If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:

• Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the canon policy, the editing guidelines, our point of view, copyrights and guidelines for proper etiquette.
• How to edit a page includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha.
• Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create.
• The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles.
• How to write a great article is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday.
• See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs.
• Look up past changes you have made in your contributions log.
• Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own watchlist.
• Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your talk page.

One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha! --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 05:47, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

RedirectsEdit

• Hi. When adding valid useful redirects, especially those based on common misspellings, such as you did with "Judgement" --> "Judgment", please be sure to add it to the appropriate section at Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 00:08, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Will do, sorry about that. If I was going by my instincts, I'd say judgment is the misspelling -- did Webster take out the "e"? --Broik 01:16, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

thanxzEdit

did i put the template in the wrong place? thanks for noticing. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

Yeah, I've always thought it's kind of odd to do that since people are a lot less likely to notice it if visiting that page. But if they're serious about giving suggestions, they'll check the peer review page, so it's all good. :) --Broik 05:33, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

blanking user talkEdit

if Ocampa Kid wants to blank his talk page, let him. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

Fair enough I guess, but with an accusation like that (stealing what? it belongs to Paramount...) it seems like people should know about it. Then again, no one will take it seriously, so I guess no harm done. --Broik 03:25, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Re: Medical Info Edit

Most of the information is out there on the Internet in various places. It's just a matter of going through it and picking out various pieces of information that aren't here. I play a Doctor on a Star Trek PBeM so my interest in the medical sections is really just as much for my own use as for everyone else. Unfortunately, there just aren't many other places with any kind of comprehensive Star Trek medical information. I try my best not to infringe on copyrights (although some people seem to disregard them entirely) but with there being very little information on some of the topics it gets difficult sometimes. --Bgtribble 04:47, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

SourcesEdit

Yeah, I was trying to find the source. With so many episodes, it's tough. But thanks for the reminder anydangway. CaptainCaca

Duty Roster Edit

Hey, just so you know, I think this is the "make or break" stage on the Vedek's duty roster. Since he added it to the welcome template and Memory Alpha:Utilities, I think it's time to make it an offifical part of MA, e.g. Memory Alpha:Duty Roster. See User talk:Vedek Dukat/Episodes and weigh in (pretty sure I know where you stand :-P). Weyoun 02:47, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Kirk Appendix Edit

Howdy Broik. I don't have a huge objection to your changes to the James T. Kirk background layout, but I wanted to explain why I organized it that way. I think "Background" covers apocrypha pretty well, and this MA style page seems to support the idea. I italicized the lead-in to "Ambiguities" after considering the extensive debate over his "lost years" on Kirk's Talk page. It might not be the normal style, but it seemed more appropriate to alert readers (and future contributors) with an editorial aside about a sub-section not found on other MA biographies. If you don't agree this calls for a revision, I'll look for precedent in other articles that help us find the best layout. --Aurelius Kirk 16:58, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

After a suggestion from Vedek Dukat, and looking at a few other articles, I think putting all of these under "Appenndices" is the best solution. I'm still in favor of italicizing that lead-in, but I'll leave it be. I'll go ahead with the change. Thanks. --Aurelius Kirk 17:16, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?Edit

Check out http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1209242/bio. Seeing that, should Diego Barquinero (or part of it) be considered a copyvio? -- Renegade54 17:19, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Who am I?Edit

That information is classified.--This user is not Jesus 09:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Canon PolicyEdit

The vote you are discussing did not result in a "consensus" of any sort, as a plurality is not consensus. Were it a vote as under the deletion policy you would be right; but there is no analogous policy for policies themselves. At the end of the discussion there was a consensus to keep things as they are; please respect that. Keep in mind as well that if the policy is reverted that articles like Efrosian would automatically be deleted without a vote as the prior version did not recognize production material as a valid resource. Please discuss the matter on the canon Discussion page rather than keep reverting to a version over a month old. Aholland 00:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So 75% is not a consensus? At what point do you call it democracy? It seemed pretty clear to me the consensus was that no one likes the current canon policy... And I don't think that's true about Efrosians considering the article had existed for a long time and no one else questioned the restricted nature of its validity. --Broik 00:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Efrosians, just because inaccurate information has been unnoticed doesn't mean it should be ignored. If there was an article in which Spock's home planet was named Vulcanis, but it survived for two years, would that exempt it from correction? The answer must be no if the site is to have any intellectual integrity at all. That is the whole point of a wiki, after all.

Regarding consensus, firstly it was never really clear what the vote was about if you said you had "no confidence". Was it to return to the prior policy and enforce it? Was it to remove any canon policy at all? Was it to revise the current one? Was it to replace the policy with something totally different? Each could have been intended, and I suspect each person had a slightly different idea of what it meant. Secondly, there was far too much explanation and comments about votes, non-votes, and partial votes to say that there was any single voice or approach that clearly held sway over the community. Discussion, yes; consensus, no. Aholland 02:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Deletion PageEdit

Broik, you stated on the Efrosian deletion discussion: "Keep. And Aholland, please do not use this space as a soapbox - it was not deleted under the old policy, because we would have voted on it, and the dispute between the two of us has no place here at any rate." I do not believe I used anything as a soapbox; I simply provided the analysis of the thing under the current Canon Policy. But I felt I had to provide the assessment under the old one as well as you were in the process of reverting to an older version without benefit of discussion. If you were successful and that policy somehow became active again, the anlysis would have to change. Under the old policy ALL production information not directly drawn from an episode was to be put in a background section at best and deleted at worst. An article's title cannot be background (by definition), so it wouldn't need to be subject to a vote as it would be against policy from the beginning. Not saying that would have made my position ambiguous - and I hate ambiguity. Aholland 02:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Q-Less background Edit

Hello. The accuracy of your (episode)&diff=263867&oldid=223451 addition of 28 January, 2006 on the "Q-Less" article is put into question on the article talk page. Please come input the source of your information in the discussion. Thank you very much. --Liberlogos 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)