Wikia

Memory Alpha

31dot

Admin
25,211 Edits since joining this wiki
July 1, 2007
For older conversations, see the pre-admin archive, the 2009 archive, the 2010 archive, 2011 archive, 2012 archive, and the 2013 archive.
If you are responding to a post I left on your talk page, please reply there, to keep the discussion in one location.


User Report Edit

Two users have been Vandalizing the main page. Probably the same person. KatherinaN34 and OpheliaGlade. --BorgKnight (talk) 03:25, January 1, 2014 (UTC)


Anon user Edit

After making several additions on an "edit" page I could not find a SAVE/PRINT/or publish button anywhere so I clicked "need help editing?" and all my additions to the STAR TREK notes about me on the TOS COURTMARTIAL episode #15 went up in smoke. Winston de Lugo (Timothy in COURTMARTIAL) I hope U have ways of finding it, I can't. - The preceding unsigned comment was added by 23.242.147.146 (talk).

If you went to a different screen from the edit screen without saving, anything you did is gone. The Save button should be located to the right of the posting area (if you are using the default skin). 31dot (talk) 01:26, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Voth Ship STO Edit

I don't know why you undid the edit in the Voth city ship ship article as there are many articles of ships where in the Apocrypha section there has mention of their appearances in other non canon sources such as video games, books, comics etc. --BorgKnight (talk) 11:03, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Also just to say that mention of their appearance in the game, as well as the appearance of their City Ship is already in the Apocrypha section of the Voth article anyway. --BorgKnight (talk) 11:08, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

STO is not an ordinary non-canon source; it purports to be a recreation of the entire Star Trek universe. We generally only have Apocrypha information from it when something significant is revealed in STO (such as the death of a character, major change in occupation, destruction of a known ship, etc.) If we did not do this, virtually every article here would have a "This was in STO" in it. We aren't the STO wiki(which we have a link to on the main page). Please see Forum:STO References for more information. In all truthfulness that should be the case with any non-canon source(only revealing major information), though one-time appearances in a non-canon product are OK depending on how it is written. 31dot (talk) 11:15, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
In the case of the Voth page, more than their appearance is mentioned, such as their attempts to obtain Omega particles. A larger ship than their ship seen in Voyager is just game-specific information and reveals nothing about it. 31dot (talk) 11:17, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see now. Ya that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that. --BorgKnight (talk) 11:23, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

formal complaint against you Edit

By removing my comment from a talk page, you violated the rules of this wiki. I will be finding a senior admin and filing a complaint against you. 214.27.58.1 11:41, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

If you will look carefully, I did not remove it, but moved it out of an old discussion into a new one at the bottom of the page. 31dot (talk) 11:42, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Reconfirmations Edit

If you've had the time to digest this some more, further feedback would be appreciated. - Archduk3 17:16, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Bajoran and Regalian phaser rifles from type 3 phaserEdit

User Pseudohuman removed this from the page: Bajoran phaser rifles were used by the Bajoran Militia, based on the design of their own hand phasers. (DS9: "The Way of the Warrior")

Regalian phaser rifles were less powerful than their Starfleet counterparts. (TNG: "The Vengeance Factor")

This should be put back on the page. The page is about phaser rifles (Bajoran, Regalian and Federation.) This has been on the page for years. Should this be put back or not?.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 13:38, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

The page phaser has this on it too, but it is still on the page.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 13:45, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

The Kelvin's Blue BoltsEdit

Further discussion on that topic would be pointless: they want the pulses to be torpedoes. I have already canon-referenced my claims otherwise, and my statements have been flatly ignored. (and an attempt was made to say that I was using the "sophistication" of the effect as evidence, when I was using the function.) The weapons on the Kelvin act like exactly disruptor fire. What is the idea with calling this 23rd century weapon a photon torpedo? I can't find any logic in it at all. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idazmi (talk • contribs).

All I know is that there was no consensus or agreement to the change; you shouldn't make a disputed change just because you think you are right, as that just causes edit wars. 31dot (talk) 22:25, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

USS MagellanEdit

Why did you remove content I placed on that page? I did the research and found what I had edited to correspond with another source. (Roddy229 (talk) 02:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 02:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC))

The USS Magellan needs to be protected now. Can you do that, thanks.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 02:54, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

And who made you an administrator TyphyssJediVader? You have no right to keep messing with my work (Roddy229 (talk) 02:58, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 02:58, March 28, 2014 (UTC))

Its TyphussJediVader not TyphyssJediVader.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 03:00, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You still have no right to change the work I made. I'm a contributor just like you. (Roddy229 (talk) 03:01, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:01, March 28, 2014 (UTC))

If you actually do your homework and look at the sources, the information I edited is accurate. (Roddy229 (talk) 03:08, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:08, March 28, 2014 (UTC))

Explain yourselves, in detail. Where does this information come from, and why did either of you think it was a good idea to keep going back and forth on this instead of using the talk page? No one here is above explain their edits on a talk page. - Archduk3 03:24, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Archduk3, the sources on said page, and several online including three pages cited from Google confirmed accuracy of what I put. I'd appreciate it being corrected (Roddy229 (talk) 03:29, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:29, March 28, 2014 (UTC))

Ex astris scientia, and published manuals that were authorized by paramount for starters, were two of the sources I used to ensure accuracy. (Roddy229 (talk) 03:32, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:32, March 28, 2014 (UTC))
See MA:CANON and MA:RESOURCE. None of what you added was cited, and you may notice after reading the policies that Google, fan websites, and licensed material are not acceptable in-universe sources. - Archduk3 03:35, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Is that so? Then why would such content be ddisplayed on the page? Seems like this wiki has evolved into a one sided discussion where the average person has no right to put their two cents into it. I'll be speaking with people above you about this matter (Roddy229 (talk) 03:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC))

Good luck with that. Why do you sign your name twice? If you feel there are similar materials, please suggest their removal.

--31dot (talk) 03:44, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit, I'm not the best at using some of the HTML stuff here. But just like you, and everyone else within this group, I have a right to defend my position. DS9 episode sacrifice of angels. Sisko orders the Magellan and Venture to protect the Defiant, both ships engaged a Galor class to clear the way for the Defiant's run past the dominion line. The Venture is the only one seen docked at DS9 after the fight is over. Roddy229 (talk) 04:02, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 04:02, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I can see trying to be civil about it won't work with you guys Roddy229 (talk) 05:01, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 05:01, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Signing posts should be done by typing ~~~~ at the end or by clicking the Signature button located above where you type your post. You don't need to type your name or have more than four tildes(~).
I'm not sure who isn't being civil to you. Where was the ship identified as the Venture? I realize it was reused stock footage of the Venture from "The Way of the Warrior" but the ship was not labeled in either episode(it was named in dialog in TWOTW}. A lot happened in Sacrifice of Angels between where the Venture was mentioned and the end where the stock footage was used, and many Galaxy-class ships were seen in that episode without specific identification.
Regardless, we need direct, specific evidence of your position stated in the episode or even by Trek staff who worked on the episode, not fan website analysis. Information from a novel could be put as Apocrypha information, but not in-universe information. I urge you to review the above-linked policies as Archduk suggested. And please stop complaining about your "rights" being violated. You have no more "rights" than anyone else; all edits here are determined by consensus of the community, not just by the person who made them. 31dot (talk) 11:45, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

help requested Edit

Moved to User talk:FossilLord. 31dot (talk) 03:03, April 4, 2014 (UTC)

fine got it only administrators can do it thanks.--192.5.215.212 20:18, April 7, 2014 (UTC)

Tora Ziyal Edit

Not entirely sure why you deleted Tora Ziyal, when it was not a redirect. Did you intended to delete Ziyal instead? -- Michael Warren | Talk 04:50, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct; apologies, and thanks. 31dot (talk) 12:19, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Edit

Hi.

I just wanted to say thank you. This is a cool site with a lot of great information. I am using this as a helpful resource for my writing.

Keep up the great work!

--BASOwrites (talk) 21:37, May 30, 2014 (UTC)Baso--BASOwrites (talk) 21:37, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek episodesEdit

Hi, I want to watch all Star Trek episodes and movies. However, when I wanted to start, I found out some of the movie and stuff are set before the first season. Could you please tell me where to start? --Finn Tracy (talk) 07:57, June 3, 2014 (UTC) PS: I changed the name link, because I forgot to log in :P

If you are saying that you want to watch the episodes in chronological order(within the Star Trek universe) you will want to watch Star Trek: Enterprise first. 31dot (talk) 09:07, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism Edit

I'm not sure you've what's going on with MA, but it appears there is a massive vandalism attack going on.-Cpthunt (talk) 00:14, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Writing ability Edit

I received this message from one of the members of this board.

What makes you think, a maximum degree of fragmentation is what any wiki-article should aim for? Go look at any random featured article in Wikipedia (e.g., ::Virginia, Mauna Loa, Istanbul), and understand that a string of a dozen 5-8 word mini-sentences is much less comfortable to read than 3-4 sentences with ~20 words each. Anyhow, by now it would be a mammoth-undertaking to reverse/improve those 1000s of edits you've done so far... I've been an active member of the MA-community for 10 years or so, and I certainly do not feel up for the task. I cannot be the first one addressing this. Can I? --36ophiuchi (talk) 12:08, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

I would like your opinion on this matter. Am I causing damage to the wiki? I will be frank - I know my communication skills are not say at the level of other writers. I have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, with high levels of anxiety/depression and agoraphobia. I have been rated as having a Global Assessment of Functioning of 45. ([1]) A range between 40 and 50 is, Serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) or any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job, cannot work). I have never shoplifted; however, my severe obsessional ritual could be considered what I do on this wiki. I have trouble concentrating, so for me, I write like I think or say in dialog. I use short sentences. For instance, I was working on material from "Whispers". For this paragraph, the area in bold is what I wrote.

The ITA Elmira was a starship that was registered for Federation travel in the late 24th century. In 2370, the captain of this ship was G. Gulliver. The starship's point of departure was Carinae Delta V. The starship arrived at Deep Space 9 on stardate 47552.9. The ITA Elmira was listed on the space station's arrival roster. (DS9: "Whispers", production art)

So, do you think I am causing damage to this wiki? I would like to hear your opinion and any advice you can give.Throwback (talk) 16:06, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to comment, but I am unable to do so at this time due to time issues; I will try to comment within the next 24 hours. 31dot (talk) 16:51, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
The comment seems a bit harsh to me, even if the general point being made has some truth to it. Even if it is a legitimate issue, I don't see it as a major problem or somehow "damaging" the wiki. There are very few perfect editors here, or perfect articles. I certainly don't write everything perfectly. I don't know if I have much specific advice for you; possibly if you undertake a major edit to an article you might want to request that it be reviewed by others, or even beforehand draft the changes you want to make and request comment or advice. Clearly you are acting in good faith to add information to articles; style can always be changed as this is a group effort.
Most importantly I want everyone to feel welcome editing here. I don't think it was 36's intention to be unwelcome, but just an expression of what to them is frustration. 31dot (talk) 03:19, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Voyager Flight Path Edit

31dot,

We have a map that was seen in Season 7 of Voyager. It's a map of the galaxy. Look here. [2]

On the bottom of the map, there is Voyager's flight path marked out by stardates. Now, look to the map. There is a red rectangle. One of the stardates is marked in red - 48315.8. These two, the rectangle and the stardate are the beginning of the journey. There are eight rectangles in all. It can be confusing, as they overlap. Each rectangle matches up to a stardate. The last stardate, in yellow, has a corresponding yellow rectangle. There is a white line that goes through the rectangles and the galaxy; this is the flight path of Voyager.

For the worlds visited by Voyager, I would check the stardate for the episode, then I would do a cross check on where Voyager would be. Where would this place Voyager, according to the map? I would then write in the article where the location was situated in the galaxy and provide a short explanation in the talk page on how I came to my conclusion.

Is this consider original research? Is this consider speculation?Throwback (talk) 06:42, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would say analyzing such a map would be original research for our purposes. I'm sure it was created without regard for the actual position of Voyager and I'm not even sure the stardates on it all come from episodes(if they didn't, that would be even more original research). I don't recall what episode it appeared in, either. 31dot (talk) 10:06, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Photo correction credit request Edit

Hello,

My name is Kimberle Andrews. I would like to request proper photo correction credit for the images provided by Paul Olsen on the page:

Constitution class model (refit)

Please see his website where the images are hosted to note the colour corrections performed by my here:

http://startrek-enterprise.us/The_Enterprise.html

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at kimberle@gmail.com

Thank you,

207.181.225.204 07:12, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Kimberle Andrews kimberle@gmail.com

I'm not really sure what you are getting at; the images are here under Fair Use and not credited to a particular person. Are you saying they should be? 31dot (talk) 10:43, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Problematic article Edit

I stumbled upon this new article which is a few days old but apparently no one has touched yet : Pharmacy - I'm not sure if that strictly counts as vandalism, or if tagging it for quick deletion or just with a pna is the right way to go - so not knowing how to deal with it myself, I figured I'd bring it to the attention of an admin instead :P -- Capricorn (talk) 16:26, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

I need advice Edit

Hi its trekker2 plz can u give me advice on wether to watch into darkness Trekker 2 (talk) 21:27, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of advice you are looking for- if you are interested in watching it, then you should. 31dot (talk) 22:20, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Moving pages Edit

I'm going to have to insist you follow the guideline for moving pages from now on, in that you suggest the page be moved before actually doing it. A number of the "(Starfleet)" disambiguations you have changed to ranks were like that because their rank was never explicitly stated. Commanding officer is not always synonymous with the rank of Captain for instance. - Archduk3 17:17, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

This is the message I left on his talk page.

''I interpret what you wrote on my talk page as that I was abusing the moving of pages function. Am I right in my interpretation?

If so, I meant no abuse of the function. I acted in what I thought were good intentions. I recognize that on some articles that I used "fan interpretation-speculation" (a phrase that I credit Pseudohuman for) when changing the title. I should have left the title alone. For that, I apologize.

I would like to apologize for not asking about what were my limitations were in moving pages. I interpretated the comments left on my talk page as a permission for me to move pages and to fix links.

My communication skills are probably not as developed as yours. I have Asperger's Syndrome and I have been rated as having a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) of 45. 41 - 50 Serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) or any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job, cannot work). My interpretation skills are at a most basic level. This has created conflict at home and now here on the wiki.

I acknowledge your request and will refrain from what I was doing.Throwback (talk) 00:07, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

New category request Edit

As I have been able to fill in the Columbia dedication plaque, I think that it is time for a new category. I don't know the process for this, so I am asking for help. I am thinking that the new category be named: Columbia dedication plaque personnel and that it will have the names of personnel named on the plaque.Throwback (talk) 14:12, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Post this on the Category Suggestion page, though it should largely be a formality as we have other similar categories, I think. 31dot (talk) 22:20, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Throwback (talk) 01:06, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

How do I work with this? Edit

I was thinking about working on the Columbia dedication plaque personnel and I see that the majority of names are on the Fleet Operations Center personnel page. However, I see multiple instances of the same name working in different positions and having different offices. For example, there are three M. Rushes. I find it improbable that this is the same person. Do I follow the example of Brain Vogt Raymond on the Clare Raymond family tree, where the name is followed by a Roman numeral (I, II, III, etc.) or do I treat as the author of the original page did, as they are the same person? (And, I notice that someone has changed the name of one character from P. Lauritson to Peter Lauritston. I know the character might be named after the real world person; however, I feel this is speculation, as this P. Lauritson might have a different first name.) Any advice you can give would be helpful.Throwback (talk) 01:16, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

In such a case my first inkling would be to put all the instances on one page and include a bg note that each instance might represent a different individual. If the community later decides to they can always be split off from that page. 31dot (talk) 01:43, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

I need advice. Edit

I have been working on the Federation starship pages. I have been writing that the ships are Federation starships and that they are in the custody of Starfleet. I picked this up from the US Navy's usage of the word custody, "The Naval Vessel Register (NVR), official inventory of ships and service craft in custody or titled by the US Navy, traces its origin back to the 1880s." [3] From an article about the USS America, "Delivery marks the offical turnover of custody of the ship from the shipbuilder to the US Navy." [4] The United States owns these ships, while the US Navy is responsible for the care and use of these ships. A situation analogous to what is known about the Starfleet ships, in that the Federation is the owner and Starfleet is the operator. Well, Pseudohuman became frustrated with this and thought I said the ships were being confiscated by Starfleet. I thought I was using proper language when describing the situation that existed.

Then, I have an issue with the Columbia plaque. One of the characters is named T. Tagliomia. I think the writer dropped the J. from the name. There is a character named J.T. Tagliomia, who is a homage to a real world person. Should I creat a new page for this T. Tagliomia, or put the information into the J.T. Tagliomia page as there is clearly an error in the plaque?

Any advice you can give would be great. Thanks.Throwback (talk) 17:05, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

""J.T." is different than "T.", so I would guess (in the Trek universe) they would be different people and need separate pages; it could still note the person it is named for. 31dot (talk) 20:48, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
The real-world John Tagamolila that both J.T. Tagamolila and T. Tagamolila were named after goes by the nickname "Tag", and so would be known casually as Tag Tagamolila (or T. Tagamolila). -- Renegade54 (talk) 21:23, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
As far as the "custody" wording goes, I would lean towards leaving the ship articles as they were, and avoid the whole issue of ownership versus custody. We don't really know if the US Navy analogy holds in that respect for Starfleet in the future; since Starfleet is an international (and interplanetary) organization, who knows who actually owns the assets? -- Renegade54 (talk) 21:33, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
For years, this site has been identifying the owner of these ships as the Federation and the operator as Starfleet. Before that, there was a sidebar that identified the affiliation and the agency. I don't know when this sidebar was first introduced; however, it read that the Federation "owns the assets" and that Starfleet "operated these assets". Then, comes the movie Star Trek: Into Darkness, where there is a graphic that mirrors what has been said in the sidebar. [5] So, the relationship is there in the Star Trek universe.Throwback (talk) 01:45, August 12, 2014 (UTC)
Removed comment. I am nitpicking Pseudohuman, which is not what I want to do. Throwback (talk) 02:00, August 12, 2014 (UTC)Throwback (talk) 03:45, August 12, 2014 (UTC)
I have been going through the transcripts. No episode ever says that a ship was in service to an organization, like Starfleet. So, what was written before isn't true to canon either.Throwback (talk) 07:47, August 12, 2014 (UTC)
Throwback, please leave the articles as they have been for the last few years. The way it was before sounded natural, the "custody" bit doesn't. A change like that needs community consensus and I think nobody complained about the way the relation between the Federation, Starfleet and its ships was worded before. Instead, please continue with the other excellent work you do: creating new articles for things and people referenced in LCARS displays and other graphics. I'm glad somebody finally tackles these things ad your work in that field is much appreciated! --Jörg (talk) 09:31, August 12, 2014 (UTC)
The only issue is how we do make the articles sound like something from Star Trek. This is the issue that Pseudohuman raised. If I understand what he was getting at, the articles have to sound like they are using the words from the "historical records". Saying that, I feel like a Thermian from Galaxy Quest. I think that some of us forget that we are role playing on this wiki. Each of us is taking on the role of an archivist at the Memory Alpha planet centuries after the events depicted. In none of the canon is it said that Starfleet ships serve the Federation. And, in none of the canon, is it said that that Federation ships are in Starfleet custody. So, how do I as an archivist write the article, so that it matches the "historical records"? I think I might have an answer, based on how Pseudohuman rewrote the article for Mariposa.Throwback (talk) 10:15, August 12, 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, and I had never thought about it in that context before... we're all, as contributors to MA in any form, role-playing. In our roles as "Archivists", we necessarily walk a fine line between what we know, what we extrapolate and/or interpolate, and what we assume (hopefully, not too much). There are occasions in editing articles where "less is more"; in other words, we should leave the wording intentionally vague rather than assuming something (or fabricating something out of whole cloth). That's where some of these disagreements and discussions arise. -- Renegade54 (talk) 14:22, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

--Trekker 2 (talk) 17:30, August 12, 2014 (UTC)link title Edit

please can you tell me how to nominate someone for admin (Trekker 2 (talk) 17:30, August 12, 2014 (UTC))

please can u reply on my talk page so I know u got my message (Trekker 2 (talk) 17:33, August 12, 2014 (UTC))

Regarding the dry spell thing Edit

Hi. This isn't really about the merit of the article, but I hope your putting up dry spell for deletion wasn't in part influenced by my flippant edit comment I made when I created it. It felt very funny when I wrote it, but I immediately regretted it after posting. It was very mean spirited. I suppose its hard to apologize to an ip adress, but its been bothering me and I wanted at least for you to know that I regret it. Again, this is not to say anything of the validity of your article, or an attempt to influence you. Just something I needed to get off my chest. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:36, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

I assure you that your comment did not play any part in making my suggestion. While I saw it, I didn't really think anything of it at the time. 31dot (talk) 23:38, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki