of various concepts and ideas put forward"


 * The tendency of certain users to employ confusing metaphors rather than stating their feelings directly

Looking back at the thread, I can see the discussion you're referring to. Were you aware that the person in question spoke english as a 2nd language? You're attaking a person for not being able to communicate properly. This shouldn't even be listed, it's not relevant.


 * The tendency of certain users to post their own (oftentimes attempting to be humorous) interpretations of plot elements after Bridges had posted his "official" explanation

I see a few lighthearted jokes in regards to the appearance of one of your characters which sevearl posters thought was a bit lopsided. But again, this comment is unnecessary, you're saying that beacuse people were having fun discussing your project, you quit it. Reading through teh posts again, I see people making jokes with each other, having a bit of fun, this comes off as describing you as a spoil sport because people were enjoying your work too much.


 * The tendency of certain users to repeatedly drag the discussion off-topic to things only loosely related, if at all, to the primary topic

This seems to have stemmed from mistake, it appears one user mis-read what you wrote (apparently they mis-read cargo bay as shuttle bay) and started discussing a way to help you get the material you need for building the environment. Not a malicious act considering they were actively helping you find material, just a misguided one. To make this neutral, you should simply state, "discussions were regularly being side tracked", simple.


 * The self-admitted tendency of certain users to nitpick for the sake of nitpicking, rather than trying to be helpful

I dont see any admissions whatsoever in the last 20 pages on your original project thread of nitpicking. I see a number of contributors (ones whom you appear to thank in the ends credits of your first movie) finding large errors in your plot and attempting to resolve them as best they could, helping you along the way.

This entire section only attacks people when you left, there is no neutral stance here. most of these need to be re-written to be neutral (see both sides of view) or just flat out removed for lack of relevance. - 15.195.201.88 00:15, August 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, lose the "you need to" and "they need to" attitude. Those are your opinions, not facts, and I find it an unbelievable act of hypocrisy that you'd accuse me of presenting my opinions as facts, only to turn around and do the same--particularly since, as I mentioned, those aren't opinions I happen to share. Your belligerence isn't now nor has it ever been welcome. You say I need to cite sources in order to justify calling Specter and now Retribution "popular"? Cite your source to say they aren't. You say the 3DG admins called me a liar, when I happen to know that's not true because I told no lies--besides which, the only thing they could confirm factually is that people didn't post those things on the forum itself. They have no visibility on opinions e-mailed directly to me that began with "saw your post on 3DG and just wanted to say..." This is an indication that as Jono said, you have less-than-pure motives for starting this.
 * Second, I'm not going to get into an argument with a user who "can't be bothered logging in anywhere" if you can avoid it. Your attitude was belligerent from the moment you started altering my two pages, and that's sharply reduced my willingness to indulge anything you say. First, your "trawl" of the threads at SFM and 3DG (a claim I find highly dubious given the lengths of both project threads on SFM) conveniently ignores the preponderance of positive feedback on the other sites, which was overwhelmingly positive. I don't feel the need to dwell on the negative feedback from SFM because it's one site among many. Further, you asked a 3DG admin about who said what--you accuse me of lying about what took place, but you also claim that the Specter and Retribution pages themselves held lies about the reception. If your "trawl" of the SFM project threads (and that's not even taking into account the Specter threads on the other sites) had been as complete as you say, you'd have realized that what I said is the truth: reactions have been provably and overwhelming positive to Specter, and have largely (though with some caveats, some justified and some not) been the same to Retribution. The fact that you seem obsessed with the Specter feedback at SFM shows me you're the one who's ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of positive feedback on the other sites...which proves Jono right, you're more interested in badmouthing and flaming than you are with making a constructive contribution.
 * And there's nothing "passive aggressive" about the Change of Venue section--it's precisely what happened, and my reasons why. "Mixed reviews" means exactly that--some people were positive and some people weren't, and there's really no room for interpretation. And I don't see where you get the bit about "YouTube comments" because none of the Retribution clips have been around long enough to rack them up, and the comments I can see on the pieces of Specter don't support your argument nor have they ever. I acknowledged right from the get-go that Retribution has had mixed reception, and that's all the acknowledgement I'm required to give--it's a statement that it's not universally loved, and I did provide examples of why people both do and do not like it.
 * Finally, regarding the SFM change of venue. There was no attack there, I can justify everything I said with a preponderance of posts from the Retribution thread. As far as the "English as a second language" excuse, that's no justification at all. Someone with a firm enough command of English to understand the dialogue in Retribution and participate in the discussion thread--and offer comprehensive rewrites of scenes besides--has the capacity to understand me when I say "I don't understand your metaphor, be careful when you do that because certain things can carry different contexts." Again, if you'd examined the discussion thread as closely as you claim to, you'd have realized I'd cautioned the same user several times about the use of metaphors. As for the others, most of them had been with me through most of the Specter discussion thread, and had either crossed the line or come very close to it more than once. As that was my first creative endeavor, I was willing to put up with it--not so the second time around.
 * I'm sorry but I don't find your opinions to be reasonable or helpful in any way. You're doing worse than that of which you accuse me--I can prove (and to my mind, I have by referring you to the non-SFM discussion threads, only some of which were even started by me) that Specter received a far greater volume of positive feedback than it did negative. Your citation of YouTube comments is also without merit, because if you look at the comments on the Specter pieces that are still up, the Director's Edition was very well received. Retributions clips from the beginning have also gotten mostly positive commentary on YouTube. I routinely take down the short clips in favor of the full-length cuts, but every time a full-length cut goes up, someone always has something positive to say about it (if I'm not mistaken, a fan has already thumbs-upped the long clip up right now). Oh, and by the way--the number of "Likes" on the YT clips far outweighs the "Dislikes." In fact, I checked just now, and of the thirteen clips of Specter that are up, exactly two of them have one "Dislike" apiece. This, compared to 57 "Likes." I'm well aware that some people objected--several rather strongly--to the "20th century pop song" scenes in Specter, but it was so small a fraction that to my mind it doesn't count; others simply disagreed with the choices of songs I made, which also doesn't count. In Retribution, when I was making Scene 32 (which in this latest clip is backed by the song "Turn Turn Turn" by The Byrds), there were some who advocated very strongly for a piece in from the game "Mass Effect 2;" others preferred "The Leveller" from the Disney film Fern Gully; still others felt that Eiffel 65's "Blue Da Ba Dee" worked best. No matter which way I went, some people were going to dislike the choice I ultimately made--should such creative differences be counted as "negative feedback" also? The answer is a resounding no'.
 * You, on the other hand, seem obsessively focused on the negative feedback on one site, namely SFM. I never said Retribution was perfect--I've acknowledged on several occasions the plot did have some flaws, and there's a part of the current cut with which I'm significantly less than satisfied (you can probably guess what part I'm referring to, that is if you've actually bothered to watch Retribution yourself, which it doesn't sound like you have). But as far as I'm concerned, pointing out weaknesses in the plot doesn't amount to negative feedback, anymore than six pricing game losses on an episode of The Price is Right amounts to a "bad show"--you can still have a phenomenal show even if there's a wipeout, the trick is for the contestant and Drew to have fun--ultimately if the plot works despite its weaknesses, then it's a success. Specter had its flaws, but it still managed to work--do a Google search for reviews if you doubt that. Retribution also has its flaws, but it works, and truly, since the plot isn't finished yet, you can't really say for certain what's a plot hole and what's a deliberate story element, can you? The answer, again, is a resounding no. The creative disagreements you're trying to present as negative feedback have little to nothing to do with what's already been completed--they have to do with the remainder of the story as I've written it, which if you'd paid careful enough attention to the SFM thread you claim to have trawled, you'd know is still an evolving work.
 * Your arguments all seem to have one goal in mind, to smear the good reputations of these two films I've worked so very hard to produce. The Specter page was up for well over six months before you came along, and I didn't see anyone else complain that it lacked "objectivity." The same can be said for Retribution--and I'm pretty sure that, if the problems with them were as severe as you say, someone would have said something to me about it sooner.
 * I'm sorry, but you've failed to convince me that what you say has any merit, or that you're trying to accomplish anything other than flaming me. Saying something has "mixed reviews" depletes your position of any merit, particularly since I gave some examples of criticisms people had. The way you talk, you'd think I'd made the claim that everyone who saw it fell in love with it and had nothing but stellar things to say--nowhere have I said anything of the kind about either project. The fact that I didn't go out of my way to find and list every single criticism ever leveled against these two projects--which it's become painfully obvious is what you want--is not an attempt to omit or distort anything. It's a reflection of the fact that I choose not to dwell on the negative, but rather the positive. I suggest you do the same.
 * The only two ways I would've listened to you are one, if you'd posted your thoughts here first and been more diplomatic about it instead of attacking the way you did, or two, if you did what you demanded I do: cite me specific instances (including YouTube comments) of this wealth of negative feedback you seem so certain exists. I can assure you, had you done so, I would've buried you under quotes from the Specter discussion threads and the archived YouTube comments I have of the Retribution clips (plus the positive responses from the SFM thread), that beg to differ. The weight of evidence clearly supports my position in this matter, and nothing you say or do can change that fact. I strongly suggest you deal with that and move on.
 * Enough. You clearly have a personal agenda to push, namely trying to force your negative opinions on something which is written with a positive viewpoint. I've dealt with people before who deliberately distort or ignore the facts in support of their viewpoint as you have, and there's no point to it. Your lack of attributions through your edits, despite as Jono pointed out your demand that I do the same, is proof enough of that. Further, because I believe that the less likely a coincidence, the less likely it is a coincidence, I believe what happened as SFM and your sudden appearance are not as unrelated as you claim they are, and nothing you've said here has given me any reason to think otherwise. I'll not have my hard work besmirched by someone who's clearly far less objective on the subject even than I am.
 * In the last few weeks I found it harder and harder to wring useful feedback off the SFM thread. I made my feelings known several times, but my requests went unheeded. Finally I simply got fed up when the feedback I was getting became more trouble than it was worth. I made my feelings known, said I was finished, and left it at that. I haven't been back since, so I'll have to take your word on what else was said afterwards. End of story. Stop trying to spin it as if I were personally insulting people over there--I called out the specific users that I saw as the sources of the problem on SFM only, nowhere else were usernames mentioned, so I don't know where you get off accusing me of personal attacks, passive aggressive or otherwise. If anything, your belligerence here comes much closer to a personal attack than anything I've said anywhere.
 * As continuing to go back and forth with you is clearly a waste of time, this discussion is over. If you make any further alterations to either page in furtherance of this negative agenda, I will immediately undo them. Tnpir4002 01:07, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you've completely ignored my reasoning and are soley focused on continuing to keep your positive-only propaganda and advertising platform going. Jono, since tnpir has shown that he has a clear bias involved here and he will not write his page to conform to wiki standards (Neutral point of view, cited sources). I'd suggest the page be permanantly locked or removed.
 * i've clearly stated my reasons, as made clear in the page, i've shown time and again that the page is biased and one sided, i explained my reasons as to what needs to be done to make it neutral, tnpir has taken it as a personal attack and seems to be under the impression that i'm on some sort of agenda to destroy his work when i'm really just focused on wiki standards. the fact that he is blowing up in my face now when I'm trying to help him resolve his problems is another indication of a deep seated issue.
 * TNPIR, I'm not going to bother addressing everything you've said since pretty much most of it backs me up, but I'll make this point clear. I've already indicated that your page more then sufficiently covers the positive aspects of your project, very impressive, well done. My concern was that you were overwhelmingly downloading the criticisms and negative feedback on your projects as well. This is NOT a board for you to advertise how awesome your skills are, this is NOT a page to advertise that you've got 10 million views in 500 different countries. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. ENCYCLIOPEDIAS are meant to be impartial. the fact alone that you state this:
 * "namely trying to force your negative opinions on something which is written with a positive viewpoint."
 * indicates you have no understanding of how a wiki page is meant to be written which is NEUTRAL viewpoint, not positive, not negative, NEUTRAL, which means you take the good AND the bad in stride.
 * Regardless of whether I can provide any negative feedback to be "buried" by any postiive feedback you have means nothing, NEUTRAL means you present both, not one. I honestly don't know how to make this clearer, and the fact that you seem to show that you have some sort of personal vendetta against me trying to assist you shows that you clearly are not in a positive to provide any sort of balance and unbiased feeback on this topic. So my recommendationto Jono stands. - 15.195.201.88 01:19, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the discussion is over. Tnpir4002 01:21, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Repeat that all you like, this is a wiki, open for editing by all. Jono appears to agree with everything I've said from the initial posts, you are not an admin here and you should not expect the page to be left alone. I will viciously monitor this page, your specter page and any other works you create just as much as I do on every wiki I visit. When something piques my interest, i never leave it alone. If you want a page that advertises how good your works are and celebrating how perfect everything you create is, use a blog or build a website, not a wiki. We will wait for Jono to resolve this dispute since you seem unwilling to. - 15.195.201.88 01:53, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't modify existing posts when you are discussing, it makes it difficult to follow through. But to answer your questions, critique on musical choices is valid negative feedback and particular in Specter it is worth mentioning as you yourself said it generated significant discussion, it could even be given it's own subsection. As for your youtube videos, i have noticed you haev regularly been removing and reuploading clips, so using youtube to gauge responses is somewhat haphazard considering any good or bad feedback is destroyed when use the site, so i would rate them as disqualified for any video clips that have not been posted for a prolonged period.
 * And yes, comments on plot isues are directly valid feedback, and are valuable, that is exactly the kind of reception that should be posted. People don't complain about Voyager and then not state why, they say the plot was bad, people don't go to a movie and say "Boy, that movie was terrible, it's must be the plot" reviewers dont ignore the plot when they do their reviews. You could argue that plot-related criticism is the most important of all when discussing any sort of story.
 * The only feedback or discussions which would qualify for reception are those which have been posted in forums that have not been deleted, as they have been there for some time and gauge legitimate feedback. Unfortunantly, this is why wikipedia has a "Subject of article cannot modify article" policy, these works are yours, the reception on youtube can be controlled by you selectively deleting and replacing videos at will, so anything that you can directly influence when it comes to how well received your work is should be scrutinized or disqualified to maintain impartiality.
 * And yes, I have in fact seen both retribution AND specter, as they currently stand. - 15.195.201.88 02:26, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...are you seriously putting forth the conspiracy theory that I'd delete comments on YouTube? The only times I've ever done that were when I was dealing with trolls. In my experience, it's only someone who's desperate who brings out theories like that one--"you could do this" or "you could do that" are the last refuge of a mind desperately seeking vindication. As the judge said in STVI, "We are interested in facts, not theories." Which returns me to my original point: read through all of the discussion threads referenced on Specters page, not just the one at SFM but all of them, as I have. You're still ignoring the fact that what I wrote about Specter does reflect the majority of public opinion'.
 * I'm not "ignoring" your "reasoning." I assure you that I have heard every word that you have said. But none of them have erased the certainty in my mind that you're bound and determined to throw a spotlight on as many of the negative elements of these two projects as you possibly can, no matter what it takes. That's not trying to be a positive member of the community--that's called being on a personal crusade. A personal crusade has no place on any Wikia site, ST:EU or otherwise.
 * Your choice to bring out an unfounded conspiracy theory has just destroyed any remaining interest I might've had in anything you say. You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing--deliberately distorting reality by omitting facts which damage your case, and in the process you've caused irreperable harm to your credibility with me. I suggest you quit now. Period.
 * @Jono: I'm finished with this discussion. In summary: I remain convinced that this IP is pursuing a personal agenda with some kind of axe to grind rather than trying to be helpful, and in leveling accusations at me has demonstrated galling levels of hypocrisy as noted above. Further, I refuse to accept as mere coincidence that on the exact same day I leave SFM under admittedly less-than-ideal circumstances, this anonymous user appears out of the woodwork, insults me and calls me a liar (among other things), and starts making unwelcome changes to two pages without even attempting to have a reasonable discussion first regarding why. I maintain that if these two pages were as "bad" as this IP claims, someone would surely have mentioned it long before now.
 * For those reasons: if I see any edits, of any kind, to either of my pages made by this user (signed in or not), I will immediately undo them as vandalism, end of story, end of line, and end of discussion.Tnpir4002 03:08, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said my bit, put forward my recommendations to ensure neutrality in these articles, TNPIR is not willing to listen, my recommendation to lock or delete the article, failing a notability and neutrality cleanup stands. - 15.195.201.88 03:38, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, considering that TNPIR is threatening to disrupt the functioning operation of ST:EU by reverting any changes made to his pages (He claims me alone, but presumably anyone, based on past actions), I'd suggest a limited block - the same kind that applies to subjects of interest on wikipedia - from editing their own articles. - 15.195.201.88 03:40, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * There was really no reason to blank this talk page, especially as the only person it will annoy is me.
 * Okay, moving on. I don't have a problem with the use of the word "popular". So it only has a few thousand hits on Youtube, let's keep it in perspective, we're talking about a relatively new Star Trek fan film not Lady Gaga's latest music video. It's use in this article is okay.
 * The reception does say mixed and it has two examples of positive and negative views, which seems fine for a film that isn't finished. I don't see any need for that to be expanded at this point. I'm also not really seeing where this article is particularly biased.
 * The thread moving section...I'm leaning towards removing it completely. It's more trouble than it's worth.
 * Did I miss anything? – 17:00, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jono: not trying to annoy anyone. I was, however, putting my foot down and saying that the whole thing is a waste of screen space and I don't want it to appear on the article's talk page. That opinion has not changed, Wikia policy notwithstanding, as I continue to term the IP's edits as having all the traits of a personal crusade to smear this project and the one that came before, versus actually trying to make things better, something which has no place here. I relented on blanking the firestorm while I was working on the Specter page because after a fashion I understood where the other party was coming from, but this time as far as I'm concerned the IP doesn't have a leg to stand on, for the reasons outlined above. I continue to believe that if the issues he's cited were truly as dire as he says, someone would surely have said something about it long before now (particularly as long as the first project's page has been up), which means this user is deliberately trying to insert negative opinions where they aren't needed.
 * Regarding the section about the change of venue, my official position is leave it. It happened, and my reasons for doing so are well-documented on two other sites besides this one. The official project thread is now the one at 3DGladiators, and a justification for that transition after so much time at SFM should be available on what the IP himself admits is an encyclopedia page--which by definition should include significant events like that.
 * Third, my recommendation is to block the IP above from making any further edits, to anything, period, because of how he initially approached this and the hypocrisy and belligerence he's demonstrated since. The comments he's made have been and continue to be needlessly inflammatory, and I still don't accept the timing of his appearance as a coincidence. The way he's approached this has been very obviously negatively biased, and I find it both arrogant and presumptuous--to say nothing of pretentious--to tell me I "need" to this or do that, or that this or that "needs" to be removed, while in many cases failing himself to do as he demands of me. It was needless interference with my ability to peacefully conduct my business, and as you see it did nothing but provoke an edit war.
 * Fourth, the IP is in violation of the rules of neutrality, which he claims form the basis for his actions here. A truly neutral opinion would have the ability to analyze the situation objectively and form conclusions based on the facts. I cited facts repeatedly that support a much borader public approval of both projects than disapproval, creative differences notwithstanding, but those facts were repeatedly ignored so that the IP could continue to push his opinion (which he presented as fact) that the films weren't and haven't been nearly so well received as I say, even going so far as to posit a conspiracy theory regarding YouTube comments, and to then put forth the notion that I'd undo changes made by anyone else, not just him (reference the Specter plot summary cleanup by Endresr to prove that's false). His behavior has been far from constructive in this matter, and if anyone has "disrupted the functioning operation of ST:EU," it's the IP--not me. No one should have to put up with this kind of thing around here, certainly not after pouring as much effort into their work as I have.
 * The notion that I should be prohibited from editing my own article is ludicrous. I can handle criticism, as long as it's presented respectfully and not personally motivated as I suspect the IP is. If the IP's "trawl" of the SFM thread were as impartial and complete as he'd like us to think, he'd have realized that several scenes in Retribution were completely rewritten based on feedback from the user base there; going back even further, almost the entire first act of Specter was rewritten based on feedback from the same user base. The preponderance of evidence shows that when someone's trying to be genuinely helpful, I'll listen to them, even if it means more work for me--in the long run, the final product is better off for it, and ultimately that should be what we all want.
 * Users like the one in the Retribution thread at SFM (who eventually got a rule named after him), and now this IP, don't fall into that category. The user on SFM was bluntly told by the moderators there to straighten up and fly right, that to offer constructive criticism was fine but that to blatantly "troll for flames" was not--it's my considered opinion that "trolling for flames" is exactly what this anonymous user did here, rather than trying to offer constructive criticism, and my recommendation is that he should be dealt with accordingly.Tnpir4002 21:38, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else I find highly suspicious: I just checked the IP's Contributions page, and so far as I can tell, the only material with which they've interacted here are pages relating to my work. Combine that with the timing of his appearance, and I'm more certain than ever that this whole mess is little more than a mudslinging campaign.Tnpir4002 23:55, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the section about the change of venue, my official position is leave it. It happened, and my reasons for doing so are well-documented on two other sites besides this one. The official project thread is now the one at 3DGladiators, and a justification for that transition after so much time at SFM should be available on what the IP himself admits is an encyclopedia page--which by definition should include significant events like that.
 * Third, my recommendation is to block the IP above from making any further edits, to anything, period, because of how he initially approached this and the hypocrisy and belligerence he's demonstrated since. The comments he's made have been and continue to be needlessly inflammatory, and I still don't accept the timing of his appearance as a coincidence. The way he's approached this has been very obviously negatively biased, and I find it both arrogant and presumptuous--to say nothing of pretentious--to tell me I "need" to this or do that, or that this or that "needs" to be removed, while in many cases failing himself to do as he demands of me. It was needless interference with my ability to peacefully conduct my business, and as you see it did nothing but provoke an edit war.
 * Fourth, the IP is in violation of the rules of neutrality, which he claims form the basis for his actions here. A truly neutral opinion would have the ability to analyze the situation objectively and form conclusions based on the facts. I cited facts repeatedly that support a much borader public approval of both projects than disapproval, creative differences notwithstanding, but those facts were repeatedly ignored so that the IP could continue to push his opinion (which he presented as fact) that the films weren't and haven't been nearly so well received as I say, even going so far as to posit a conspiracy theory regarding YouTube comments, and to then put forth the notion that I'd undo changes made by anyone else, not just him (reference the Specter plot summary cleanup by Endresr to prove that's false). His behavior has been far from constructive in this matter, and if anyone has "disrupted the functioning operation of ST:EU," it's the IP--not me. No one should have to put up with this kind of thing around here, certainly not after pouring as much effort into their work as I have.
 * The notion that I should be prohibited from editing my own article is ludicrous. I can handle criticism, as long as it's presented respectfully and not personally motivated as I suspect the IP is. If the IP's "trawl" of the SFM thread were as impartial and complete as he'd like us to think, he'd have realized that several scenes in Retribution were completely rewritten based on feedback from the user base there; going back even further, almost the entire first act of Specter was rewritten based on feedback from the same user base. The preponderance of evidence shows that when someone's trying to be genuinely helpful, I'll listen to them, even if it means more work for me--in the long run, the final product is better off for it, and ultimately that should be what we all want.
 * Users like the one in the Retribution thread at SFM (who eventually got a rule named after him), and now this IP, don't fall into that category. The user on SFM was bluntly told by the moderators there to straighten up and fly right, that to offer constructive criticism was fine but that to blatantly "troll for flames" was not--it's my considered opinion that "trolling for flames" is exactly what this anonymous user did here, rather than trying to offer constructive criticism, and my recommendation is that he should be dealt with accordingly.Tnpir4002 21:38, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else I find highly suspicious: I just checked the IP's Contributions page, and so far as I can tell, the only material with which they've interacted here are pages relating to my work. Combine that with the timing of his appearance, and I'm more certain than ever that this whole mess is little more than a mudslinging campaign.Tnpir4002 23:55, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Third, my recommendation is to block the IP above from making any further edits, to anything, period, because of how he initially approached this and the hypocrisy and belligerence he's demonstrated since. The comments he's made have been and continue to be needlessly inflammatory, and I still don't accept the timing of his appearance as a coincidence. The way he's approached this has been very obviously negatively biased, and I find it both arrogant and presumptuous--to say nothing of pretentious--to tell me I "need" to this or do that, or that this or that "needs" to be removed, while in many cases failing himself to do as he demands of me. It was needless interference with my ability to peacefully conduct my business, and as you see it did nothing but provoke an edit war.
 * Fourth, the IP is in violation of the rules of neutrality, which he claims form the basis for his actions here. A truly neutral opinion would have the ability to analyze the situation objectively and form conclusions based on the facts. I cited facts repeatedly that support a much borader public approval of both projects than disapproval, creative differences notwithstanding, but those facts were repeatedly ignored so that the IP could continue to push his opinion (which he presented as fact) that the films weren't and haven't been nearly so well received as I say, even going so far as to posit a conspiracy theory regarding YouTube comments, and to then put forth the notion that I'd undo changes made by anyone else, not just him (reference the Specter plot summary cleanup by Endresr to prove that's false). His behavior has been far from constructive in this matter, and if anyone has "disrupted the functioning operation of ST:EU," it's the IP--not me. No one should have to put up with this kind of thing around here, certainly not after pouring as much effort into their work as I have.
 * The notion that I should be prohibited from editing my own article is ludicrous. I can handle criticism, as long as it's presented respectfully and not personally motivated as I suspect the IP is. If the IP's "trawl" of the SFM thread were as impartial and complete as he'd like us to think, he'd have realized that several scenes in Retribution were completely rewritten based on feedback from the user base there; going back even further, almost the entire first act of Specter was rewritten based on feedback from the same user base. The preponderance of evidence shows that when someone's trying to be genuinely helpful, I'll listen to them, even if it means more work for me--in the long run, the final product is better off for it, and ultimately that should be what we all want.
 * Users like the one in the Retribution thread at SFM (who eventually got a rule named after him), and now this IP, don't fall into that category. The user on SFM was bluntly told by the moderators there to straighten up and fly right, that to offer constructive criticism was fine but that to blatantly "troll for flames" was not--it's my considered opinion that "trolling for flames" is exactly what this anonymous user did here, rather than trying to offer constructive criticism, and my recommendation is that he should be dealt with accordingly.Tnpir4002 21:38, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else I find highly suspicious: I just checked the IP's Contributions page, and so far as I can tell, the only material with which they've interacted here are pages relating to my work. Combine that with the timing of his appearance, and I'm more certain than ever that this whole mess is little more than a mudslinging campaign.Tnpir4002 23:55, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion that I should be prohibited from editing my own article is ludicrous. I can handle criticism, as long as it's presented respectfully and not personally motivated as I suspect the IP is. If the IP's "trawl" of the SFM thread were as impartial and complete as he'd like us to think, he'd have realized that several scenes in Retribution were completely rewritten based on feedback from the user base there; going back even further, almost the entire first act of Specter was rewritten based on feedback from the same user base. The preponderance of evidence shows that when someone's trying to be genuinely helpful, I'll listen to them, even if it means more work for me--in the long run, the final product is better off for it, and ultimately that should be what we all want.
 * Users like the one in the Retribution thread at SFM (who eventually got a rule named after him), and now this IP, don't fall into that category. The user on SFM was bluntly told by the moderators there to straighten up and fly right, that to offer constructive criticism was fine but that to blatantly "troll for flames" was not--it's my considered opinion that "trolling for flames" is exactly what this anonymous user did here, rather than trying to offer constructive criticism, and my recommendation is that he should be dealt with accordingly.Tnpir4002 21:38, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else I find highly suspicious: I just checked the IP's Contributions page, and so far as I can tell, the only material with which they've interacted here are pages relating to my work. Combine that with the timing of his appearance, and I'm more certain than ever that this whole mess is little more than a mudslinging campaign.Tnpir4002 23:55, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Users like the one in the Retribution thread at SFM (who eventually got a rule named after him), and now this IP, don't fall into that category. The user on SFM was bluntly told by the moderators there to straighten up and fly right, that to offer constructive criticism was fine but that to blatantly "troll for flames" was not--it's my considered opinion that "trolling for flames" is exactly what this anonymous user did here, rather than trying to offer constructive criticism, and my recommendation is that he should be dealt with accordingly.Tnpir4002 21:38, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else I find highly suspicious: I just checked the IP's Contributions page, and so far as I can tell, the only material with which they've interacted here are pages relating to my work. Combine that with the timing of his appearance, and I'm more certain than ever that this whole mess is little more than a mudslinging campaign.Tnpir4002 23:55, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else I find highly suspicious: I just checked the IP's Contributions page, and so far as I can tell, the only material with which they've interacted here are pages relating to my work. Combine that with the timing of his appearance, and I'm more certain than ever that this whole mess is little more than a mudslinging campaign.Tnpir4002 23:55, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else I find highly suspicious: I just checked the IP's Contributions page, and so far as I can tell, the only material with which they've interacted here are pages relating to my work. Combine that with the timing of his appearance, and I'm more certain than ever that this whole mess is little more than a mudslinging campaign.Tnpir4002 23:55, August 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've gone over the rules with you over the talk pages once or twice already, just because you don't want something on the talk page doesn't give you permission to blank it. As for people being belligerent, nor should you threaten other users with edit wars. If the IP came back before I did and a re-edit war started both of you would have been blocked for disruptive behaviour. These talk pages nor the articles are "yours", even IPs have just as much right to edit on STEU as you do.


 * Now, we'll wait to see if the IP responds the the last comments above this one. If he doesn't in a reasonable period of time I'll close the discussion and archive this page off the main talk page and the article will be unprotected. Then if the IP comes back and just goes straight into changes I've agreed with you are unnecessary then I'll revisit blocking him. – 11:49, August 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * By "a reasonable time" I mean if there is no response by let's say, Monday. 12:00, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

As a participant of the original dispute on Scifi-meshes.com, i followed the edits of this page in the background. However, the page as it is presented now is not an accurate display of the conflict as it happened; it is currently (14 aug) a one-sided story based on the oppinions of the author.

There were two sides to this conflict:
 * The interpretation of the author to the feedback given; using terms such as "silly", "metaphors" or "nitpicking", etc.
 * The behaviour of the author towards the people giving feedback, namely: threats, insults and confrontational stances.

This resulted several times in a back and forth between users and the author, untill the confrontation led to its conclusion on Scifi-Meshes.com

On this page only 1 side of this confrontation on Scifi-Meshes is stated, which leave out the negative behaviour of the author. It is my oppinion that the other IP (15.195.201.88) therefore has a very valid point that for this wiki needs to be expanded to include both sides.

Personally, i dont like the fact that this conflict has to be drawn out along a wiki page, even when no actual screennames are mentioned. A simple mention of it in the sense of: "there was a conflict on scifi-meshes, that made the author decide to close the thread" is enough. However if there is a need for this conflict to be stated on this page, it should be the whole story, where both sides are mentioned. 217.122.67.229 15:05, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

@217.122.67.229: I defy you to name one instance where I issued any threats, of any kind, towards anyone. Making that kind of statement when I can prove that it's a blatant fabrication, immediately undermines any credibility on your part in this matter. The only thing I ever did that even comes close was stating that I'd start ignoring people whose feedback was less than helpful over a prolonged period. That's not a threat--that's a statement of fact, a reflection of the fact that some users had begun to consistently post things that simply weren't contributing anything useful, and I didn't want to keep sifting through posts like that to find the useful bits.

I'm well within my rights to differentiate between "qualitative" feedback and "non-qualitative" feedback, and if there is a "conflict" to be found here, it takes the form of differences of opinion over what constitutes "qualitative" feedback. Plain and simple, you have no case, no more so than the user before you. Obviously you feel wronged either by my decision to leave the SFM thread, or by my reasons for doing so, but that doesn't change one simple fact: I was well within my rights to do so, after I made my feelings known multiple times, and what I term as unhelpful behavior continued. (And excuses like "language barrier" don't fly, since if someone can understand the plot of the film, post coherant feedback (silly ideas notwithstanding), and even go so far as to rewrite an entire scene using my script as a starting point, they can understand me when I say no more metaphors.)

As for the rest:

When I saw a silly idea, I called it "silly" (such as the proposed rewrite of Scene 29 by a certain user, which was riddled with corny dialogue, or the later suggestion from the same user that Holo Garr be smiling and making jokes). When that same someone used a metaphor (i.e. "the joker") that I didn't get and took offense to, I spoke up, and told them to refrain from doing that sort of thing again to prevent misunderstandings, only to have it happen again just a few pages later. "Nitpicking" is the term for being nickel-and-dimed over tiny little details, which is exactly what a certain user persisted in doing (when I announced my decision to use SeanR's Olympus bridge as my battle bridge set, the user commented that it seemed "too large" for a battle bridge, and when I reminded them that the set was someone else's and I had to use it as presented--I was hardly about to have a stopdown long enough to build another bridge set of my own when there was a perfectly good one already available to me--they said they knew that already, but wanted to gripe about it anyway; later on, when I posted the brief preview clip of the first few seconds of the first draft of Scene 38, the same user immediately nitpicked about the speed of the corridor plate and about the walk cycles--I initially ignored that because I was already aware of the flaws, but when they pressed for a response from me, I pointed out that it was a very early draft of the scene, and that technical feedback should be held off until the full scene was posted). The discussion was getting dragged off-topic far too much--when the discussion about Scene 34 started and I posted a script, I watched for at least a page and a half as the discussion focused not on the plot, but on the location, until I put a stop to that in favor of the script; then later, when I mentioned building the TNG cargo bay set, another user immediately went off on a tangent about building the main shuttlebay, as seen briefly in one episode as a prop miniature rather than a functional standing set, and it wasn't the first strange tangent from this user. There were times when I'd want to discuss upcoming plot developments, but to keep those from being spoiled to those who didn't want to be spoiled, I used Spoiler tags (which for those who don't know render any text between them invisible, either by concealing said text beneath a "Spoiler!" button, which when clicked reveals the spoilers, or by rendering text invisible until one's mouse hovers over it--SFM uses the "button" method), and stated that any discussion to follow on the hidden elements would use them also--and yet on more than one occasion, the same user neglected to employ them, thus spoiling anyone who wanted to simply enjoy the project as it was presented, spoiler-free (and I got more than one e-mail about this, including one that came right out and said "Can't you do something about this guy?"). Distractions like those were far from helpful.

And, most of all, let's not forget the user who posted briefly at the very beginning of the thread, who as far as I recall never once actually composed a sentence with capital letters or punctuation, and whose posts did nothing but flame my efforts. I'm still not naming names, but recall that because of him, I put a strict rule into place, which I wound up naming after him: "If you don't like something I post, that's perfectly fine, but I don't want to hear about it unless you can tell me how you could do it better." During Specter a number of people simply posted "I don't like that" but failed to offer any suggestions to help me make things better, which ultimately serves no purpose; whenever I saw someone do that in the Retribution thread I called them on it, and if it happened enough times I'd simply start ignoring them.

As you can see, those aren't my "interpretation"--those are the facts. I've cited clear and specific examples of each one--from memory no less--and you can locate them in the thread yourself easily enough.

As for as "both sides," there was no "conflict" to have "sides" of. The only thing that happened is this: of late, I found the feedback from the SFM thread getting to be more trouble than it was worth, I made that opinion known several times to no avail, and so I gave up, threw my hands in the air, stated my feelings and called out the specific users who were giving me the biggest headaches, and then walked away. There was no "conflict" there at all--merely the fact that people thought they were being helpful when they weren't. I haven't been back to the site since then, and if others decided to carry on the thread afterwards to form the basis of a "conflict," that's not my problem.Tnpir4002 15:35, August 14, 2011 (UTC)