User talk:Alden Loveshade

Spock/Holmes

One possibility occurs to me—and there are always possibilities. 😏

In the section Background, a paragraph could be added; to wit:

In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Spock delves further into his family tree, referencing an ancestor who maintained that, in the search for facts, when the impossible is eliminated, what remains must be true, no matter how unlikely.<ref>{{cite book|last=Britt|first=Ryan|title=Luke Skywalker Can't Read: And Other Geeky Truths|edition=Kindle|chapter=Baker Streets on Infinite Earths: Sherlock Holmes as the Eternal Sci-Fi Superhero|pages=82–83|quote=[Britt:] I chatted extensively with [screenwriter] Nicholas Meyer, who … claims that 'the link between Spock and Holmes was obvious to everyone. I just sort of made it official.' … when I needled Meyer to tell me who Spock's great-great-great-great-great-grandmother was, he said that it was, 'of course, Irene Adler.'}}</ref>

That said, if another editor were to remove the passage over encyclopaedic merit, I would not revert. ATS (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 🖖🏻[reply]

ATS I appreciate the suggestion. To me, though, the important thing is not the quote, but the Sherlock Holmes connection. And while Meyer may well have mentioned Irene Adler in an interview, I wouldn't see that as being official, whereas the ancestor reference and quote are in the movie and are thus canon. What if it said something like Spock quoted one of his ancestors; Arthur Conan Doyle attributed the quote to Sherlock Holmes. Actually, I guess basically I'm suggesting you use a reference in Spock very much like what you did in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country; I thought that worked very well. Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what's not working for me, then, is any suggestion/assertion of Holmes being the ancestor in Spock's article, as opposed to exploring the literary connection within the film's. My first thought is to remove the reference to Adler from the quote. My second thought is a rewrite:
In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Spock delves further into his family tree, referencing "an ancestor of mine" who maintained, in the same manner as Sherlock Holmes, that in the search for facts, when the impossible is eliminated, what remains must be true, no matter how unlikely.
I actually like your wording in The Undiscovered Country better. I think the above could be interpreted to mean that the ancestor is not Sherlock Holmes, but a different person speaking "in the same manner." I think we could stick with the facts. The facts are that Spock credited a quote to one of his ancestors; and that Sherlock Holmes said that. Those are verifiable and encyclopedic. I think keeping them separate would leave it up to the reader to make their own interpretation, while the article would just present the facts. Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to be the first, then, to wish you luck. 😏🖖🏻 —ATS (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
… with or without the Adler reference. Even then, however, I still find the blurb problematic in Spock's article. Its removal by another editor strikes me as an eventual certainty. ATS (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is fascinating

Just for shits and giggles, I left a message at nicholas-meyer.com asking for comment on my essay—and someone claiming to be "Nick" just responded. His 'voice' is the same, so I'm inclined to believe it.

Nick found my essay "thoroughly entertaining". 😄 His first comment after that was to question whether he's playing that 'great game' amongst the Holmesians or acting in a more "'extraterrestrial' capacity". This makes perfect sense: the 'great game' of pretending Holmes is real is largely applied to real life; Meyer's is fictional, if within that same universe.

That said, he laments the tendency of people to take things too seriously, and longs for more whimsy, of which he seems happily guilty. He doesn't address Spock/Holmes—I didn't actually ask, either—but my reply that an encyclopaedia has to be serious includes a statement that a direct relation cannot be stated unless he actually says so.

We'll see where that goes. —ATS (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATS, That is cool! I would think that would have been him who responded; one, because he probably wouldn't want anyone else answering as him (a politician might, but I doubt he would); and two, that definitely sounds like him. Maybe you could get that essay published somewhere outside of Wikipedia!
On a side note, I just visited his website yesterday; I was hoping I might find an appropriate Holmes-Spock reference. But I only did a quick search, and didn't. Alden Loveshade (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no such luck. 😏 —ATS (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some additions to my essay that you may find interesting including, among other things, that it finally occurred to me that I should solicit Britt's opinions. ATS (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check it out. It will have to be a little later; I got hit by the record cold/power outage thing, so right now am struggling to catch up with my work. Alden Loveshade (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Sorry to hear that. I have friends near Austin, so I understand. 😬 ATS (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ATS I saw the addenda--cool! Another point is that in an early Star Trek episode, Spock said he had a human ancestor, I think on his mother's side, but I don't remember. That was before Journey to Babel, where we met his parents. I only did a very quick search, and didn't find the episode, but can look for it later. Alden Loveshade (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Where No Man Has Gone Before", the second pilot. Here's the scene. ATS (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC) 🖖🏻[reply]
That's it, thanks! I remembered it was an early episode; you can't get much earlier than that! Alden Loveshade (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Descriptions

Hi. You're welcome. I've done plenty of descriptions for other shows in the past so I developed quick under 200 word summaries over time. BlueberryTree (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BOZ! My end of the year letter for 2021 is here. Alden Loveshade (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good wishes! My end of the year letter for 2022 is here.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, and same to you!
And I promise I'll look for where the huskies go, and I won't eat that yellow snow. Alden Loveshade (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alden Loveshade (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This has already been decided so please unblock me. I found this: 'To clarify further: I am not a sockpuppet of "Alden Loveshade," whom I have never heard of. I have changed my password and verified my email account (which I believed I already had). I have reviewed my editing history and can not point to any suspicious activity. Again, I am just very perplexed by this entire thing. -Crystical (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Crystical' ' Just to be clear, the block was because you were believed to be a sockpuppet. My discussion with the blocking admin revolved around this. We no longer believe you are a sockpuppet. :) --Yamla (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)' ' Crystical: this was my fault--I misread a table with the information from a few different editors including you. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)'

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not address the socking through Vajzë Blu. Girth Summit (blether) 14:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Alden Loveshade (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Yamla - I see you've unblocked the suspected master, shouldn't this account also be unblocked, or are there other reasons why it should remain blocked? Girth Summit (blether) 13:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Girth Summit, User:Vajzë Blu and this account are socks. Crystical was my mistake. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Yamla, Girth Summit - I have not seen a single piece of evidence against me. And I have the right to see evidence for an accusation made in a public forum. As posting any evidence publicly would likely further impact me and other people, I strongly suggest that you privately email me what you allege is evidence of your accusations against me only. Thank you. Alden Loveshade (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're prohibited by policy from disclosing the results of a CU check - you will not see any such evidence. Is it your assertion that Vajzë Blu is not also your account, and that you do not know who they are? Girth Summit (blether) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Yamla, Girth Summit - If Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation policy prohibits disclosing evidence of a publicly made accusation to the accused, I would strongly advise you have a legal advisor look over that policy. As the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered in the United States of America, I'd especially suggest having that checked in regard to United States defamation law. Although you might want to know that a claim of defamation in regard to a person or organization, even a non-profit one, can be filed internationally. So a charge of defamation could also apply against an individual person and/or organization by the laws of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, etc.
Also does Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation have a policy against knowing other editors? I know a number of editors, a few under both their Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation and legal names.
To answer your specific question, I do not know the legal name of Vajzë Blu, nor is that my account. I cannot reasonably assert that I don't know Vajzë Blu in person, just like I can't reasonably make that assertion for thousands of other Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation editors. For all I know, I could know one of you under a name you use in person.
I look forward to your response. Alden Loveshade (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my response, had you not been blocked already for sockpuppetry, would have been to block you for making legal threats. Since you are already blocked, my response will be to wait and see whether you retract your threat of legal action in the next edit you make. If you do, you will have the opportunity to make another unblock request; if you do not, I will revoke your ability to edit this talk page. Girth Summit (blether) 15:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit and Drmies, Yamla - I am not challenging any of your authority as administrators. But I cannot retract a threat I did not make. If you reread my post, you may see I did not make any legal threat. I suggested you have a legal advisor look over Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation policy. That is for the protection of both the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation and its editors. And I do not believe a Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation administrator should block someone for trying to help prevent a legal problem. I have done the same for other websites to help them avoid legal issues, and have been thanked for doing so. I can provide proof of that if requested.
By the link you posted in regard to what is not a legal threat, "it does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia." And under 'What is not a legal threat/Defamation,' "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. The policy on defamation is to delete libel as soon as it is identified." Alden Loveshade (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to the above. The link provided also has this:
"Perceived legal threats
'Refrain from making comments that others may understand as a threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret it as a threat.'
I do not recall once making such an assertion against another Wikipedia editor. But my memory is not perfect. If you can provide an instance of my doing so on Wikipedia, I would appreciate you emailing me a link.
'Use less charged wording, such as "that statement about me is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected."'
So following the suggestion of Wikipedia policy, even though I don't recall ever making a threat on Wikipedia, that statement about me is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected. Alden Loveshade (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You remain at liberty to make it clear that you have no intention of taking legal action over any of this. I find it very unlikely that anyone would consider unblocking you after you raised the possibility of legal action while you are still hiding behind statements like 'Oh, I wasn't making a threat, I was just pointing out that this could happen'. You still have the ability to make another unblock request - I would advise you to think carefully about how you might want to phrase that. Girth Summit (blether) 17:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024 Follow-up

Girth Summit, Drmies, Yamla, I made a follow-up to the above by posting a UTRS appeal, and was told by Ohnoitsjamie to post it on my talk page. So I"m doing so. To avoid indenting on indenting on indenting, etc., I'm posting this in a separate section.

Again, this was originally done as a separate UTRS appeal. So some of this may be redundant with the above.


This public Wikipedia sockpuppet accusation can hurt me professionally as a writer/journalist. And it can hurt me professionally as an educator who's taught students in the fields of English, writing, and computer operation. Some of my students became Wikipedia editors.

I've been told by a Wikipedia administrator that, according to the site's policy, Wikipedia refuses to show me any evidence that supports the "sockpuppet confirmation" against me. And when I made a suggestion that policy be checked, I was threatened with being blocked from even commenting on my own talk page. You can see that discussion in the "May 2024" section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alden_Loveshade

Have I ever used more than one name? Yes. I edited the online encyclopedia h2g2 under a different name before Wikipedia existed. As an actor I've played characters who had different names. And I've used an alternate name when doing a bit of investigative journalism.

Do I have a sockpuppet account on Wikipedia? No. I long ago retired my original Wikipedia account in order to use "Alden Loveshade," which I've been writing under professionally. (Frankly, it's been so long I don't even remember what the original account name was.) If I were a sockpuppet user, there's no way I'd draw attention to myself by editing Wikipedia under my professional name.

And if I were using a sockpuppet account? Something would have been added to Wikipedia years ago. (I still think it should rightfully be added). You can see the "A GURPS book about elves" section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elves_in_fiction

So please unblock me from editing and remove the "sockpuppet confirmation." Or at least show me the evidence against me. And, just as a suggestion, not as a threat, you might want to look at Wikipedia's article on "Defamation."

Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I would really like to be able to help here again! For one thing, there's a Wikipedia article that says a major magazine is long out of print--but that magazine is back! (A friend of mine wrote an article for it.) And for another, there's a Wikpedia article about a public figure that has an error. And there's another....

Please understand that I am not making any threats, just making suggestions based on advice. So here's the advice.

As a journalist, for years I've been in regular contact with law enforcement officers and court officials, and am currently often in contact with people in district attorney and attorney-at-law offices. So to help Wikipedia, I "unofficially" checked about the possible effects of a website policy. That's a policy that says that a person can be publicly accused and publicly "confirmed" of a rules violation, but the website will not show the accused the evidence against them.

According to what I learned, if the accusation was made publicly against that person while they were using a name that person is known by, following such a policy could constitute defamation. That would be even more so if the accusation related to the person's relations to family, friends, co-workers, etc. (I don't remember all of it), or in any way to their profession.

I also wondered about a policy that says a person cannot say that they want to work things out without taking legal action. That could include action against a company and/or the people who do paid or volunteer work for it. And wondered about that policy if it means such a person will be blocked from making helpful comments.

I heard that is "not a wise policy." I even heard that it would be a lot better for a company to be open to learning of a possible legal action ahead of time. That way they could work to prevent a possible problem for themselves and their paid/volunteer workers. And, from a different source, I received verfication of something else. Depending upon the nation in which the accuser and/or accused person has citizenship or dual citizenship, defamation could be a criminal act.

Again, I am trying to be helpful. Just recently I let a website know of something in one of their articles that could potentially cause both a serious medical and legal problem. They fixed it and thanked me for it. And recently I let more than one of the websites on Wikipedia's "List of most-visited websites" know of a problem in order to help fix it. (I can email proof if you want it.)

So please respond to my requests. Thank you. Alden Loveshade (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]