Search results
There is a page named "User talk:TrekFanatic" on Wikipedia
- Welcome! Hello, TrekFanatic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages...2 KB (168 words) - 16:00, 14 February 2023
- more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TrekFanatic (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive...1 KB (121 words) - 16:17, 25 October 2008
- contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TrekFanatic (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)...633 bytes (68 words) - 17:35, 31 July 2008
- information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TrekFanatic (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)...2 KB (289 words) - 23:23, 4 July 2008
- article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TrekFanatic (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)...2 KB (246 words) - 02:39, 6 October 2008
- the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TrekFanatic (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)...2 KB (250 words) - 23:55, 4 July 2008
- vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TrekFanatic (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)...3 KB (267 words) - 19:48, 17 February 2023
- edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TrekFanatic (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Well, good luck making this story...4 KB (395 words) - 17:50, 14 August 2015
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...1 KB (196 words) - 05:17, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...1 KB (196 words) - 05:39, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...2 KB (254 words) - 19:30, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...1 KB (196 words) - 05:39, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...1 KB (199 words) - 05:04, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...1 KB (196 words) - 05:53, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...1 KB (201 words) - 05:14, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...1 KB (197 words) - 05:46, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...1 KB (200 words) - 05:01, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...1 KB (200 words) - 05:00, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...2 KB (311 words) - 04:58, 7 October 2016
- dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also...2 KB (301 words) - 03:09, 26 November 2017
- and assertions such as those you present are easily used to argue for fanatic intolerance of such intelligently broad minded and strong tolerances as