Memory Alpha


36,853pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < User talk:Sulfur

For older discussions, see the 2006 archives, 2007 archives, 2008 archives and 2009 archives.

USS Yeager links Edit

The "something funny" I was talking about was the "USS" part and "Yeager NCC-XXXXX" both link to the page. I have no idea why it would be splitting the link like that. - Archduk3:talk 16:54, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. I see that. Interesting behaviour. I shall investigate. :) -- sulfur 17:18, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
It's not the USS template. It has something to do with the way that {{class}} works. -- sulfur 17:24, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've figured it out. It's a browser issue. When looking at the source, if a segment of italics is opened before the link HREF, and then close that inside the tag, the browser seems to break that link for some strange reason. Oddly, it doesn't happen when I do the italics by hand, but does when I do them by template. So, it's weird and annoying, but nothing that we can apparently solve. :( -- sulfur 17:31, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we got there at the same time. I can't think of any other pages off the top of my head that would have this problem, so I think the extra '' marks should solve it. - Archduk3:talk 17:40, January 7, 2010 (UTC)


Hi -- I saw that you removed WikiStickies from My Home, so I wanted to let you know about a new feature that was just added to the Stickies this week. Wikis can now create their own sticky notes on MediaWiki:CommunityStickies, so you can use that space to suggest tasks that you'd like people to help with. I understand why you wanted to turn it off -- the automatic feeds were just our first test of how to use them. Maybe now that you can make your own, it's got more potential as a tool that you can use? Anyway -- just wanted to make sure you knew about it. Let me know if you have any thoughts about it! -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 01:31, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

A few things Edit

I would up the block on, since this is the second time and it's part of a larger effort to vandalize our articles. Just wasn't sure you knew.

Also, do you have any idea why this has stopped working [[w:c:memory-alpha:(page name)|Memory Alpha]]. I use it in my sig, and as you can see if you click on it, there is now a double "/en" added. Like other things that have changed recently, I was wondering if you know of anything wikia "fixed" in the background that would cause this? ...Or maybe my lack of understanding about this particular link and SVGs in general are cause me to ask stupid questions. :) - Archduk3 21:28, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I saw the double /en thing. I would suggest using Special:Contact and raising both issues (in separate emails) with Wikia staff. It's something that they could (in theory) look into. -- sulfur 22:05, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


First off, great job on adding categories to that many pages. That was truly a herculean effort. :)

Unfortunately, I noticed something that's a bit off. Template:Anchor is a page that states that the category shouldn't be on the actual template page, but the doc page. While it is showing that the template is categorized on it page, Anchor is not on the list at Category:Memory Alpha maintenance templates, and neither is Anchor/doc (which shouldn't be). There are a few pages like this, and they all seem to have the same issue. Is there a reason that the cat can't just be directly on the page in question? - Archduk3 01:50, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yup, there are a few questionable ones like that. I'm not entirely certain exactly what the reason is offhand. My plan is to let the overnight runs update the templates and category lists, and then continue to poke and prod to try to sort it all out. So, in short... I'll let you know. -- sulfur 03:14, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Image category Edit

Thank you for adding a category to the image I uploaded. I forgot to do that.--Rockfang 21:56, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

DC Comics/Marvel Comics edits Edit

Thanks for cleaning up my additions. Blair2009 19:45, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Procreation Edit

Just wanted to explain about the article's creation (no pun intended). I was browsing the "wanted pages" page and knew that would be an easy one to create as there were already 16 articles linking to it. I realize in hindsight that I could have just created a redirect page (as you did), but I didn't know how to create a redirect page at the time, but as I was solving the double re-direct issues I saw how to create that type of page.--Obey the Fist!! 20:36, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Sometimes we end up with diff't links for the same subjects, and just eventually merge them together. I'd never really noticed the "procreation" one before, but it just means that more references are now available for the final destination page! :) -- sulfur 20:41, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Citation how to Edit

Sulfur, I'm a bit confused on your latest statement about my mis-hap on citation needed notification on Star Trek: The First Adventure. Looking at what is currently up there now, is that correct? I'm sorry if I didn't put the template in the right spot and I was looking for a good bit on where and how to note that citations are needed but I didn't know the template existed. If I copied the template incorrectly than I am also sorry for that, like I stated, I couldn't find a good indication in the manual that described how to handle those situations. In all, I just want guidance on how to better include such maintenance templates on certain pages. You weren't very clear on how to accomplish that with your message. Just looking to learn and improve my friend.--Obey the Fist!! 15:59, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Just use the {{pna-cite}} template at the top of a page (just as is), or check out the {{incite}} template for particular item cites missing. Check out the documentation on both -- pna-cite is really simple, put it as is atop a page, and post on the talk page what's wrong; incite is a bit more detailed -- and you should be good to go. If you still have some issues, let me know, and I'll see what we can do to improve the documentation a bit. -- sulfur 16:25, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

...for the fixing the mess of things I made, didn't realize how tired I was last night. - Archduk3 16:44, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Root Edit

Thanks for the cleanup :) -- Cid Highwind 11:49, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I wasn't sure if it was a "Special word" category, so was leaving it until the jobs ran last night. Apparently it's not a special word category. :) -- sulfur 12:12, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

STO vs Species 8472 Edit

Sulfur, what's up man? GoldenMonkey and I resolved the issue, so why was it locked? To get the point of canon sources across I take it? :) Just wondering. Oh and as I'm watching TNG tonight on Syfy they keep showing STO commercials, not that you really care, just thought it was funny seeing the occurances of today. OtF out.--Obey the Fist!! 01:40, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

It's the fifth or sixth time in the last 2-3 days that someone's gone and made a plethora of changes like that to it. It's only locked to new or unregistered users. -- sulfur 02:09, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Memory Beta commentsEdit

The thing about the planet Vega is, that unlike Earth, who for the most part is habitable(making it an M-class planet), it's largely uninhabitable. You can't pick one part of a planet and say that it's uninhabitable; that's not the way the planet categorization system works. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Either or. Best place to respond is in the same place as the original comments. Just FYI. -- sulfur 22:43, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Proof Edit

After all the discussion, I don't see how you can still see it as a matter of ego that the Romulan military should be referred to as the Romulan military (where 'military' is deliberately spelled lowercase), or that the Cardassian military should be referred to as the Cardassian military (again, deliberately in lowercase). The whole point of using totally generic descriptions as opposed to names is to avoid making an assumption on whether the old title referred to the entire military or a mere unit, because we have no proof either way. – NotOfTheBody 14:30, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

We still generally go with the first named instance. I still disagree with this move being made to be honest. But it's done, and I really don't care to continue to fight with your stubbornness and insistence on having to have it done your way because you seem to feel that five+ years of history can be erased on the internet by your simple little page move. -- sulfur 15:54, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'm reverting it. Changes, especially sweeping changes to dozens of articles, require consensus, which has massively not been achieved. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:37, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal blockage Edit

Hey, thanks for blocking that guy. Is there somewhere where I should report future vandalism? Thanks, Ajraddatz Talk 00:45, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

This page:Memory Alpha:Vandalism in progress. – Tom 01:11, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Most admins have much more patience for vandalism than I do though. Keep that in mind. :) -- sulfur 01:15, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
I personally like to give vandals at least two warnings before a block, so that won't be a problem :) Ajraddatz Talk 23:52, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the mergeEdit

You beat me. :) --31dot 20:32, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

The trick to a successful merge:
You don't delete the destination page. You copy the stuff to the source, move with delete as an option, then restore history.
Makes it much easier and quicker. -- sulfur 20:33, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

To make sure I understand you :) - I should have just moved it and then restored the history? I was going by the steps given here but I am all for something quicker.--31dot 20:41, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

I need to update that. Working on it now. :) -- sulfur 20:46, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
And done. I'm awesome as usual.  :D -- sulfur 20:49, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

I won't disagree. :)--31dot 21:48, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

CSS Edit

I think the changes you made to the MediaWiki:Monaco.css changed the text background color to white when comparing selected revisions in a page history. - Archduk3 18:29, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

There was a missing { it turns out. The default stuff from mediawiki changed the diff format this morning and between meetings, I was trying to make it legible since it defaulted to a white bg and inherited the text colour. :( -- sulfur 18:34, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

That sucks [that mediawiki changed the diff format]. As long as someone knows about [the changes], I'm cool. Also, there's an extra masthead modifier at the bottom of the page that wikia added a while back. :) - Archduk3 18:55, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Erm... huh? -- sulfur 18:57, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the css file, there's another user masthead section. - Archduk3 18:59, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore there isn't. :) -- sulfur 19:09, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Compare Edit Colorization Edit

Sulfur, any idea on why the "Compare Edit" colorization has gone from dark blue and black to pastel green and yellow where you can barely read the words? Or is it just me and my messed up computer?--Obey the Fist!! 20:01, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia changed the defaults today. I spent some time fighting with it earlier and it's a manageable mess now. You may want to force a reload on the page to see if that helps.
One thing to check as well is your (or another) user page. If it's got a white background on the masthead (the bit with the tabs), you definitely need to force a reload. If it's dark, then there's another issue going on. -- sulfur 20:04, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh! Wunderbar! That little reload trick worked. You = Da Man.--Obey the Fist!! 20:06, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Apologies Edit

Hello, I wanted to apologize for the mess-ups I made regarding image-use policies and uploading images and etc. I am still new to this and I didn't really understand what you were saying. I still don't really get it, therefore, I'm not going to upload any other pictures. Thanks

--Voyagerfanatic 03:55, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Look at the image use policy that I linked. Then take a look at some of the changes made to the images you uploaded. For example:
That's what I'm talking about.
In short, we have to cite the origin of the image. That means listing where it came from. For bits from episodes, that means that we have to list the episode. For publicity photos or photos of people from "behind the scenes", we have to know where they came from. We also have to list what license the image is under. For images from episodes, that will always be {{image paramount}}, just as per the image policy. Read it, look at those example changes, and make sure that you take those things into account on any future uploads. -- sulfur 04:01, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Disambig Cleanup Edit

Sulfur, I think the best way to cleanup the James (disambiguation) and Michael (disambiguation) pages would be to use the shown alphabetical listing such as on Category:Languages or other category pages. However, I think that this is a wiki-created template and I don't know what to do about it. However, that would be the best way to clean up both name disambiguation pages.OtF out!--Obey the Fist!! 14:47, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean separating by letter and making them look like the categories? If so, that's definitely not a direction we really want to go. A bigger question is whether we even want pages like the "James" and "Michael" ones. -- sulfur 14:55, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose I'm confused then. Separating by letter would "cleanup" the pages to make them more readible. However if by cleanup you mean "sweep into the dustbin" then I would support that action also as we don't (as far as I am aware of) have disambiguation pages for other first names. If we do then we certainly don't need them becuase you would find a characters name by other, more efficient means (personnel links, episode links, etc).--Obey the Fist!! 14:58, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

px Edit

Hey. Regarding your recent edit: I've added the px to Morga's main pic to illustrate the article a bit more. I think now it is really small and it could look better when the main pic is bigger. What do you think? – Tom 20:30, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnails shouldn't have px sizes. If you want a bigger picture, I'd suggest using a mini-sidebar. -- sulfur 21:22, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

 !! Notice !! Edit

Listen this is an anonymous contributor here, you can call me "The Inspector" for now, any who, have you got idiots running this site? Over 25% of the pages are riddled with errors and nonsense, there's adds everywhere I mean what the hell this site's metastability is off the charts and that's really saying something, it's a like a book standing on edge or a hill side waiting to collapse, it's stable for a little while but then it falls apart, just a big bump, a nudge, then the book falls over, the hillside collapses, the glass smashes. You have to got to boost up the security block all the adds, the viruses, and inspect every page, make sure it makes sense, it's all good and error proof or I'll shut you down. I'll let Memory Beta move in at least they're organised but I'll have a word with them too. Another thing this site's too dang slow! GOODBYE SULPHUR

Hello, Mr. Inspector. I'm not User:Sulfur, but another admin of this wiki - so I'd like to answer. Please just call me "The Guy with the Funny Hat" in our intimate discussion from now on. As you can see by me replying to you, I'm really taking this threat to shut us down seriously - please don't, or I will have to kill a kitten. In any case, the guys running this site (idiots? your call) are the same for this site and Memory Beta... BTW, I'm just totally shaking my fist at the screen in anger! How DARE you compare us to THEM? We're totally different, don't you see? For example, we're having an α in our name, and they just a β, which already shows our clear superiority!... Eh, sorry, lost focus for a moment, probably time to take my chill pills. The doctor gave them to me after that "accident" last year - poor Johnny, may his soul rest in peace! Where was I?
Ah, yes, something about errors on the site - please let us know where and how exactly, and we will look into it. Also, if you're really going to put your empty threats on our neighbour wiki MB, say hello from me! KTHXBYE! -- Cid Highwind 10:30, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
I've been having problems with my metastability as well... perhaps I should up my dosage? ***wanders off in a funk*** -- Renegade54 14:01, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Oh won't you take me to...FUNKY TOWN! --OuroborosCobra talk 14:48, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of venting, not signing his name and misspelling Sulfur's name (an error I might add), perhaps our mystery anon could have fixed some of the errors. Just a suggestion, seeing this IS a wiki.--Obey the Fist!! 16:48, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Every time I read this, it makes me laugh. I do believe that his second sentence can be classified as Run-on Sentence "Nonsense." But be careful...he'll shut us down...I read it on the internet (probably on Memory Beta).--Obey the Fist!! 17:29, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Think Tank Edit

Thanks for directing me to Help:Talk pages - it was informative (I am the anonymous contributor whose edit you recently reverted). However, as I expected, Help:Talk pages actually agrees with my position since it states Add new posts to the bottom of the thread. - which is what I did. What you have done is move my post to the bottom of a different thread. I don't think there's any controversy as to the definition of "thread"! Also, the person who originally relocated my comment is certainly guilty of Don't misrepresent other opinions by moving my comment into a position in which it makes no sense whatsoever. Imagine a section with several threads, taking up half a page... if someone were to respond to one of these threads, does it make sense to add their comment onto the very bottom of the section making it impossible to determine what it is in response to? Of course not! A thread is a thread, and a section is a section. 17:46, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

A thread is a section in our parlance. Assume that they're the same thing. -- sulfur 17:55, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the help page to actually agree with our practices. We've always done things that way, and the help page matches our practices now. -- sulfur 17:58, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

How? Edit

Where can I find screenshots from Voyager episodes. In the episode Unity, there are unnamed races I wish to add to the Unnamed Humanoid page. Can you tell me how I can do that? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homesun (talk • contribs).

Sign your comments with ~~~~ please.
Secondly, if you have the DVDs, you can take screen shots yourself. Otherwise, you might want to check out TrekCore. -- sulfur 14:12, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

On Early Vovage Comics Edit

Thank you for the kind words. I am pretty new to editing Wiki pages, and thus have only been focuing on summaries of the comics as opposed to format. I apologize for my lack of protocol and familiarity. I have been reading Memory Alpha for some time now, using it many times more as a "primary source" than a "seconday" one.

In fact, I greatly depend on it and many time open it while or after watching an episode. Some are very well written indeed and I have, due to not seeing the episodes, used them to compensate.

I would like to be able to provide summaries for people who have never read the issues and likely never will since they tend to go out of print.

Saddly, I only owned two Early Voyage comics...but I intend to buy the rest of them. I will summarize all the comics I have...which include some DC, Marvel (some Unlimited) and even a few Gold Key ones.

Please help me by rounding our and proof reading them.

Thank you, Maj. J. E. Carrales, CAP

For the Early Voyages comics, you may want to check out Star Trek Omnibus volume 2, as it collects the entire series in one book. -- sulfur 21:40, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

I just got Omnibus volume 2!!! I plan to eventually to all of the editions of EARLY VOYAGES. I will summarize them in a "raw" and other more experienced Memory Alphites can mold them as needed.--Major Carrales 06:13, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Gallery BS Edit

Gallery text
Broken gallery with "perrow".

Not sure if you already know, but any gallery with a "perrow" seems to be broken. I stumbled on this at the Starfleet insignia page while testing some color options for the lightbox. These things are still broken as hell, and I don't know if it's just me but the at banners seem to be acting funny too, but hopefully wikia will listen to some of the bug reports and fix things, not that I'm going to hold my breath. Also, no luck with centering the galleries or text yet, though my lightbox "fix" centers the text in that at least. - Archduk3 01:12, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had much time during the last days, so I only skimmed some of the discussions - can we please just ask to have this broken feature disabled, like all the others? -- Cid Highwind 09:37, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Apparently not. I did disable part of the feature (the "add a new photo" button) though. There are also other issues with the CSS -- the "real world" tags are totally screwed up, and now the colours on the talk page notification have changed to an ugly orange-ish colour too. -- sulfur 10:17, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Usermessage fixed? - Archduk3 14:23, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Why red for the border? - Archduk3 22:55, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

A little less visible. I was flip-flopping between #ff0000 and #aaaaaa and the first looked a bit better than the second. Not that I'm a huge fan of either, but it's better than it was before. :) -- sulfur 22:59, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I would go with #aaaaaa or #666 myself, as the red one makes my eyes bleed. I do agree that it's way better than before either way though. :) - Archduk3 23:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

FGC 47 Lifeforms Edit

Yeah thanks, i saw the empty link on the List of NCC-1701-D first Contacts so i looked up the Episode transcript

STO Edit

You're quicker than me, I was also about to remove it. :) I totally agree that we don't need to describe the entire game here.--31dot 15:32, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Possessive Apostrophes Edit

Hi Sulfur, there's a new anon user on the scene whose sole aim appears to be the imposition of his own preferred possessive apostrophe usage on every article containing a character whose name ends in X :) To give a specific example he always converts Neelix's into Neelix' and Phlox's into Phlox'. Now, while I understand that this is a technically allowable usage, but it is vastly inferior to the more precise "apostrophe s" form in a written context. Myself (and I note at least one other user) have taken to reverting his edits - can you possibly have a word with him regarding this?


cheers, --CoffeeBlack 13:46, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

See here for our style we choose to use. -- sulfur 14:21, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Appearances script Edit

Thanks for the link -- Chief 14:27, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Nooni[a|e]n Soong Edit

I thought alternative names were permitted if a production source has an alternative spelling. In this case the scripts have Noonien - which is why I left the redirect. — Morder (talk) 19:00, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page redirect. :) -- sulfur 19:01, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well crap. Ignore my ravings then! :) — Morder (talk) 19:03, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Recent alt reality Enterprise edits Edit

I believe the anon user is going by a sign that Kirk passed by on his motorcycle which said 47. A little while back I got into a somewhat immature edit war with this guy, saying that sector 47 could just have been one part of the any case, I don't believe that it should be added, but I think I'll leave this up to you guys this time. -Angry Future Romulan 18:54, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

Hey, thank you for fixing my errors on the Q Background section. I appreciate that. Asymptote 17:55, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

[1] Noted. Asymptote 18:28, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly stylistic stuff that we've been doing for ages, so it's easier to stick to something that's on 25k+ pages, even if it isn't always "correct", but we call it "correct" here. :) -- sulfur 18:52, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Voyager Edit Edit

I have taken it to talk page. Fact is, Nero210 is reverting the article back to keep misinformation in there (B'Elanna's drop out of Starfleet) and legitmate expansions that were made to specific sections, such as "the Maquis" and "Technical Data". The article now is in this non-common sense, non-chronological order. It would be great if you took a look at my edits before just locking the page. Nero is the one who keeps wrong info in there and doesnt get that his scrambled, disorganized version is making a mess of the article. Thanks. – Distantlycharmed 23:46, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Better to sort out the issues than simply reverting and so forth. -- sulfur 00:33, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Plak tow Edit

Why do you do a complete revert? And how is the way I wrote it somehow undermining the original Plak tow text? I took a lot of what you see in there from Blood Fever (episode) actually (so nothing is made up). I have also incorporated the original, meager plak tow content which wasnt great contents-wise either, into this one here and didnt leave anything out. If you dont agree with some of the wording, then change it, but dont just do a complete revert man. I thought that wasnt considered a very nice and considerate thing to do. Now if you dont mind, I am going to try to create some nicer sentence structures and if you happen to not agree with them, edit accordingly. Thanks. – Distantlycharmed 18:31, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Good news everyone! Edit

Wikia has found another way to waste days of our time learning how to "customize" the galleries all over again! - Archduk3 02:28, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

If wikia really screwed the pooch with the galleries this time, it might be worth it to use a bot to add the code to make them either 150px (old default?) or 180px (default when I joined). I'm still hoping that they can be salvaged, but replacing them with a some sort of internal template could be an option. - Archduk3 07:35, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

User Talk IndentingEdit

Thanks for repairing my indenting as well as for pointing my towards the Help: User Talk article (teach a man to fish...)--TRHickey 04:05, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Page move Edit

Just FYI- that was the second time that user moved the page- the first time is what sparked the discussion on that page in the first place. That's why I warned him against it, and probably should have protected the page as you did, but I didn't think that far. :) --31dot 11:49, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I know that it's the second time. I protected it the first time too. :) -- sulfur 12:40, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ah- I now understand your edit comment better. :) --31dot 12:42, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Grid 986 Unicomplex Edit

Thanks for the fleashing and polishing of User:SacValleyDweller/Battle of the Grid 986 Unicomplex, Sulfur and Admiraldan. I'da gotten back to it eventually, but I'm pleased as punch that I didn't have to! --SacValleyDweller (talk) 06:32, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Question Edit

Hello. I just need some help with the carrier wave page. I was wondering if you have seen or own the episode ENT: "Dawn". I have been trying to nail down a reference to carrier wave in the episode and I don't own it, so I was wondering if you could help me out. Thank you. --Delta2373 03:10, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen it for quite some time -- sorry. -- sulfur 10:47, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Simplification of Links Edit

Hi Sulfur, I notice that you've simplified the offsite links on the Defiant (2370) page. From what I've seen of the other pages that feature a means of disambiguation in their title, this doesn't fit into the standard style of presentation, as the offsite links on the other pages have all feature the full title of the page that they're linking from. Unless you have any objections, I believe that the labels of those links should be returned to USS Defiant (2370)? -- Commander Scott 19:26, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I chose to go without, because in two cases, that link goes to a generic page about the "Defiants". The wording should be specific to what's at the other end, not what we have at our end. -- sulfur 19:45, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Except for the fact that in all the other cases, the wording is specific to where the page is located. Prior to the location changes, the USS Defiant (2370) links were labelled as USS Defiant NX-74205 and the USS Defiant (2375) links were labelled as USS Defiant NCC-75633. Therefore, since only the Wikipedia article features a note on the second ship, the links should be labelled USS Defiant (2370), since each of the offsite pages feature this ship, and not a generic Defiant page. -- Commander Scott 20:18, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Most of those links are automatically generated. Regardless, I don't feel that we should link elsewhere using our term for how we differentiate the ship and thus apply it to other locations. To be honest, the links were better with the registry number than with a year on them. That's a better indicator (in my opinion). -- sulfur 20:27, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at each of the Federation starship articles using a means of disambiguation, it would seem that where an offsite link has been added, the precedent is for it to be labelled according to the article that it is featured in, such is the case of USS Carolina (24th century). Given that the article name is the precedent predominantly in use, I’m going to edit the links to include the (2370) for the time being. In the meantime though, do you think it’s worth opening up a discussion on the talk page to look into this matter more thoroughly? -- Commander Scott 23:46, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we’re in the middle of a maintenance cycle, as messages keep appearing and disappearing along with recent edits, so I just wanted to make sure you don’t think I went ahead and made the (2370) edits without letting you know about the offsite presentation precedents first. I have noticed that you’ve amended the Memory Beta link label to match the link on their site though. This creates a whole new precedent that will require us to alter every link that goes to Memory Beta, which will create a lot of work that doesn’t make sense. As a result, I’m going to open a discussion topic on the matter, so we can get some views. -- Commander Scott 01:42, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if we make the {{NCwiki}} template act the same as the {{Wikipedia}} template, then we will have no work to do. That's the smart way to do things. :) -- sulfur 02:05, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I can see this raw cadet has much to learn. :-) Still, many of the articles I've checked have descriptions that I believe would override the template changes. The Enterprise ones for instance. -- Commander Scott 02:22, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

Thanks for fixing the link errors on my personal page, I really didn't have the time to do so back when I made the page and since then I have forgotten all about it. *Jasper* 15:08, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

That was me. I wrote that while temporarily having no access to my own pc, and after posting I noticed I hadn't been logged in, thus making it rather senseless. However, I only had my password at my pc, so I decided to wait until I would have access again and then post this message. Incidentally, I forgot all about that :P *Jasper* 00:27, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Human vs. human Edit

Thanks for the info--since I wrote much of the Summary text for the Shakedown article, I had assumed that the capitalization of "Human" was a typo that I had previously missed. -- Pennyforth 15:20, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Game Page Edit

Hi, just wondered why you removed the reference and link to Legacy Filefront from the Legacy game page?

-- 12:53, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

On here? I didn't. Another user did. On Memory Beta? Because it had previously been removed.
In the cases of both wikis, the goal is not to document fan links and fan stuff and definitely is not to be a web directory. Modifications are fan-created things, and belong on a fan Star Trek wiki such as "Memory Gamma" or "Star Trek Expanded Universe." -- sulfur 13:02, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek DPO. Edit

On the subject of the Division of planetary operations, rather than Starfleet Intelligence, you're quite right, you see, i have watched the show dubbed in (Brazilian) Portuguese, and it was refer as to it being Starfleet intelligence, hence my confusion, it was only when i watched it in English, that i heard "Division of Planetary Operations", Therefor, i accept your correction, plus, i am going to change it in Wikipedia as well. – 02:55, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Format on Vulcan Language (Tense) Edit

The bullets above my contribution are in the present tense, should those be formatted accordingly as well? Captain Canucktalk 02:55, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, things should be in the past tense as per MA:POV. I've fixed those others. -- sulfur 03:04, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Warp particleEdit

Thanks for correcting the warp particle page. I was pretty uncertain being new 'n' all :P The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ewan Gibson (talk • contribs).

Not a problem. Just make sure that you sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. -- sulfur 17:29, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

The lineEdit

We might as well start a discussion on the manual of style talk page about that, instead of get in an edit war over it. - Archduk3 13:07, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. The problem is, we either have to use it everywhere or nowhere. When we use it with a one line disambiguation, it looks like a box at the top, and when there's already a box up there, it starts looking really bad and awkward. -- sulfur 13:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
The line must be drawn here!Josiah Rowe 02:29, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Fair warningEdit

I'm trying to force you to take on more responsibility. - Archduk3 20:49, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oh goodie. :) -- sulfur 01:47, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Kobheerian/Dopterian connection Edit

Hi! I saw you reverted my edit to the page Kobheerian, and then removed some of the other content due to its speculative nature. While I agree on the second edit, I believe what I added should be on the page in some way if the speculative comment is to remain. The fact remains that there is no clear in-universe explanation whatsoever for the similar appearance, so both the "they are related" vs. "it is a coincidence" theories should really be equally acceptable for mention. Examples exist elsewhere in Trek to support each idea (vulcanoids vs. identical-to-humans species) with no reason for accepting one over the other. Alternatively, the whole thing might be better off removed entirely, as it is rather speculative; or shifted into a background section that mentions the most likely real world reason, that of the re-using of makeup for budget reasons. --Andorian Blues 00:31, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Warp ten or warp 10 Edit

It was I who switched to words for simple numbers, but then I reverted back to digits because I had noticed their use in the rest of the article. The question is whether another contributor will be bothered by the inconsistency. – 1312.4 20:20, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

In theory, all of the "simple" numbers in prose should be words. Anything more complex should be digits, and anything in tables (etc) should be digits. Feel free to change the rest of the article to match up with that philosophy. -- sulfur 20:39, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite convinced that would be the best thing to do. In the warp factor article, "simple" numbers such as 1 (one) or 10 (ten) are mixed with "more complex" numbers such as 36 (probably not thirty-six) or 9.9 (definitely not nine-point-nine). It might look strange to mix digits and words here. -- Cid Highwind 21:12, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I broke the new wiki skinEdit

Could you do me a favor and delete User:Archduk3/oasis.css. I can't do it for reasons I'm not allowed to go into. - Archduk3 16:40, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

And adding this as an anon?  :P -- sulfur 16:46, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

I really am not allowed to talk about it, or I my account gets deleted, but I think you can guess what went wrong here. :) I can sign in under one of my alts to prove it's me if want. - Archduk3 16:51, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Can you pop onto IRC then? :P -- sulfur 16:58, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Dashes and hyphens (again) Edit

I forgot (until Defiant corrected one of my recent edits) that not only do we use ndashes over mdashes here, we use hyphens for number ranges instead of the conventionally correct ndash. In our earlier discussion, you mentioned something about putting this in the Manual of Style, which hasn't happened. Do you still want to do that? Do you recall when and where the decision to use hyphens for number and date ranges was made? (I might like to revisit/reopen the discussion, if that's possible.) —Josiah Rowe 11:00, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I've added the information in now (at least quickly and briefly). I don't recall the hyphen in number range discussion, as it may predate me here. I wouldn't be surprised if it is at least partly due to the sheer quantity of use now. -- sulfur 11:11, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sulfur. I suppose that if we did make a change we'd have to program a bot to go through all the articles, which would be quite a pain. It just rubs against my typographic sense to see hyphens used for number ranges, though I realize it's massively unimportant. :) —Josiah Rowe 11:50, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

MLA style and apostrophe Edit

Moved to Memory Alpha talk:Manual of Style...

Fourier analysis revision question Edit

Dear Sulfur,

First, thank you for quickly stepping in and undoing my ill-advised additions to the Fourier analysis article. I'm new at editing and would normally just stick to small copy-edits, but Fourier analysis is my livelihood; I couldn't help myself! ^_^ I'm glad you handled it well, for I was being really dumb. Anyway, I was wondering if you'd mind if I made one or two clarifications to the article. You kindly tried to preserve some of the changes I made, but now I'm afraid at least one change left in confuses things: viz., the part of it being a tool for decomposing *periodic* signals. That is true, but because you (wisely) removed the notes I made about how technically Rain et al. wouldn't/couldn't directly apply Fourier decompositions of the stochastic, non-finite, non-periodic signals referenced, I think it would probably be good to remove the reference to "periodic" signals. Either that or add a brief note saying something such as "periodic or quasi-periodic signals", or a note saying "similar techniques exist for analyzing the estimated frequency content of 'real-world', non-periodic signals/random signals". Or something.

Again, I'm sorry for adding "gory details" and being "nit-pickish". It was entirely inadvertent; I assure you I meant no harm and didn't mean to cause trouble. I will leave it up to your best judgment. If you'd like me to take a shot at it, let me know. Otherwise I'll refrain from any further edits.

One last question: why is the POV now in the past tense? Fourier analysis is a mathematical technique, and even in nature signals are decomposed into estimates of their frequency content, though not necessarily using any formulas or orthonormal sinusoidal basis functions. Other articles, such as the Milky Way refer to the galaxy in the present tense. Even if Fourier analysis falls out of use, it isn't something that will disappear. It's a mathematical concept. I'm not asking to have it changed; rather, I'm seeking clarification so I can better understand MA's POV policy.

Thank you for your consideration and patience.

Regards, --Cepstrum 13:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize and comment on the same matter everywhere. Just FYI. In terms of the tense, I tend to lean toward "past tense for everything", since it is actually less confusing to most people than "present tense for a few things, then move to past tense in the article, but other stuff is all in past tense," which tends to confuse most new editors. In terms of mathematical or scientific concepts, over the years, many theories and scientific "truths" have been proven false (or altered), and that was the other half of my leaning logic there. -- sulfur 14:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek Barbie Edit

See this page pls: Giftset is capitalized! :) Darth Duranium 15:47, September 20, 2010 (UTC) Could use "Barbie® and Ken® Collector Edition 30th Anniversary Star Trek Giftset"

EDIT: Why would you delete my updated page and pics? I don't understand. Darth Duranium 15:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Because the collectibles are being split into the 1996 set and the 2009 set. I'm not sure if the 2009 set should actually be split into the 3 separate dolls, but things are "back" now. -- sulfur 15:57, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I give up. It's pointless trying to update anything. Clearly, revisions can only be made by mods at MA. It's a shame that noone else's view matters. I'll be sure to share my feelings on the boards, for what it's worth. What a sad joke. Adios. Darth Duranium 16:08, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

You haven't even given your view so I don't see how you can say it doesn't matter. You asked for an explanation, and was given one, without offering your view.--31dot 17:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, as far as I can tell, his view was given, and accepted--that the title should be in all capitals because that's the way it was officially marketed. —Commodore Sixty-Four(TALK) 05:03, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
That's the way it was listed on the Barbie Collector site. That's not the way it was listed on the box. If we list what's on the box strictly, it becomes "30th Anniversary Collectors Edition Barbie & Ken GIFTSET". His original full name does act as a redirect. But note that the big thing here was splitting the two sets. They were on one single page, and the major change was to split them into two articles, one for the 1996 product, and one for the 2009 product. -- sulfur 10:08, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

block Edit

can one of you admins block this DB (Unregistered contributor who keeps blanking out pages and vandalizing the trip article? – Distantlycharmed 20:29, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Tense question and a big "thank you"! Edit

Hi Sulfur. I wanted to let you know that the new Wikia look *finally* supports mobile viewing. Thank you for putting up with my many annoying questions about that!

I have another question for you: you changed the Fourier analysis page I edited to make it in the past tense. I actually would tend to disagree, for it is a mathematical concept that won't change (but may yet fall out of use). I accept your decision, however, for you're an admin and know the rules better than I. My question is regarding whether I should do as you did to other articles. For example, the article on the Kobali race, which as an in-universe species makes sense to me to refer to them in the past tense, is *not* in the past tense.

Should I go ahead and change things like that to the past tense? I want to ensure I'm doing the proper thing and not end up making extra work for you admins by forcing you to revert my changes.


--Cepstrum 11:31, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Races and suchnot should definitely be in past tense as per MA:POV, other stuff is still (as always it seems) being discussed, with no solid firm consensus being reached just yet. -- sulfur 11:42, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Categories Edit

For some reason my computer will not let me add cats, whereas it did before. Is this a problem with Wikia, or something on my end? -Angry Future Romulan 14:01, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are using the JS category select option. I would suggest going to your preferences and putting a checkmark beside "Disable Category Select". -- sulfur 14:09, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

OK. Is there something wrong with the JS option? -Blair2009 14:37, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Javascript has been not working all too well for at least 24 hours on Memory Alpha. -- sulfur 14:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. It's not my fault. -Angry Future Romulan 14:50, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I the hell am I supposed to delete a category without the damn JS working? -Angry Future Romulan 19:56, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Turn off the preference I noted above. It may be more annoying at first, but once you get used to it, you'll much prefer it. :) -- sulfur 19:59, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. To tell you the truth, before the JS crapped out, I wasn't even aware that there was an alternative method of maintaining the cats. -Angry Future Romulan 20:01, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Notation Edit

18^12 is incorrect, as it is patently impossible a priori: such a number does not exist, and can not exist. It is not just a grammatical error, such as the dubious split infinitive in " boldly go..." (which, as per Zefram Cochrane's appearance in ENT's pilot, was originally " go boldly..." - I guess they were listening to the grammar Nazis) that is not necessarily incorrect, but is a matter of style, is a syntactic error that is as patently impossible as dividing by zero, or saying "I are you" or claiming pi to not be a transcendental and irrational number. Exponents can only be used with natural numbers 1 through 10; if greater exponentiation is needed, a "power tower" can be used, or, if even greater, a recursive algorithm such as the up-arrow notation can be used, such as in Graham's number.L Marchese Ph.D. D.Pharm.Sci. 18:40, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is scientifically incorrect. It is a quote. You cannot correct a quote just because you want to. -- sulfur 18:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
A "power tower"? I haven't heard that sort of nonsense in any of the the math courses I've taken - and those were a few... of course "18^12" is a valid expression and, by the way, 18^12 and 1.8^13 are not the same thing. -- Cid Highwind 19:00, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Kobali changes Edit

Dear Sulfur:

Thank you for, within *two minutes*, making critical changes to my revamping of the Kobali article. It was helpful for me to see where I erred so I can better understand MA's standards.

My questions:

1. Do you think it was good/wise/prudent for me to make the major revisions (ie, changing to past tense, creating sections, adding detail, removing emotionally-laden words, such as "fortunately....")? It was my first major edit. I really want to know if you think I was useful or should keep quiet.

2. Please tell me: how is it that you're able to track (and correct) changes I make within minutes? Are you specially watching over/looking out for me? Am I a trouble-maker? Are you trying to guide me along with a helping hand? Is it just coincidental? ^_^

Thanks much.


--Cepstrum 12:29, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Some people prefer to do massive changes in one swoop, others do them piecemeal. When you are doing those, it is often best to use the {{inuse}} template to let people know that you're still working on it. In terms of seeing what's happening, check out recent changes. -- sulfur 12:38, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
Also, try not to do too many edits on the same article all at the same time. --Defiant 12:44, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
One last note -- if you're using the fancy wiki editor, please try not to. It adds random blank lines to the formatting opening up with amounts of space randomly, and makes the article look poor. It also treats templates very poorly when those are used. -- sulfur 13:00, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Sulfur and Defiant:

I composed a long response but lost it due to an edit conflict. Rats!

I am pretty much forced to make big changes in a text editor then copy them over because I use an iPod. It can't handle text box editing well. But thanks for the tip about the in use tag! I made a mention of my plans on the talk page, but clearly that was insufficient.

I don't use the fancy wiki editor or similar tools, just a plain text editor. I'm sorry for introducing the dumb spaces.

And I really am sorry for the many changes I made in a row. I can (ie, the iPod will let me) make minor edits to sections without crashing mobile Safari. I kept catching little errors. That's why I made so many edits in a row. It's terribly difficult to copy the entire article into a text editor, make a minor change, and then paste it, especially when I keep catching little copy edit errors. If this is wrong, let me know.

I had thought by marking them "minor" I was hiding them from other users so I wouldn't cause them confusion thinking I was on an edit-marathon or edit-war. The last thing I want to do is cause trouble. I'm a newbie (and dunce) at massive collaborative wiki editing. I only wish to help if I can make a positive difference. If I'm a nuisance, I'll stop making life harder for you vets.

Please advise. I need some guidance.

Also, if you could, please let me know if what I did to the article was good/prudent/wise/helpful or wrong. I really am curious if my first major edit was a success or failure.

Thanks guys. I much appreciate your help.

--Cepstrum 13:26, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

tense and olives Edit

Why do you keep changing the tense back to past tense for olives? All foods are written in present tense on MA and I know you would like it all to be in past tense but from what I see the debate has not been concluded yet. So why do you keep reverting it back to the past tense? Now we have inconsistency because of this, since some foods are written in present (actually most) and then there are your edits that jst put them all back in past tense while there is still an open debate on the issue. – Distantlycharmed 21:51, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Some foods. Some species. Some people. Stop pulling straw man arguments. -- sulfur 22:13, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
Putting any straw men back on their beanpoles, where they can frighten the crows and bemoan their lack of brains — I do think that it's counterproductive to enforce one particular interpretation of the tense rules while discussion is still ongoing. It just annoys the people on the opposing side of the discussion, and makes it more difficult to come to a consensus. The same goes for edit warring.
(By the way, I'd say the same thing if I saw Distantlycharmed changing food articles from past to present tense: while the discussion is still ongoing, I don't think either side should try to enforce its preference.) —Josiah Rowe 06:30, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
I'm going for the consistency at the moment. When half of the articles are in one tense, and half another, it makes for difficult reading. One thing that will not change is that the POV is from after Earth no longer exists, that means that everything is past. -- sulfur 12:01, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about straw man arguments? Who is trying to misrepresent anyone's position here? An olive is not a fruit from another planet, just as the banana isnt, yet banana is written in present tense while olive in past. That inconsistency exits for many things and until we have reached a conclusion on the appropriate talk page on it, starting edit wars is completely out of line, unwarranted and counterproductive. We cant have one set of discussion in one place and then have you in the meantime change everything to what you like it to be and then go around accuse people of trying deception of sorts. The whole point of having the debate on the discussion is to avoid that. – Distantlycharmed 16:38, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

MA:POINT. Strawman. Just because it is in some cases doesn't mean that those cases are correct. The debate is about eternal concepts, not concepts of things from a now-dead planet. When you can get that bit through your head, let me know. -- sulfur 16:40, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

We are currently having a live debate on this very issue. As in, the discussion is still ongoing. As in, while you defend your position on your talk page, there is an official debate going on. As get, dont you? You going around changing things to your preference, as Josiah pointed out, mid discussion, is inappropriate. Now if you can get that through your head, then how wonderful for the community. – Distantlycharmed 16:51, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the only open point I still see in that tense discussion is whether the tiny "concept part" at the top of articles should be present tense or not. Everything else we seemed to agree to write in past tense. For me this means that, if we agree to write about whole planets in past tense already, we can't state that some plant is native to it (instead of "was"). As such, sulfur changing the article to past tense throughout seems to be perfectly in line with the discussion, with the only possible exception of the very first occurrence of is/was, as the pure "definition" of what an olive is would still be valid as long as thought itself existed. However, if that first occurrence becomes an "is", the latter part of the sentence should be separated from it and become past tense. -- Cid Highwind 17:42, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
That's a helpful suggestion, Cid. How would people feel about this as a compromise: "An olive is the edible fruit of the olive tree, a plant which was native to Earth."? (And is this the best place for this discussion? Should it be copied to Talk:Olive or Memory Alpha talk:Point of view?)
As for the question of straw men and MA:POINT, I haven't gone through every article in Category:Earth foods, but it's clear that prior to this there were many cases (such as crepe, crouton, clam, lobster and macaroni and cheese) in which the definitional section of articles about food were written in the present tense. There are also cases like chocolate chip, cucumber sandwich and croissant in which they were written in the past tense. I'm not clear on whether policies and guidelines here are meant to be descriptive (that is, reflecting the practices of the community and ensuring that those practices continue) or prescriptive (that is, reflecting what the small minority of the community that participates in policy discussions thinks should be the practices of the community). On Wikipedia, the dictum is that if you can't reach consensus in the policy discussion, there isn't a consensus in the community, and the policy shouldn't claim that there is. But this isn't Wikipedia, and maybe things are different here.
Sulfur has a case that Distantlycharmed was incorrect in claiming that all food articles were written in the past tense. However, it's stretching things to say that the subject of foodstuffs as an example didn't come up in the current discussion — I raised the example of Hasparat and Distantlycharmed said, "A fruit is a fruit. A jalapeño is a jalapeño. It doesn't or shouldn't change with time." Not everyone is persuaded by Sulfur's dodo example, just as Sulfur is apparently not persuaded by my manna example. This is an ongoing discussion. Since there are plenty of examples of both styles, changing an article either way could be seen as "disrupting MA to make a point". Remember, it takes two to edit war. —Josiah Rowe 02:14, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

More Kobali changes Edit

Dear Sulfur,

While I'm glad you're following me and reverting my (apparently ill-advised edits), your latest undo of my Kobali edit contained no explanation. I would really like to know what I'm doing wrong so I can better serve, so could you please explain? Thanks!


--Cepstrum 15:22, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Borg Philosophy article: can we use the talk page to discuss changes? Edit

Dear Sulfur,

Thank you again for following me around and cleaning things up. This article, however, has become quite long, and, IMO, has several natural section breaks. These include the first paragraph/intro, the Borg's quest for perfection, their Quasi-Religious view of particle 010 (Omega Particle), Borg Ethics and Morality, Background Notes, and External Link(s).

Can we discuss this on the talk page instead of undoing my edits and indirectly discussing it via the "history" section of the article? Thanks! --Cepstrum 11:33, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Woops! Edit

Thanks for correcting my mistake about the Enterprise! Shame on me for forgetting ... Haven't slept for ages so my brain isn't working :) Thanks! -Ima Wiz Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 18:04, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I keep on misunderstood... Edit

Thanks for your note, I was only trying something that I really don't understand. So, I believe that it's sufficient to write down that line, but those are the only things I'm allowed to do? What about my missing sidebar, customizing colors ecc.? Can you please link me some quick instruction for skin customization all over site? Me and my fellow archivist at Memory Alpha italian language are confused with this new wikia skin, just hoping that time fix it, sooner or later. Gifh 13:14, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

On the site, if you are an admin, you should be able to use the "Theme Designer" that is in your "MyTools" button (bottom right I think). That will change the overall colours and themes for your entire If you want to change for yourself, you have to screw around with the colours in your own "wikia.css", which is really annoying. -- sulfur 13:19, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see it, and I'm the admin, too. So, the left sidebar and widgets no longer belong to wikia, I presume. What a mess... even the internal sidebar (like character sidebar, ecc) doesn't work any more. I'm thinking about give it up, and leave all folks. Gifh 14:04, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

When all is said and done, Cid and Archduk3 (primarily) have been working on the look and feel for MA/en. You might be interesting in checking out their work, including Archduk3's Monaco conversion work. According to Wikia's Terms of Use, you can't make those changes for everyone, but you can do what Cid has been encouraging, which began with the "concealer" layout work. -- sulfur 14:10, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Borg philosophy fixes Edit

Thanks, Sulfur, for rapidly jumping in there to make those fixes. I don't know how they got past me! I'm still learning, and it's very helpful for me to see how you correct my gaffes; it's a great learning tool. Sorry for causing extra work for you, though. And how do you manage to correct things so fast? Amazing. --Cepstrum 15:04, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Practice. -- sulfur 15:07, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

The Yaeger "fix" II Edit

If you use a formatting template like {{USS}} inside the {{bginfo}} template, the resulting link "breaks" between the USS and whatever ship name was used, like so:

The USS Voyager did something....

The only work around I know is to "reset" the formatting manually around the template. We discussed this earlier this year, and both agreed the "fix" was less than desirable, but it does work. - Archduk3 15:13, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Something appears to have changed along the way, as the link no longer breaks up. -- sulfur 15:15, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Borg philosophy – Eddington's UFP-Borg philosophy comparison Edit

Dear Sulfur,

I know you prefer to not use the Borg philosophy's talk page and instead make helpful edits (with explanations) on the revision page. I added the part about Eddington's comparison of the UFP-Borg philosophy of "assimilation" based on the suggestion of Defiant, who's been exchanging dialogue with me on the talk page. He quoted Eddington's assertion, and I subsequently inserted a summary of it. I thought it was appropriate, for it did pertain to the philosophical aspect.

I think your moving the section was good (as are almost all of your very prudent edits!).

You questioned the possible POV of the section. I thought it was better to write it like that, for Eddington's assertion was controversial and represented not objective history but his own POV. (That's why I titled the section "alleged".)

Are you ok with it? I was excited to include it, for now we have references from all four Borg-containing series (plus FC).

If you are not satisfied with it, would you mind discussing why (in more detail) on the relevant section in the talk page? I'd be happy to incorporate changes you suggest and address your concerns; I just have trouble knowing how to improve it without more detail/discussion. :)

Sorry for asking you do to more work. I understand would likely can't spare the time to get involved. But I'd really like to include Eddington's assertions for completeness and because they relate directly to Borg philosophy (by way of contrasting/comparing them to that of the UFP's.)

Thanks much!

--Cepstrum 13:50, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Physician vs Dr. Edit

Moved to Memory Alpha talk:Disambiguation#Physician vs Dr....

Motion picture v motion-picture Edit

Quoting from you:

"Please note that while your grammar comment may be correct, "motion picture" is also correct, as it is the standard industry term (without the hyphen). As such, that is the term we use here on Memory Alpha."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but just to be clear: my friend, there's no "may be" about it. With adjectival phrases, hyphens are required in standard English usage.

You mention a contradictory "industry" standard. As someone who trains university-level writers for jobs in the US film industry, I disagree that this is accurate (and I'm unaware of any text defining entertainment-specific grammatical standards)—but the matter depends on how the term "standard" is defined. If by "standard" you mean "most common usage," then I'm sure you're right. That said, using frequency or popularity as the determining factor in deciding correctness is a slippery slope. For my part, when editing texts to be published (or submitted to agents) I always use the standards recommended by AMPAS, the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, etc.

That said, you've edited over 60,000 articles (incredible work!), whereas I've edited 31. You say the adjective is "motion picture" . . . from now on, like my fellow Andorian Shran, I'll just say "film"!


AmbassadorShras 10:15, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

The film industry (aka the "motion picture industry") doesn't seem to stick to using language guides (as I'm certain that you've noticed). Generally, we try to keep our language here correct and proper whenever possible, but we also use the common language used in the industry itself, because our guide is documenting part of that industry (along with small pieces of the novel, game, and comics industries), so there are certain places where we bow to "common" usages rather than grammatical correctness. As such, the "may be" construct above is correct too, because the movies just don't seem to use standard English!
Of course, the simple route is to reword and avoid those conflicting usages whenever possible as you noted! :) -- sulfur 10:27, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the discussion. Again quoting: "The film industry (aka the "motion picture industry") doesn't seem to stick to using language guides (as I'm certain that you've noticed)."
I've noticed the opposite! Sticking to the highest standards = a greater chance of getting (or keeping) a job. It's the same in showbiz as anywhere else.
You go on to say, "the movies just don't seem to use standard English!" Of course not. But professionals who write about them ("as a rule"? har har) stake their reputation on their ability to write at the highest level, and in accordance with such standards.
Using correct grammar isn't "bowing" to anything. Instead, using good grammar standards helps to ensure that, as writers and editors, we're communicating as best and as smoothly as possible.
Again, my thanks. Yeah, it's just a hyphen, but the question of when and where to use standards—and what those standards are—is significant.
AmbassadorShras 10:48, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

USS Reliant (NCC-74668) Edit

a created this page and when i came off it I wanted go back on and the search didn't bring up the result. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam.O.Rogers (talk • contribs).

It is non-canon. It doesn't belong here. See your talk page for further details. -- sulfur 16:00, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

"Extinction" article Edit


I cannot believe I actually made fairly significant additions to an article and you didn't come in and revert/undo my edits! What could this mean?

Please tell me: was the reason for this on your part (busy, tired, etc.), or did I finally did something somewhat satisfactory?! This would a first for me and a monumental cause for celebration (for me; not anyone else, that is). I very much hope it's the latter. But please tell me straight: have I come far enough along such that you don't always have to quickly "clean up" my ill-advised edits?! If so, I'm ^_^

Finally I'd feel like an actual useful contributor to MA instead of a bothersome nuisance that constantly needs you to step in and stop me from goofing things.

Either way, thank you for your patience. I admit my (highly fragile) low self-esteem sinks me when I look at a page's history and read your summaries that, while accurate, are a little tough to swallow.

Best regards,

--Cepstrum (talk) 17:17, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

PS I'm sure you'll find yourself cleaning up after me again soon, but I hope this is a step in the right direction for me (and for you – saving you trouble.)

Why do you keep removing my "howevers"? Edit

Hi Sulfur.

I've noticed you remove my "howevers" and call them (somewhat disdainfully) "lazy" words. They are not lazy but help add to the flow of the prose. I'm a linguistic hobbyist, and I've published many peer reviewed scholarly articles (and read hundreds). It is quite common, at least in encyclopedic, textbook, and scholarly verbal communication to highlight and break up a sentence with such a word. I guess I write from a different perspective, and you're free to keep removing my "howevers", even though I believe they are helpful to the prose in certain cases.

Does MA have a policy against "however"? Do you have citations indicating it's a "lazy" word? If it is, then the vast majority of acclaimed English literature is replete with such laziness, in addition to scholarly works.

Or is this just a personal idiomatic stylistic preference you have? I'll be glad to cease using them (even when, IMO, they are effective verbal devices). Otherwise, I guess I don't understand why you take mine out summarily and refer to the word pejoratively as "lazy".

Of course, as with other devices, it can be over-used, and it is somewhat tiring to read them when they begin a sentence or end up being misused. I don't believe, however, I have been doing that  ;) ^_^

I will say I have and expect to continue to be quite thankful for your willingness to patrol my edits and fix them as needed (and with such swiftness!).

Thanks for looking after me. Best regards, --Cepstrum (talk) 12:42, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

When you have an average of 3 "however"s per article on Memory Alpha, and almost 50% of the articles do not contain the word, and about half of the others are poorly used (ie, they are simply used mid-sentence to break something up), then yes, they are "lazy" words. The written word does not need to be broken up the same way that speech does, and in an encyclopedic format, the over-reliance on the word to simply break up sentences is not at all required. Yes, sometimes the word is useful and can be used (as long as it is properly and appropriately), however, most of the time that is not the case.
Some people, however, just like to break up sentences, however, this is not always the correct way to do it. :) -- sulfur 12:47, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't realize the article already contained three "howevers" (I didn't write it). I certainly agree using it over-much is quite bad, for it can slow things down and actually make the prose a chore to read. Still, I hope we don't throw out "however" when it's used properly just because some use it poorly on other articles! The fact that an editor or editors use it inappropriately is not a logical reason to eliminate summarily. We should examine it on a case-by-case basis, no?

Oh well. I'm as usual happy to defer to you and am just glad you're here for me. :)

--Cepstrum (talk) 14:08, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

PS Note: the way you used "however" is incorrect: you used it as a conjunction (it's not). You can't use it to split two complete phrases. You'd need a semicolon, period, or an and, but, yet, for, or etc. And I'd never use it twice in a sentence and tend to avoid its use in a paragraph more than once (or several of them in a row). Words such as "rather", eg, can substitute. :)

Note: I was using "however" like it is used in 95% of the articles on MA. -- sulfur 14:15, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I finally see your point. I can see why that'd bother you. (It would very much bother me, too.) So one final – ? :) – question: would you be ok leaving in at least some of mine, which I use very carefully and believe them to improve the prose? If not, and you're just plain tired of seeing that word because so many have sullied/abused it, then I understand. I hope you extend me slack, but if it's your policy, I'll try to abide by it and won't bother you about it again (I hope!). ^_^

(please say "yes"! .... no, just kidding. It's your policy, and I'll of course defer to you. (Note: I'm neither now using nor do I employ sarcasm. I really am sincere here. I'll let you make the call. I just am, of course, trying to advocate for me!)

Best regards Sulfur (and thanks for clarifying things), --Cepstrum (talk) 15:58, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the need to use "however", once you've put it in, and see if there is a better way of wording it to avoid the usage. If you cannot come up with a better way, leave it. If you can, then use that instead. -- sulfur 16:00, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Got it. One last question, if you'll indulge me :)

If I truly believe it makes the prose flow the best and is appropriate, and you've already removed it, is it ok for me to re-add it? I don't want to look like I'm in an edit war (especially over a sentence structure!). What about if you or I put the offending phrase on the talk page and let me throw out some alternatives. If I can't rework it satisfactorily, we could leave it in. I don't know what I'm asking here: is that too much for you to do? Could you extend a "special dispensation" to me about "however" now that I am aware of its over-use and you know that I use it appropriately and sparingly? It would be really nice if you could, when you see me use "however", to put the phrase on the talk page and give me a chance to defend its usage instead of summarily deleting it (because no matter how much I believe it enhances the prose and my vast experience writing and publishing peer-reviewed scholarly articles, I won't re-add it – I don't want to undo an edit you just made!).

I could be asking too much: I don't know. If it helps, I could begin "patrolling" for the all-too-common misuses of it and help you remove them. :) (I, too, hate seeing it misused, especially at the beginning of sentences or worse, when people use the word as a conjunction! Or just plain too many times close together, such as in the same paragraph or in the span of a few adjoining paragraphs. I agree: they're often unnecessary and make things cumbersome. But the word does have utility and is sometimes simply the cleanest and clearest way to communicate an idea verbally.)

I eagerly await your response. And again, I apologize for being a pest/nuisance about this. Sulfur, you are one (if not the) best admins here. I don't want to incur your enmity; I'm afraid I'm already doing that. Please accept my sincerest apologies. I'm going through a very tough time right now: five ER visits and an extended stay in the hospital over the past 15--20 days. I'm in incredible pain, essentially confined to bed, and over the past month I've learned I'm suffering from many life-threatening and life-altering conditions. My body (and mind) is in really bad shape. I doubt you're interested to hear (probably TMI for you), but I'll at least say from my brain to rectum, just about everything is failing. Pulmonary emboli, possibly permanent catheterization, heart trouble, kidneys, colon, bladder, prostate, possibly cancerous growths, and a lot more. (That's why I can only use an iPod touch to access the Internet.) And I'm just learning this all of a sudden. So please bear with me. I really need you on my side as I try to learn to be a useful contributor to MA. Thanks. (Sorry for the TMI!)

--Cepstrum (talk) 17:33, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Voyager Disambiguation Edit

I have no idea how that happened; I didn't edit that page, nor had I looked at it until I saw "my" edit in Recent Changes...– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:53, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Prolly hit "rollback" by accident I'm guessing. No worries. Hopefully all fixed up better now, though I'm still not happy with the wording on the starship yet. -- sulfur 23:58, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems possible. Sorry about that. :-)– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:09, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page Edit

Hi, Sulfur.

You left an admonishing piece of advice regarding my behavior on article talk pages on my talk page. I responded to you there. I'm just writing this here to let you know, because I get confused about whether I'm supposed to respond there or here.

Which is the correct place – especially considering your "warning" that you'll keep your responses confined to your talk page! ;)

--Cepstrum (talk) 12:55, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

PS btw, thanks for bothering to take time to point out my rather obscure errors. It's obvious you care a great deal both about MA and my own development as a contributor. Sure, I'd prefer nothing but praise and accolades. But I recognize that with your frequent corrective (and constructive) criticism of me, you're actually indirectly demonstrating you care. I'm not vandalizing or doing really bad things, so I can only conclude that by you pointing out (all too frequently, unfortunately) my gaffes/errors, you're investing in me (and MA) – "tough love". (Though I'd be thrilled if you ever got the opportunity to genuinely offer mere praise, no matter how small. But I guess I've just not warranted any so far. I'll keep trying, though!) --Cepstrum (talk) 12:55, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation/input/advice Edit


I need your swift help. Here's my problem: yesterday, as I mentioned on the article's talk page, I put an "in use" tag on the USS Voyager article so I could offline make desperately-needed copy edits, fixes to improper linking (redirects instead of piped), etc. DistantlyCharmed left a message on my talk page, saying I should not use the "in use" tag because I was only copy editing and not making substantial content changes (though I am making significant alterations to the grammar and over-long, awkward prose, along with a few factual corrections.)

My fear is that without the "in use" tag and "freezing" the article for a few more hours, someone might come along and make edits that will be lost when I upload my cleaned-up version.

I responded on DistantlyCharmed's talk page. (Update: Distantlycharmed moved the discussion back to to my talk page, here, and seems cautiously open to the use of the tag.) Still, I would really appreciate it if you could weigh in there to settle this matter, for I'm not sure who is correct. I want to do the right thing, and I'm very confident you will know what that is!

Could you please help? Even just a short clarifying note would be great. But I know you're busy handling so many things/putting out fires. :)

Thanks much.

Best regards,

--Cepstrum (talk) 18:44, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

PS My apologies if I'm in error by asking you to mediate. I wasn't sure what to do, and you are speedy and know so much!

Cepstrum, you need to seriously relax and stop being so scared and jumpy and apologetic all the time. No one was chastising you or forbidding you from doing anything. With all due respect but you spend entirely too much time writing lengthy essays and apologies instead of just editing. I responded on your talk page and to make it clear, I never said you *should not* put that "notice" up there, I merely said you might not need to given what you do. Sorry sulfur for using your talk page - since Cepstrum posted here, I had to respond here. – Distantlycharmed 19:08, November 8, 2010 (UTC)


Your assessment is correct. I will finish what I began on the USS Voyager article, then cease participating as an editor on MA (see my explanation for more info.


I apologize for trying to solicit your help/advice. I know Distantlycharmed already apologized on my behalf, but I felt I should as well. As I explained on my talk page (see above link) and mentioned above, I'll discontinue being an active editor. It's clear I've been principally causing you and a few other admins (such as Cid) nuisances. Now that it's extended into making things difficult for non-admins, it's obvious what I must do.

Best regards and thank you very much for all the patience and help you've extended to me.

--Cepstrum (talk) 20:12, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

DC, you are hardly in a position to criticize others for writing lengthy essays, which you do frequently.
Cepstrum, I would not take suggestions that are being given to you as an indication of being a nuisance or an undesireable editor. You seem willing to correct yourself, and as long as you are I don't think too many people will be bothered by it. I would rather people ask the question than blunder their way through MA. DC was only trying to assist you, and although I would have gone about it it a different way, she is right. The In Use template is intended for major rewrites of articles and not grammatical corrections or minor changes that do not require extensive work.--31dot 20:37, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute 31dot, you are way out of line here. My posts, lengthy or not, are on the subject-matter at hand, not drawn-out apologies and personal observations and anecdotes of any kind underlying insecurities. Dont even go there, comparing the length and nature of my posts to that of Cepstrum's. Cepstrum, I am sorry, I dont mean any offense. I do sympathize with your current health situation and I dont mean to offend you, but I think you need to make it a point of not being so paranoid about your editing here on MA. This conversation shouldnt even be on sulfur's talk page, but I wouldnt know where to move it since it was started here. Anyway, all the best to you, I do really hope you get better and stop putting yourself down thinking you are not worth it or that you cannot be a valuable contributor. That's not true. Cheers. – Distantlycharmed 20:53, November 8, 2010 (UTC)


(I had to write one more "essay" to help explain things. I'll stop after this.)

I regret responding on poor Sulfur's talk page, but at least this time I have a quasi-valid reason (he left me a message on the article in question's talk page. Please see here for my status report on the article and Sulfur's quick response, pointing out yet another error of mine.)

See, DistantlyCharmed (and others)? I am constantly messing up. I had thought that by this time I would be through with making such rudimentary errors/gaffes; clearly I'm not. You called me, among other things, "paranoid". I don't think that's quite accurate. Paranoia is a condition in which the person falsely believes others are out to do something to him/herself, particularly for some nefarious or unwarranted reason. That's not happening to me: I actually am constantly blundering, and Sulfur, who just happens to be the fastest guy to notice ill-advised/incorrect edits on MA, must follow me around, protecting this wiki from the harm I would inflict. It mayappear (or feel) as though he's "stalking/harassing" me, but he is not: his continual (and speedy) reverts and reprimands are an artifact of my poor judgment and his (commendable) indefatigable and rapid vigilance.

So DistantlyCharmed, 31dot, (and) Sulfur, as I explained on my talk page, I think there's no reason for me to continue editing. I just end up making errors, and when I try to apologize, it backfires, earning me the enmity of admins, and now, a regular editor (DC).

I would appreciate more feedback/tips/help, but unless someone has a compelling reason why I should continue trying to edit here and keep causing grief, I think it'd be best if quit. (I'm sure the overworked Sulfur would be relieved :) ).

And I agree: please move the discussion (or start a new one) on my talk page – I'd welcome feedback. But I think Sulfur's suffered enough!

I know this won't help, but I again offer my sincerest apologies. My loquacious "apologetic essays" are clearly wearisome to all.

Best regards,

--Cepstrum (talk) 15:00, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

PS To 31dot: I believe the "in use" tag is very-much needed, for I actually am making rather significant edits to the entire article, not mere simple typos/grammar changes. I'm not, however, going to unilaterally make content changes, which is why I initially called it "copy editing". I'm leaving that up to the others who worked so hard on it. But I need to be able to edit a "frozen" copy and then upload it (which I plan doing today).

The forums Edit

...are showing that they have never been edited, with zero active pages. Is this just me, did something happen in the last few days that I missed? - Archduk3 13:52, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they're merging the Forum: namespaces that we have. At least, I hope that's the issue, since all of the forum pages have vanished entirely, but still show up in categories... I've sent in a bug inquiry on the matter. -- sulfur 14:19, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I was in talk with Wikia people yesterday, regarding a Forum: problem unrelated to this. When our duplicate Forum: namespaces came up in that discussion, I suggested that ours might as well be moved to the Wikia-wide Forum: namespace. Doing this may be what caused the problems described (hopefully temporarily?). If it will eventually be worked out, we will then benefit from some Wikia-wide policies like anons not being able to create pages in "Forum talk:". -- Cid Highwind 17:26, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
Currently, ns-110 has been renamed to Forum2:, and ns-100 is Forum:, so I would guess that they're preparing to shove one into the other, so we may see broken forums again, however briefly. -- sulfur 18:07, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me Edit


Thanks much for fixing the sidebar and image bugs I accidentally introduced when I uploaded my first round of changes to the USS Voyager article. I was very afraid someone would see those glaring problems and revert everything. Because of your fixes, others can now judge the content of my rewrite based on its merits rather than on those dumb bugs I somehow introduced.

You really saved me! I hope you feel the gratitude/praise you deserve. Words are inadequate. :)

--Cepstrum (talk) 14:11, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Article size (bytes)? Edit


You seem to know just about everything and have shown a willingness to help correct my technical (not just edit content) errors. I have two questions for you, if you'll indulge me.

I'm wondering:

  1. Do you know how to check the size (in bytes) of an article? I'm trying to rid a large article of superfluous text, but I don't know how to check whether I'm making a difference.
  2. I've already forgotten the second question. Rats. Why do some pages have a link that says "view source"? Is that an option for a user, or is it automatic for certain types of pages? I really like it, for it helps me see the wiki code without clicking "edit article".

--Cepstrum (talk) 15:52, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

  1. Look in the history. Top line, right after the contributor. That'll tell you the size in bytes.
  2. "View source" means that the page is protected and you are not allowed to edit it. -- sulfur 15:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Nit picking... Edit

I disagree with your judgment of "Nit picking" by pointing out of a glaring continuity error in Charlie X (Kirks magical uniform change on the way to the bridge). "Nit picking" would be pointing out something that is ones own personal opinion, not an obvious continuity error. Your seriously crossing the line between good editing and damage control, to one of a "Nit picking","control freak". The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tibletcat (talk • contribs).

Please note that this is a decision that the community has taken at large. MA is not here to describe continuity errors, nit picks, or anything that might require the classic Marvel Comics "No-prize" for explaining. And please take care not to even approach any personal attacks. Thank you. -- sulfur 18:17, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

I am sure remember reading about the broken railing on the bridge in "The city on the edge of forever" and the busted wall in "Charlie x". Surely the continuity error i pointed out is along those (nit-picking) lines. Tibletcat 17:44, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

pomp·ous Edit

pomp·ous/ˈpämpəs/Adjective 1. Affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.

This is all I see on this page, which to me is in itself an "attack", though more of a passive aggressive one. I've even noticed people trying to "out pompous" each other, but back down as they walk the thin line of "personal attack" that they may regret to the extent of not being able to post here again.

Then looked up the properties of SULFER, and it became quite clear to me then.

"The smell commonly associated with sulfur is not due to the elemental sulfur, but to other sulfur compounds that have formed. For instance, hydrogen sulfide, H2S, is a poisonous gas that gives off the smell of ROTTEN EGGS. Small amounts of it are formed as humidity in the air causes oxidation of sulfur. One of its sources is SEWAGE, and it occasionally proves fatal to writers. The sulfur dioxide formed from burning sulfur smells like burned matches."

I understand it all now. (although I may be slightly narcissistic, come to find out)

Tibletcat 17:10, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Instead of criticizing the messenger, you could instead attempt to persuade Sulfur(and the rest of us who helped formulate that policy) about the merits of including your nitpick in the article. It is not "pompous" to simply point out a community decision.--31dot 17:17, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Well as a general observation 31dot, I noticed that people are not very open to changing policy around here. I have noticed the nit pick thing be suggested by others (including me) before and everytime such discussions were successfully thrown out of the window, dismissed or ignored. I am not saying sulfur did, I am just saying there is a general trend here that I want to point out. Otherwise, I dont find anything wrong with what sulfur did, which is point out the policy as it exists to another user. – Distantlycharmed 17:28, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
This person did not discuss changing policy- they criticized the messenger with a thinly veiled insult. I'm all for discussing changes to policies- when the arguments presented are new and different, not restating the same arguments that were used before. In this case, it didn't even get that far, because the user chose to be critical and not persuasive.--31dot 17:56, November 14, 2010 (UTC)


(I hope this isn't inappropriate; I'm still unskilled at MA, despite reading the guidelines and help pages.)

On the USS Voyager talk page, you doubtless saw the – appropriate – reprimands I received for my posts that fueled an (inadvertent) debate with Distantlycharmed. I made a huge mess. I am sorry. I'm such an idiot.

I've (justly) earned the enmity of three admins I greatly respect – Cid, OuroborosCobra, 31dot – as well as a fellow editor, DC. Frustratingly, I've become the archetypical editor I intended not to be! (I wanted just to have fun cooperating here, not mess things.) :(

(I know this doesn't directly concern you, but given your swiftness, command of all things MA, and participation in editing the page itself, I am hoping you'd you be willing to help me: I'm desperate: how can I ever get on good terms again? Or is it too late?)

Perhaps it would be best for everyone if I were blocked or banned. And/or have all the mayhem moved to my talk page. I might be in error even posting here, soliciting your advice. I just don't know. If you are willing, can you aid me or point me to whom or where I should go for assistance? In the meantime, I'm apologizing and appealing to all (leaving similar mea culpas to the others.)

(Note: Please feel free to delete this or remove it to my talk page.)

--Cepstrum (talk) 15:11, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Again... Edit

Hello. I was distressed and kind of upset to see when you edited a page I created yesterday, Harry Doc Kloor, you said "Please learn how to use apostrophes correctly" in regard to a mistake I made. I can assure you I do know how to use apostrophes correctly, thanks. I made one small mistake and you felt the need to reply like that, given how hard I worked to get as much information as possible on that page? You also wrote a rather unkind message on a page I contributed to last year, dizziness, another article I also worked hard on. I don't know, maybe after three and a half years of contributing here, I think I might move on to another Wiki. Thanks once again for your kind words! --Delta2373 08:20, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Instead of repeatedly seeming patronizing, sulfur, you might want to check out the user's edit history, rather than telling off veterans of MA as if we're newbies! It's just a suggestion. --Defiant 11:14, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
I've seen the edit history, and I've seen the edits as they happen. One of the most common errors on MA (as you both should know, with your histories and all) is poorly used apostrophes. Therefore, when seen, they get eradicated and corrected with comments that sometimes get a little snarky.
Delta2373 -- You've added some good information, but I would like to suggest (something that I am prone to failing with too) is to double check your edits after you submit them. Give them a once-over, chances are good that you will catch format errors, typos, and so forth. -- sulfur 14:43, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
Im sorry but sometimes you are just very unfriendly sulfur or it comes across as that. Insulting someone backhandedly when you fix their edits and call the edits "terrible", "awful" or say "learn how to..." or saying something like "just dont ever do that again, ever" is very disheartening. I often try to not take it personal but when I read the apostrophe comment yesterday I can see how Delta might be upset. I hope you will take this the way it was intended. Sometimes people need a little cream to go with their bitter coffee. – Distantlycharmed 17:42, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The edit summaries shouldn't contain anything "snarky", sulfur; just do what their name implies – summarize your own edits. If you wish to address users, that's what talk pages are for! I understand there's often general problems with use of punctuation (such as commas) and I agree with that point you made. But in this particular case, there doesn't seem to have been much reason for you to summarize your edit with a very general remark aimed directly at Delta2373 when all you did was change a single use of a comma. That seems a bit heavy-handed. --Defiant 17:57, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. (P.S., DC, learn to use apostrophes correctly. Come on...). -Angry Future Romulan 18:00, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
It's nice to see that someone has taken over for Alan. --bp 19:44, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Note about my long-winded posts Edit


Thanks to advice from Cid, I'm going to try to severely condense any of my ridiculously long posts I come across (while making a note and linking to the original post for easy access). I was going to do that to my posts on your page but saw you already archived them. Thus, I just wanted to let you know I've learned my lesson: expect to no longer see any new long-winded posts from me!

Thanks for your patience. --Cepstrum (talk) 13:16, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Guideline questions: multiple edits, minor edits Edit


I'm not sure where these two questions fall in the MA:Guidelines. Could you help me out? (I don't wish to cause harm!)

  1. When making edits to my sub-pages (eg, my "Tips" page) that aren't large and wouldn't be of concern to others but probably exceed the letter of the "minor edit" rule – viz., more than a typo/grammar/link/etc. fix – is it ok to mark the edit as minor? I don't want to clutter the recent changes list (though if someone is ignoring the "User" namespace, it wouldn't appear anyway.)
  2. How bad is it to make multiple edits of one of my sub-pages? I'm thinking mainly of editing my wikiaphone CSS page. I'm just learning CSS markup, and I have to keep tweaking it to see what affects what. I realize that that harms the database, for it saves every copy I make, using up space. But I don't know how else I can achieve success, for no one seems to be able to supply me with a guide or reference sheet of what each property is for. (This is particularly hard for me as a mobile user, as well as the fact that MA's colors are rather unusual vis-á-vis other Wikias.) Is it permissible for me to try to continue tweaking often? (I still can't figure out how to change the image captions from very light, nearly white text on a white background.) Or can you recommend someone here who might be able/willing to assist me? The Wikia staff and posters have been of no help (no one seems to care about the mobile CSS). I appreciated the link you gave me to the forum about link colors, but my issues run deeper than that (changing link colors is one of the few things I can do, though it's still largely guesswork – just look at the page's haphazard layout or history!) It seems a few people around here know a lot about both MA and CSS: perhaps Bp, Archduk3, Sannse, Cid, the "Concealer Guy" (forgot name), or another would be willing to help. I don't know whom to ask. You're an admin and a bureaucrat, so I'd defer to your judgment.

Maybe you can recommend a MediaWikia-specific CSS documentation sheet. I don't know. (And sorry for wasting bytes on your talk page; it was hard for me to condense these questions! Is there an alternative way to communicate, such as a private message/email system to circumvent both the public nature of this medium as well as its load on the server?)


--Cepstrum (talk) 13:59, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Mark edits as minor whenever they're not major. That applies to your personal pages, unless the edit is a total overhaul.
In terms of editing personal CSS, it's understandable that there may be a large number of edits. Best to mark those as CSS. The big issue with the CSS on Wikia is that with each new skin, a lot of the variables (and such) change, which means that time has to be taken to (and edits) to the stylesheets to get things working correctly.
The big problem with the mobile CSS is that very few people use mobile access all the time, and thus it takes a fair bit of time to figure out what all of the settings are. If there were good sites online that allowed standard desktop browsers to view sites as if they were mobile browsers, it would be a lot easier for us to help you, rather than let you figure it all out, and then eventually take your skin changes and put them in for all MA users. :) -- sulfur 14:08, November 27, 2010 (UTC)


Thanks. I get the minor editing stuff. And I almost always put "CSS testing" or something similar when editing my wikiaphone.css page. Too bad about the mobile CSS problems. (I don't even have a working computer anyway!) I'd like to learn enough to be able to help. I know LaTeX well, Matlab very well, and have programmed in Java, C, VHDL, and Assembly. It seems like I should be able to pick up CSS/HTML/MediaWikia (I know TWiki well, too). I just don't know where to start or how CSS and Wikia work together. Do you know of anyone here I could talk to about learning enough of how the two work together so I could assist with mobile skin issues? I guess it's not too important for me, for I've got things looking/working satisfactorily for myself. It depends on how interested MA is in making things better for mobile users. (There are still some annoying issues I've not fixed.)

Oh well. Thanks for taking time to help me. Perhaps I should focus what (little) energy my broken body possesses to improving articles (or trying to!).

--Cepstrum (talk) 19:07, November 27, 2010 (UTC)


Sulfur, I just created a redirect page and you deleted it? I sometimes don't understand why you delete pages or images when they help this wiki. -Jmanyc 20:45, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

We do not use redirects for things with title and last name. It's especially bad in the case of "Janeway", where we saw two "Captain Janeway" characters in Trek. -- sulfur 20:47, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
True, Thanks.- Jmanyc 20:53, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

Thank you sulfur for helping me with posting. Is there any particular areas that need more information? Please respond. Although I have not contributed much to this wiki, I have followed Star Trek my entire life.

-- Jmanyc 20:52, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Best place to start might be to go to the recent changes page, and look at the "wanted articles" thing at the top. Just make sure that when you're creating articles (or uploading images) that you adhere to the style manuals that we use here at Memory Alpha. You'll see the changes I made to your image upload to correct the format and layout. -- sulfur 21:01, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
"Screenshots should be .JPGs!" yells the crazy man in the corner. If you confront this man, turn to page 117. If you walk away, turn to page 47. If you do nothing, read this page again. - Archduk3 21:13, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Pineapple thing Edit

Just want to say thank you for moving my image of a pineapple after I made those two oh so embarrassing mistakes in its name. I was just about to ask you if you could move it (couldn't figure out how to do it myself), but knowing how supernaturally fast you tend to work, I had a hunch and hit your contributions tab instead. And indeed, you had fixed it already, and placed it on the page I wanted to place it on. It's undeniable proof that you're awesome! -- Capricorn 19:14, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Non-admins cannot move images (for varying logical reasons), and when I saw what had happened and your spelling correction edit, I figured that's what you were aiming for. Even if you'd put it onto the page, I would've fixed the filename and then fixed the article too. Only makes sense to be somewhat vaguely grammatically correct around here after all! :) -- sulfur 19:24, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing; I've seen you correct my edits on talk pages a number of times, with the description "fix indents". But frankly I don't see how that makes a difference - from which I can only conclude that there's some guideline which I'm unaware of. I've looked at our help and policy pages, but I haven't found anything on it. Could you perhaps enlighten me on how to do it right myself? -- Capricorn 11:33, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Help:Talk page should cover it for you. In short -- when you are in a conversation, your indenting is always at the same level whenever you respond. :) -- sulfur 12:13, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, can't believe I didn't pick up on that before. -- Capricorn 17:20, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry @ black hole Edit

Sorry, I did not want to sabotage your work. Apart from small details, I did not want to revert to the whole state, as it has generated User:Blair2009. I want to trigger an edit war. Therefore, I have put my Revert back for the most part. To me it was all about small details in the formulation. --Mark McWire 16:35, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

You want to trigger an edit war? If that's the case, then as a concerned editor I'm going to have to ask you to STOP, step back, get some perspective and familiarize yourself with our policies. You will not win this by making it an edit war. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I think that user's first language is German(as he edits the German MA) so he might have meant to say "I do not want".--31dot 20:18, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I think an edit war would be more like total reversions. For my part, I'm perfectly happy to leave the reference in, but I went in and reworded it a bit, and removed some info I though was not relevant to the article. I didn't mean to imply that all of your edits were inappropriate. It just seemed to me that two refs to the spacetime tunnel was redundant. -Angry Future Romulan 20:21, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ups... I want not .. I've probably forgotten a word. Such errors while passing through me as well as in the native language. If I'm upset, I often make spelling mistakes. --Mark McWire 21:00, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

OK, no big deal then. We all make mistakes and with English not being your native language, that's completely forgivable. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:05, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

I initially had the change from Blair2009 reversed, because he threw my sentence out, but then my Revert reversed so as not to trigger a Editwar. I have thus inadvertently made the change back from sulfur and I wanted to apologize. --Mark McWire 21:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Read more? Edit

What's with this Read more crap appended to the end of all the pages? It looks horrible. I think my head's gonna explode... :( -- Renegade54 16:48, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Related to this. -- sulfur 16:50, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

The question of totalitarianism Edit

I notice when I edited Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Brezhnev pages that my edit of dictator was changed back to leader and mention of the Holocaust, gulag, and laogai(China's equivalent to the gulag) were dropped. Some argue such events are not mentioned in Star Trek and ergo not relevant. But a rabbi connects the destruction of the Vulcan world to the Holocaust. Memory Alpha even entry named "Dictator" with Hitler,Stalin, Saddam, and Castro listed. I also notice the term gulag was referenced in Star Trek VI in reference to Rura Penthe, the blizzard prison camp Kirk and McCoy are sent to. Thoughts? Again, thanks for welcoming me to Memory Alpha Sulfur and everyone! --AbrahamKirk 20:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

9.975 Edit

Please defend the damage you've caused by this edit war and Cid's page locking, if you can even understand the concept of not taking evidence on faith in an encyclopedia. You could've just left the page at my version until you could find counter-arguments, but you didn't - you reverted, I had to act in the interests of accuracy, and this is what happened. – 1312.4 23:57, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Madkiller12345. talk page edit Edit

Sorry I did not know as I am a new user, what should I do if I find rude words on a talk page– Madkiller12345 13:28, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

First off, "crap" is not a rude word. Second, leave it. Third, read Help:Talk page. -- sulfur 14:02, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

The Defiant Edit

That datestatus trick should have worked. Is something wrong on wikia's end again, or am I incorrect about that. Also, sorry for leaving it, I got distracted by my talk page. - Archduk3 02:21, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

NP, it should (logically) work, but there's something failing there, and I'm not sure what. I think that we'll have to redo the way that the links work in there, likely move them into the template call itself. I'm too tired to try to figure that out tonight, but will look at it in the morning. There are other places where this may fall flat, including some of the comics and novels sidebars. The method is a bit of a cheat anyhow.
The one benefit of that problem was that I was able to fix the caption problems in the template. -- sulfur 02:25, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that captions fix, though I would still like to know why it suddenly became a problem. Just more stuff on the to do list. I think I may have used a similar cheat on a few of the disambiguation links, inserting a {{!}} to change the display format of a ship link. I'll check to see if there's a problem with them now too. That was something my crazy disambig template was suppose to fix. - Archduk3 02:31, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

The other trick still seems to still be working fine, so no problem there, beyond the whole use of that trick in the first place. - Archduk3 02:43, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

What is it you guys are trying to do, show two different status' and their dates in the similar vain as to how it normally goes with only one status?--Terran Officer 07:51, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
Discussion about any new "template tricks" should be on the talk page for that template - and for what it's worth, the template had been deliberately designed without an IF for the datestatus. Any ship sidebar that has a status must also mention the date for the status. -- Cid Highwind 10:25, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a final discussion will be on the talk page. Short term answer though, using this construct:
datestatus = Blah]] [[date
Broke the entire sidebar template. We needed a short-term solution. I was too tired (at the time) to figure out more than just that and planned to put together a discussion in the morning when I was slightly more coherent. :) -- sulfur 11:08, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah - even the Mediawiki parser understands that this is crazy, and fails! ;) A simple attribute/value structure should not be misused to become an attribute/value,another-attribute,value-for-that-other-attribute structure. We should either create a new attribute for that or, seeing how it is just used once and we've already discussed replacing sidebar information with an in-page link if the information becomes too complex elsewhere, preferably not attempt it at all. -- Cid Highwind 11:21, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


This shows what I get for not checking recent changes, I see that the double caption is somewhat known by now, hmm... Anyway I just had a slight thought that maybe those lines, as they're all meant to be coded the same, could perhaps, somehow, if not to much work to figure out get turned into a template? I mean, obviously, we don't want every tiny little thing to be templates but it seems that yet again, the images part of the sidebars need yet another tweak... anyway, sorry about having made a post on a template discussion page when you were already working on the issue. --Terran Officer 07:51, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Stop the personal comments! Edit

Sulfur, please stop putting personal comments in the edit summaries; I noticed you did this for the Kadan article, but it's inappropriate, as you've been told. --Defiant 17:28, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

When the user has been previously told by 3-4 other people about the same thing, it is not inappropriate to add it to the edit history. When it's a one-off thing, then it's potentially inappropriate. If it's a common thing that people do (which the one in the Kadan article is), then it's not a personal comment. It's very general. -- sulfur 18:59, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Common or not, that's irrelevant: it is a personal thing, as it's meant for most people but not all. Yes, it's broad-based, but it's still "personal" to those persons it does apply to, as it doesn't apply to everyone. I'm not interested in your excuses nor your arguments; I don't want to keep reading advice that's commonly not meant for me even though it's in the recent changes and, as you've been told before, edit summaries should be exclusively about what you do and the change(s) you make, not about anyone else! Remember that and you'll be fine. --Defiant 19:18, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

What does this "layout warning" box mean? Edit


You're usually on top of things, so I thought you'd know about this. On certain user pages, I see a box that says: (text reproduced here w/out proper formatting; I didn't know how to reproduce the box message, so I just threw it in a crudely-designed table.)

Strange Message:
Recommended Layout
You are currently viewing Memory Alpha without recommended changes to the standard layout. To apply these changes, please click on the following Apply link - to just get rid of this notice, click on Reject. In either case, click Save page on the page that follows.
Apply - Reject

What does this mean? Does it have to do with importing the Concealer CSS into my skin? (I'm using modified monobook, not Wikia; do I still need to import the Concealer into my monobook, too?) Or does it have to do with that user's skin? (I've only seen it on user pages.) I don't know whether to click "apply" or "reject", for I don't know what either will do, and I don't want to mess up anything. (Though if it's something helpful, I'd want to apply it.)

Could you help me out?

Thanks. --Cepstrum (talk) 13:36, December 21, 2010 (UTC)


Regardless, do you think you could alter the message (or ask the one responsible for it) to make the text clearer? As it is, it's unclear whether it's referring to the particular user on whose user page it appears or me. Also, it's not clear what it will do (I suspect it adds the "import Concealer CSS" line into the user's Wikia skin, but I don't know if it will erase everything else or if it affects monobook users – which Wikia forces mobile editors to use. And does it mean the Wikia skin + Concealer is the recommended layout?)

You can ignore it. It is supposed to kick in only on user talk pages that have not applied it as yet. It doesn't always work quite as advertised, especially with other skins. I'll talk to Cid, and we'll try to get the message appearing only when it should, but no promises. -- sulfur 13:38, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Cepstrum (talk) 14:47, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

value of comic Edit

I have a comic book star trek 1973 volume 3 issue 18-26 The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monte1988 (talk • contribs).

The old Gold Key/Whitman Enterprise Log 3 book? Or the individual issues? It's not worth too much -- my guess would be under $10US for the collection. -- sulfur 12:25, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Red Shirt Edit

I noticed that the loss of entire crews such as in The Doomsday Machine and The Ultimate Computer are not discussed in the context of redshirt deaths. Any reason? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I would guess that it is because those crew deaths included others besides redshirts. The redshirt thing is pointed at just redshirt deaths as the only deaths that generally occur. -- sulfur 13:58, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Searching for POV words Edit

Hi, Sulfur.

I've been trying to be more productive around here. One thing I've noticed in several articles is a POV tone that doesn't allow the reader to reach his/her own conclusion about, eg, the quality of an outcome. A bit of what I mean is this: in episode summaries, there is often a leading "Unfortunately, ....", which forces the reader to accept that the following statement/outcome was/is unfortunate (unfortunate for whom? A certain character/faction? The viewer? etc.). I'd like to be able to track down words like that to see if they're justified and if not, reword the offending sentences. But I haven't been able to figure out how to search (even using the "advanced search") for those keywords. Is it easily possible? Furthermore, is my goal even one you (or MA in general, according to policy) would like effected?

I should double-check the MOS, but I can't recall anything about this sort of thing. And am I correct asking you, or would you prefer I ask another (such as Cid)?


Cepstrum (talk) 22:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Blonde Romulan Edit

Hey thanks – you changed it quickly and appropriately!

Just another "routine" job (swiftly) well-done by Sulfur.

Cepstrum (talk) 14:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

irc Edit

when you have a minute could you pop on to irc? — Morder (talk) 13:39, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

heh, damn...well - hopefully i'll see you online in about 3-4 hours - otherwise it will have to wait until sunday - or you can chat with cid... — Morder (talk) 13:57, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry -- out of town until Monday afternoon. Minimal access until then. -- sulfur 13:25, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki