Memory Alpha


21,431 Edits since joining this wiki
October 13, 2009
Gral and Shran call a truce


Welcome to Memory Alpha, Throwback! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thanks for your edit to the Gilliam page! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

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

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha! -- Cleanse (Talk) 06:36, 13 October 2009

The above named user is the most currently available administrator to contribute to Memory Alpha; their signature was automatically added by User:Wikia. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, you may contact that user through their talk page.

Blu-ray Edit

Tell me, how can you be citing the blu-ray copy as a reference for your contributions when it is not due to be released until November 16 or 17?--31dot 11:04, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Images have been released online. See – Throwback 11:06, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

And where did they get them? Given the volume that they possess I'm forced to wonder if they have some sort of illegal copy.--31dot 11:26, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

So long as none of the images are uploaded to this site, I don't see a problem with using the pics there to add information to MA. Whether or not the images on that site are illegal, they are still high-quality pics from the film so there's no reason why we can't use them. If it was in the movie, it's fair game, it doesn't matter where or when the details were uncovered. --From Andoria with Love 11:42, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but we still need to make sure that the information really is from the movie, and not just some speculative extrapolation based on that information (for example, see my comment at Talk:Hangar 1). Also, if articles are changed based on some screenshot, it would be nice to at least link to that screenshot from the article's talk page, so that others can check its validity without having to go through 5000+ images. -- Cid Highwind 11:49, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
Really, I think we should just be patient and wait until we can post the screenshots here. We're talking another month. — Morder (talk) 12:54, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Closed Caps Edit

Please keep in mind that the closed captioning is an extremely unreliable source of information, as it is often based on very early scripts or otherwise subjected to changes from the final film. It would be nice if your new information had other sources besides the CC.--31dot 02:37, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Article namesEdit

Please name articles as per the naming conventions already chosen. For example, your "Armstrong-type" should have been located at "Armstrong type". You should also use the {{Type}} template to link to them. -- sulfur 00:37, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Auction Edit

You cited most of your recent changes as being derived from evidence seen at "Propworx auctions". Do you have any links to a website by them, pictures, catalog, or other evidence of this?--31dot 10:55, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that even if these things exist, they need to have been seen in the episode somewhere, even briefly, to be considered canon. If they were only used on the set and not seen, they would be considered unreferenced material and could only be included as background information.(as you did with Molly Brown)--31dot 11:00, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Recent work Edit

It would be helpful if you could either upload the images you are drawing this information from or provide the links to them. I would tread carefully, as we have been down this road before. 31dot 01:17, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

I am drawing this information from a series of screencaps seen on TrekCore for the fourth movie. The images are of a MUNI map used by Spock when he attempted to locate the humpback whales. Images:

(1.)[|Image 1]

    • Daly City
    • Millbrae
    • San Bruno
    • Alameda (Alameda N.A.S.)
    • Oakland (Oakland Army Base/Oakland Supply Depot)
    • Piedmont
    • Berkeley
    • Albany
    • Kensington
    • El Cerrito
    • Richmond

(2.) [|Image 2]

    • Sausalito
    • Tiburon
    • Angel Island

(3.) [|Image 3]

    • East Richmond
    • Hillsborough
    • Burlingame
    • Foster City
    • Belmont
    • San Mateo

(This map is helpful in other ways - it shows the location of Golden Gate Park and the Presidio.) I hope this helps.– Throwback 01:38, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Shuttles Edit

Please don't update a page with info that will require it be be renamed if you aren't going to move it and update the links. It's harder to fix them then it is to do all of it up front. - Archduk3 17:39, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I used to know how to move pages. Since the upgrade, I haven't been able to learn this function. How do I move pages?Throwback 17:55, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Next to the edit page button is a small tab arrow that will display the option, and what links here is located on the floating bar at the bottom of the screen. As for your recent edit, there is already a shuttlecraft 05 page, and it now needs to be merged with the new page you created. Please check to make sure there isn't already a page for something when you create a new one. - Archduk3 18:11, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are two shuttlecraft 05s - the Clarke and the Feynman. The Feynman is confirmed as this number in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion which used background information from the show's creators, and none of its information has been disproved. This is why on the Enterprise-D shuttle template I have three links - one to shuttlecraft 05, and two each to the Clarke and the Feynman. It's a compromise.Throwback 18:15, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Shuttle 05 was actually the Feynman, not the Clarke, which is my bad in thinking it was the Clarke. Either way, if there are two and one is unnamed, the link shouldn't be the "Shuttlecraft 05" text, but an "unnamed" link next to the other name, or maybe the year. - Archduk3 18:27, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are two shuttles 05 - Clarke (2366) and Feynman (2367). Both are named. However, we have a page that is for Enterprise-D Shuttlecraft 05, and on the Feynman page, in the background section, the contributor writes, "The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion identifies the shuttle used in the episode TNG: "The Nth Degree" as the Feynman." This is shuttle 05, so why this is not stated in the main body of the page is perplexing. Since the information provided is the same as in the Feynman page, maybe we should delete Enterprise-D Shuttlecraft 05's page. 19:29, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Affiliation Edit

Do not switch owner/operator calls back to affiliation. - Archduk3 13:15, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Affiliation should be switched to "owner" and "operator" calls if they can be used. Please don't just add information to an affiliation call that should use the others. - Archduk3 21:31, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Can you use {{Federation}} for United Federation of Planets instead of Federation. Thanks. - Archduk3 01:06, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect Wiki Edit


I'll be straight to the point. I've learnt you had some "issues" with the ME Wiki, or rather with its admins. So I want you to help with this. Right at this moment I'm struggling to comply with the request by the staff to give attribution to the hard work of Mr. Sparthawg and Mr. Lancer, and it would actally help if someone dropped by and said that it's not exactly entirely theirs. If you become interested in this project - an ME wiki free of Sparthawg's regime - I'll make you an admin immediately. KITTEH POWAH!!! call in teh kittehz 10:14, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Mister, you could have had a courtesy to reply to me as well. To clarify, this is not an "ugly power struggle", this is a feeble attempt to explore the possibility if there can be a better Mass Effect wiki, where peoply like you could make their contributions without getting blocked, once their services are not required. But, since you're uninterested, accept my apologies for the annoyance. Be well. KITTEH POWAH!!! call in teh kittehz 16:38, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Pages Edit

Hi there Throwback. When adding references to books such as the Ships of the Line, could you please be sure to add page numbers? This is part of an effort to make references more precise and easier to verify. For more information, see Memory Alpha: Cite your sources#Secondary sources. You should also note that book titles should be italicised. Thanks.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:29, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It helps a lot. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:21, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Arctic ExplorationEdit

I saw that you linked to the image on the blog for this name, but can you link to the actual blog article in future? Thanks. -- sulfur 20:58, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and you're welcome.Throwback 22:07, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Sidebars Edit

{{Sidebar station}} might be a better choice than {{Sidebar starship}} for satellites and the like, as "type" makes far more sense than "class". - Archduk3 03:44, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Could you please check whether a sidebar is really sensible on an article? On Selay (planet), for example, the sidebar you added just bloats the page, because there isn't much text content to go with the height of the pretty much empty sidebar. We've deliberately not added a sidebar in these cases. -- Cid Highwind 09:28, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Reiterating the above, it would be appreciated if you could weigh in at Forum:Two-line sidebars before you continue adding them to short articles. 31dot (talk) 19:51, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
Again, if all the information in the sidebar of a very short article can be found in the first line of that article, I would question the need for a sidebar. 31dot (talk) 20:57, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
I read the forum. The first criteria was that the sidebar should not have less than 2 lines filled, unless it was accompanied by a diagram. With the latest communication, the criteria has been defined more narrowly. If a first line addresses all the salient points, then there is no need for a sidebar. I am puzzled. When I was working on ships, I would add sidebars from information on the first line. No one at the time said, "Don't do this." Now, according to this new criteria, many of the ship articles I worked on would require that their sidebars be removed. If this is so, why were sidebars created in the first place, and what purpose do they serve now? Do I have to remove the sidebars I created for the ships and the planets you missed because they are irrelevant? I lack understanding, and I don't want to make your job more harder, so I won't be working on the rest of the planet articles. If you require me to remove the sidebars from the articles I have already worked on, I will be happy to accommodate your request. Throwback (talk) 21:37, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
Please pardon my poor titling of the forum; the point I was really trying to make was that the need for a sidebar should be evaluated based on the amount of information, whether there is a picture or not, the size of the article, and other factors like that. Sidebars are meant to provide a highlight of important, common information to glance at without reading the entire article; if the article is a few lines or less, it isn't really necessary to have a sidebar. I don't require you (nor can I) to remove anything in and of itself; nor do I require anyone to cease their activities; I only want thought to be put into this so that articles have only what they need. 31dot (talk) 23:16, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Star system articles Edit

There's a discussion going on whether star system articles are useful if the name of the star system hasn't been explicitly mentioned: Forum:Star system article by assumption. Can you stop creating new articles for the moment, while this discussion is ongoing? Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 10:50, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Alpha or Beta Quadrant Edit

Hi there! I couldn't help but noticing that recently you've edited a number of planet pages with information about which quadrant they are in, Alpha or Beta. To give two examples, there's Rigel IV and Deneb IV. I don't doubt for a second that you have valid reasons for adding that info, but could you please always clearly cite the info rather then just adding "alpha quadrant". Planet pages tend to suffer from "trekkie folk wisdom" (ie Klingon Empire planet -> must be Beta Quadrant and stuff like that). Such non-canon info is not very visible, and thus it keeps persisting. But making sure all quadrant info is clearly cited would make the work of excorsising bad info a lot easier. -- Capricorn 09:36, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Latest edits to Vulcan (planet) Edit

Please stop your inappropriate edits to Vulcan (planet); canonical information should not be treated as apocryphal or as bg info! The info from the star chart in TNG: "Conspiracy" is what showed up on screen (therefore being canonical), so that's what should be included in the main body of the article. --Defiant 12:36, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

new ships Edit

Very nice work on those new ship articles, but with so much new info from what I'm imagening might (stil) be hard to read text, a screenshot of the display in question would be very useful. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:54, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Shipname templatesEdit

When there are 2-3 ships? Not required. Work the names into the text if possible, or add "see also" links. Don't make a template with a little box for the ship's name. -- sulfur (talk) 03:27, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Sort keys Edit

FYI, you don't need to explicitly add a sort key if the natural sort order is ok. By natural, I mean that an article will sort by default starting with the first character of the article and moving right. Older versions of the MediaWiki software differentiated between upper and lower case letters, but I think with the last update, both sort the same now. You only need to add an explicit sort key when you want the article to sort differently than the default; for example, people's names are normally sorted lastname, firstname, so the sort key needs to be added to change from the default (firstname lastname). For ships that start with a prefix (USS, IRW, IKS, etc.) we want them to sort by the ship name, not the prefix, so the sort key shipname, prefix (or shipname, prefix (registry)) needs to be added. For ships without a prefix, the default sort is normally fine. Adding a sort key in this case doesn't hurt anything, it's just not necessary. I hope this helps. :) -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:42, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI.Throwback (talk) 15:52, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

The date of the map Edit

You have recently added that the various planets etc appeared on the starchart "in 2364". While "Conspiracy" was the most prominent on screen appearance, the map however first appeared from in-universe pov in 2293 in Star Trek VI and the last on screen appearance was in 2370 in DS9 "Cardassians". --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

minor thing Edit

Hi, just something I've noticed, but when you add the star type according to the Star Trek: Star Charts, there's usually no need to link to wikipedia; star types like G-type star or yellow dwarf have articles here too. Cheers, and keep up the good work! -- Capricorn (talk) 12:19, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Also, when more then info from more then one timeline is featured in an article, the template to use is not {{at|at}} but {{at|xx}}. (guidelines here). -- Capricorn (talk) 01:47, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. :) Throwback (talk) 01:54, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just hoping I'm not coming of as disapproving of the magnificent job you've been doing on all those planet articles. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:07, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Throwback (talk) 02:13, August 13, 2012 (UTC)


When adding links to pages, make sure that you're linking to what you think you are linking to. For example, a link to "USS Enterprise" links to a disambiguation page, not the starship from the original series. Using preview and opening links into a new window is a good test for this. -- sulfur (talk) 17:15, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Recent chart edits Edit

The references you are adding to Maxwell's ready room should be put before the alternate timeline mention, not after, since the article is presumed to be in the regular timeline.(as I did at Beta Reilley.) 31dot (talk) 00:11, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Link removalsEdit

Please do not remove links to valid pages. Your recent series of edits to articles about planets made 22 pages orphans. -- sulfur (talk) 12:57, August 28, 2012 (UTC) linksEdit

When linking to pages on, check out {{}} and {{}}. These are the preferred mechanisms to use, as it allows us to easily find links to that site. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 16:38, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

A couple more items I noticed in your edits, on Memory Alpha, we have chosen to capitalize "Human". In addition, when adding external links to a page, please use the heading "External link" if there is one, and "External links" if there are multiple (note the capitalization). Thanks again -- sulfur (talk) 17:02, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Pages for deletion Edit

Before adding a lot more pages for deletion suggestions, it might be a good idea to address some of the concerns brought up and let a few suggestions be resolved before adding a great number of them. Not a hard and fast rule, just a suggestion. 31dot (talk) 10:32, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

If you come across other "unsaid star system" article that should be deleted along the same lines as the ones in that discussion, I would either just comment on the talk page that they need to be deleted, or tag them for immediate deletion by typing {{delete}} in the article, and put the reason why in the edit summary. I don't think it's necessary to have the formal discussion on them given the previous one; and if there is disagreement from someone else, they can bring it up on the undeletion page. 31dot (talk) 01:28, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Earth Starfleet Edit

There is no "Earth Starfleet", but there is a "United Earth Starfleet", though generally there isn't a reason to point out the difference, as the year does that. If you see any lingering Earth Starfleets while editing, please either remove the Earth or change it to United Earth. Thanks. - Archduk3 02:39, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.Throwback (talk) 03:13, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Affiliation - Non-aligned Edit

Please don't add this to planets of which their interstellar affiliations or global governmental body has not been mentioned. If it is unknown we don't know if an affiliation exists or not, therefor non-aligned would be speculation in these cases. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:50, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Category Edit

Buildings should be categorized as Establishments, not Geography. 31dot (talk) 00:42, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the screen freeze-frames I presume you are getting your info from- would it be possible for you to upload images of a few of them? I don't mean every one, but just a few so people know we aren't making this stuff up. They could go in the Dixon Hill series article. Just a thought. 31dot (talk) 03:23, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have screen freeze-frame technology, sorry. :( I am getting my information from Maybe we could ask Jorg or someone else who can do this? I can point to where I am finding this information.Throwback (talk) 03:42, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think that what you are doing is fine for now- it's just a thought. As you say, I'm sure someone can do it at some point. No problem here. 31dot (talk) 03:50, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

As the page numbers are legible, I am adding them to the articles. I hope this helps.Throwback (talk) 03:56, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

PfD pages Edit

It's unnecessary to further comment on the PfD discussions of pages that have already been deleted and archived; if you support it, no comment is necessary; if you oppose it, it should be brought up on the undeletion page. 31dot (talk) 21:01, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

The Alijon page hasn't been deleted. It's still on Memory Alpha.Throwback (talk) 21:23, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I was going by the PfD itself and didn't realize I must have skipped over actually deleting the page back when I did that whole list. Thank you. 31dot (talk) 21:52, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

'Conspiracy' images Edit

Here you go. - Aatrek 19:58, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Throwback (talk) 23:33, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Unwritten star system articles Edit

Hey. Regarding your recent work on the planets, stars and star system articles you may want to check this page and give it a clean up? I think there are several star systems on this list which have no actual reference. Tom (talk) 21:29, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'll get to work on it. Thanks, Throwback (talk) 21:36, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Unsaid system articles Edit

Please note that any unsaid system article does not qualify for speedy deletion, there has to be a deletion discussion first, and shouldn't be marked as such. That said, you could use one deletion discussion to cover more than one page, so as to avoid many related discussions going on at the same time on multiple pages, but we do need to follow the guideline for these. - Archduk3 15:46, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

I actually suggested that he do so(as seen above at "Pages for deletion"), as we already had the discussion at Unsaid star system articles, as he was putting up PfD's faster than we could clear them out; and additionally, no one was responding to them, with a couple exceptions. 31dot (talk) 18:44, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that, though I still think it's a good idea to have a list somewhere and the rational, either in a PfD discussion or a forum post, since there should be some location, other than here, that one can point to to explain all these deletions if it comes up. :) - Archduk3 00:22, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

When I initially started deleting them I put a link in the edit summary but I kinda fell out of doing it- I can resume doing so, as a start. I probably won't be able to delete any more until at least tomorrow anyway. 31dot (talk) 01:25, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

located in alpha quadrant Edit

You have recently added that several stars and planets are located in the alpha quadrant without adding any reference on what that information is based on. please add a cite on these. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:00, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

The Tholian Assembly (on the far left of the chart) and the Romulan and Klingon Empires (on the far right of the chart) were identified in dialog as Alpha Quadrant powers. So, the space between these three, must be in the Alpha Quadrant.Throwback (talk) 03:24, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

If it is stated that a system or a planet is in the alpha quadrant, based on the chart, there should be a cite of the chart (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, production art) as the source of the alpha quadrant location info and a bg-note on the articles, of an example where tholian assembly and romulus are identified as located in alpha quadrant in every article, since the chart itself doesn't identify a quadrant name or border. So that readers can connect the dots too. --Pseudohuman (talk) 04:55, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, Throwback (talk) 21:11, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Also please do not speculate that systems star and planets that are not in the map are located in the alpha quadrant based on the map. I think you have deduced that since there are big blocks in the chart that only space inside the blocks has been explored and not the space beyond them, therefore all pre-2293 systems and planets and stars must be inside the blocks and in the alpha quadrant. this is however nonsense, since we know that starfleet had explored space all the way to the center of the galaxy at that point, well beyond the blocks and there are named planets and systems outside the blocks so we have no idea how far away some systems might be. therefore what you are doing is speculation. --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:36, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I am taking the position that exploration in the galaxy was confined to the Alpha Quadrant until the late 23rd century. This is based on what Captain Janeway said in the episode "Flashback", It was a very different time, Mister Kim. Captain Sulu, Captain Kirk, Dr. McCoy. They all belonged to a different breed of Starfleet officer. Imagine the era they lived in. The Alpha Quadrant still largely unexplored. Humanity on verge of war with Klingons. Romulans hiding behind every nebula. Even the technology we take for granted was still in its early stages. No plasma weapons, no multiphasic shields. Their ships were half as fast. I don't see it as speculation to place these other locations in the Alpha Quadrant. If you know a way to make these changes without them appearing as speculation, I am open to suggestions. Throwback (talk) 14:14, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

You are free to take that position, but nothing in that quote or anything in canon or in any reference source suggests they were only exploring the alpha quadrant. The only thing that quote establishes is that alpha quadrant was largely unexplored at the time. Therefore it is only your personal opinion, and personal opinions don't belong in MA. --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:52, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

According to canon, the earliest recorded exploration into the Beta Quadrant occurred in 2290, when the USS Excelsior began a three-year survey of this quadrant. Then, we have the mission of the USS Olympia, in which the captain said, We left the Federation over eight years ago for a long range exploration of the Beta Quadrant. As for the reference sources, they are superseded by by the first tier of canon - dialog - which places both the Klingons and the Romulans in the Alpha Quadrant. The implication of all this is that the Federation and its members and its colonies was located in the Alpha Quadrant. So, by identifying these places in this quadrant, I am staying close to canon. I do not accept the blocks as the extent of exploration; there are locations outside the blocks that the USS Enterprise crew visited or know about. I also recognize that the chart is seriously flawed; the distance between locations is wrong, or there are mistakes, like separating Beta Geminorum from Pollux IV or depicting Alpha Carinae and Canopus III as being in two systems when they should be in one, or placing Earth closer to the galactic rim than it really is. For me, the key points in what Captain Janeway said was, 1. the Alpha Quadrant was largely unexplored and 2. the ships of that century were slower than ships of the 24th century. With ships that could go faster, like the Excelsior-class, the Federation began to explore the Beta Quadrant.Throwback (talk) 22:53, October 29, 2012 (UTC)
What is the use of adding that long block of background information (which could be considered original research) to all those planet articles? It is really watering down the relevant background information (relevant to that particular planet) and ends with the location of XXX was not depicted on the chart. I think this is hurting rather than helping the articles. --Jörg (talk) 00:24, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

And all those facts support your personal opinion, but since it is not stated that the Excelsior was the first ship "fast enough" to explore the beta quadrant, we don't assume this was the case in MA. For the same reason we don't assume that every time a new alien appears on screen it is the first encounter of the species by humans. Here are some other facts: We know that starships in the 2260s had a range of exploring from the center of the galaxy to the outer rim of it, so a sphere of about 50,000 light years from Earth, and we know Earth is near the border of the quadrants. Earliest Earth craft to venture in the Beta Quadrant was the Friendship 1 probe. and then there is Commodore Barstow who notes in "The Alternative Factor" that the winking out effect was detected in every quadrant of the galaxy and far beyond. Am I arguing that is proof they were presumably active at exploring the beta quadrant, no. I'm arguing we don't know. Therefore we don't assume it is the case. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:19, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

1.)"Earth is near the border of the quadrants." This is from the maps seen in Insurrection and Voyager. These maps depicted the Romulan and Klingon Empires in the Beta Quadrant. Howwever, dialog places Romulans and Klingons in the Alpha Quadrant. The order of precedence is: dialog-graphics-background noise.(2.)The quadrant system in the first series was not the same as the one that came later. The current model was first introduced in the "The Price" (production order) or Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (historical order). Based on dialog alone, the border line separating the Alpha Quadrant from the Beta Quadrant was located on the far side of Klingon territory. The Beta Quadrant was considered outside Federation space. ("The Sound of Her Voice") The canon is contradictory on how long it would take for a starship to travel the distance from the Federation to the center of the galaxy. In TNG, it required an advanced technology to bring the Enterprise-D to the center. In VOY, it took years for them to travel the same distance. TAS had some ideas that were later ignored, including the ability of the Enterprise to travel to the center in a matter of days. We don't know how far the galactic barrier was from Earth.Throwback (talk) 00:51, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Federation starships explore outside Federation space all the time in Star Trek. This theory is still just your own opinion and does not belong in MA. --Pseudohuman (talk) 01:07, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I fear we are entering into edit war territory. Why don't you check the other planets and systems for TOS and TAS (I didn't go further), and fix them to your understanding. Okay. Throwback (talk) 00:58, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
Facts are personal opinions? Huh? I feel you are not listening to me, and that you have your own agenda. Like I said, fix articles that need to be fixed.Throwback (talk) 01:46, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

And what on earth is this generations-map business? It seems like you are speculating that all the marked stars are marked because they are close to the Enterprise, and speculating that the chart is seen from the Enterprise pov, and speculating that the size of the star dot is an indication of how close it is to the Enterprise? and these speculations prove that they are in the alpha quadrant because some of the named stars have been stated to be there in other episodes... --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:58, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Instead of lashing out at me with anger, why don't you fix the articles yourself? You apparently had the time to find and read the articles. If you have the time to read the articles, then you have the time to repair the articles to your liking.Throwback (talk) 00:12, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Part II Edit

I haven't reviewed the above discussion, but we should not be adding "presumed to be in the Alpha Quadrant" to articles- if we don't know where it is, we say nothing. The Galaxy is big, and we don't always know which quadrant the Enterprise was in, or which quadrant a destination was in. 31dot (talk) 15:44, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Before I begin, this will be a long post. For me, this may seem logical. It may not appear so to you. I experience the same issue with attempting to merge NCC-1831 with USS Intrepid (NCC-1631), and I got a sharp response from sulfur saying that he didn't see the connection. I observed the behavior of Commodore Stone, and I came to a conclusion that sulfur didn't agree with. (See talk page for NCC-1831.) Anyway, here it goes.
We have two maps of the Federation.
The Explored Galaxy

Map of the Galaxy

This map is from the episode "Conspiracy".


This map is from the film Star Trek: Insurrection
Both maps shown the location of the Federation. To the west of the Federation, there were the homeworlds of the Tholians, the Cardassians, the Ferengi, and the First Federation. To the north, there was the homeworld of the Kzin. To the east, there were the homeworlds of the Romulans and Klingons. Dialog placed the Tholians ("In the Cards"), the Ferengi ("In the Flesh"), the Cardassians ("Dreadnought", the Romulans ("The Search, Part II"), and the Klingons ("The Die is Cast") in the Alpha Quadrant. The Federation is described as being spread out 8,000 light years in Star Trek: First Contact. This means the Federation is 8,000 light years long. Ships that travel into the Beta Quadrant leave the Federation, go on voyages that last for years, and have to be self-sufficient. (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country; "The Sound of Her Voice".)
Now, when I look at Tarod IX, I am told that it is near the Romulan Neutral Zone. I know from what is said above that the Zone is in the Alpha Quadrant. I can't say directly that Tarod IX is in the Alpha Quadrant, because people like sulfur and Pseudohuman will say there is no direct mention of this planet being in the Alpha Quadrant. So, I say, Presumably, Tarod IX is in the Alpha Quadrant.
To me, this is logical. I am connecting the dots. I am working from the facts. I don't see this as speculating. Speculating is defined as, "To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence." I don't see inconclusive evidence. However, if you aren't convince, know that I have stopped at "The Child", and you or someone else can reverse what I have done.Throwback (talk) 16:46, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

The main issue here is that you are just putting "presumed to be" in the article, without any evidence. If you know where it is, then put that information and leave out the "presumed"; saying "presumed" suggests that we don't really know where it is and that it is just a guess. It certainly means that the location wasn't given in canon; if it was, then that needs to be put.

We also need to take care in the amount of guesswork and putting pieces together used to arrive at a piece of information. There's a certain point where too much of that goes beyond canon. I'm not saying you've crossed that line yet, but it's something to be mindful of. 31dot (talk) 16:56, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

The PADD image you linked to shows Romulan and Klingon space on the far side of the Alpha/Beta quadrant border, though. How can you pick one information from that graphic (Romulan and Klingon space "to the east") while ignoring that other bit of information? -- 17:09, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
While I haven"t reviewed the entire problem here, it seems to me that there is valid background information here in the info Throwback has added/removed from pages, mostly without an edit summary. I suggest that this info be regulated to the appendices unless we all are sure about what quadrant something is in, since a lot of our "known" Beta quadrant locations have at one point been referred to as part of an "Alpha quadrant" power in the most unhelpful way on DS9, and there's nothing wrong with giving the readers all the info we have and letting them draw their own conclusions. - Archduk3 18:26, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
These presumptions are mostly invalid, since space is three-dimensional and we have no idea how the territories and borders stretch in the sideways point of view, the often seen tactical map from DS9 even suggests cardassian/dominion territory was either above or below the Federation. While Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country; "The Sound of Her Voice" suggest long missions are taken in the beta quadrant, we also know from "The Chase" that ships travel in the quadrant all over the place. We know from TOS and TAS that Kirk and his crew already had a vast range to travel from the center of the galaxy to the edge of it. There are just so many canonical facts that place doudt to your theory which you are ignoring completely when you are speculating this stuff. We shouldn't be filling in the blanks. If something is canonically known then it is known, if it is not known then leave it blank. Let the readers make their own conclusions from the inconclusive facts. --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:04, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
I walked into a minefield and BOOM!Throwback (talk) 03:48, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

Sigma Iotia system Edit

I transferred your post to the Votes for undeletion page. 31dot (talk) 20:18, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Progress Report Edit

In late November, a SSD/SSI judge granted me disability benefits through an OTR (On-the-Record) judgement. I should expect a decision by mid-January. I would like to return to Memory Alpha sometime in the spring, after I have been placed on medications that will aid me in functioning normally. Throwback (talk) 06:17, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

Progress Report 2 Edit

On Saturday, I received a letter from the SSA. I was given a fully favorable decision. I function at 45 GFA. (GFA is scaled from 0 [dead] to 100 [fully functioning].) In 60 days, I should learn how much my compensation will be for each month.Throwback (talk) 14:30, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

I have unblocked you per your request to Jörg. 31dot (talk) 11:08, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.Throwback (talk) 15:04, December 30, 2012 (UTC) linksEdit

When adding links to in the future, can you please use the {{}} link for the "external links" section, and {{}} for links in the text? For citation links, use the format {{|page-to-link-to|}}

That last vertical pipe is important. Thanks! -- sulfur (talk) 04:06, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip.Throwback (talk) 04:34, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Related to that, "External link" (or links) does not have the word "Link" capitalized. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 05:52, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Disambig pagesEdit

Just a reminder -- when adding links to pages, make sure that they go to the correct article, not the disambiguation articles. Thanks! -- sulfur (talk) 19:52, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

USS Saratoga Edit

Could you read this discussion and weigh in? Thanks 31dot (talk) 22:21, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Escape pods destination Edit

I was wondering why you were saying that the destination of the pods was "various remote locations" on Earth when they were shown to be targeting Gravett Island? (except for Riker's group in Montana, who was already there) 31dot (talk) 15:57, January 7, 2013 (UTC)


Hi there. I thought you might like to know that I've just brought up two articles somewhat recently created by you. (nothing personal obviously haha; I generally love your efforts to bring light to these obscure subjects!) - anyway, the articles are Serpent's World and Denkir II, feel free to comment -- Capricorn (talk) 10:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Very short sentences Edit

Hi Throwback, thanks for all your contributions! I've noticed your heavy usage of extremely short sentences. Please refer to the Memory Alpha:Manual of Style and try to build longer sentences (e.g., XY was an inhabited planet. It was the third planet of the YX planetary system. This system was located in the Alpha Quadrant. --> XY was the inhabited third planet of the YX system. ... The information on the system being in the Alpha Quadrant is redudant and not referenced but merely assumed in most cases!). I've started rewording the first lines of several articles you altered in this manner, but I would appreciate your assistance :) --36ophiuchi (talk) 15:55, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style Edit

Throwback, I ask you to look into the Memory Alpha:Manual of Style BEFORE re-formatting articles. They're should NOT be a line-break after every single piece of information! --36ophiuchi (talk) 01:10, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced materials cat Edit

The unreferenced materials category is meant for articles solely about unreferenced material; it shouldn't be added to canon articles even if they contain a mention of a cut scene or line, as real-world categories shouldn't be mixed with canon ones. 31dot (talk) 16:55, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Homage/references Edit

Be careful when claiming that the name of something is a reference to or homage to something else(such as Quayle Canals Northeast); we need evidence of such a claim. We don't post what "might be", only what definitely is that we can prove. 31dot (talk) 12:40, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Indents Edit

When you are writing into a talk page the idea of indents ":" is not to always add one more than the previous comment, but that every new user to join a thread has a specific indent for all of his comments. First user: no indents, Second user:one indent, third user: two, and so on. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:05, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Wikia visit and coming stuffEdit

Please take a look here and read things over, adding your comments at the bottom. -- sulfur (talk) 16:56, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Disambig lksEdit

Please be careful when linking to pages that you're linking to the right thing... for example {{USS|Enterprise}} is not the link for Kirk's Enterprise... :) -- sulfur (talk) 15:44, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

La Forge. Not LaForgeEdit

That's it. Please note that there is a difference. -- sulfur (talk) 17:56, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Remasterd has another "e"Edit

Take note of that. Remastered. :) -- sulfur (talk) 19:29, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco landmarksEdit

Hey I saw your edit on Palace of Fine Arts‎‎, and got me wondering; I'm not getting in your way or something am I? I ask because I noticed you've been creating articles on San Francisco landmarks recently (and may I just say, great work, btw. those kinds of ultra-minor topics are my favorites), and because you were so quickly able to add another sighting of the palace, it got me worried that maybe you've been researching landmarks and I was kind of "stealing" (so to speak) the ultimate payoff in creating the pages. Dunno, maybe I'm overthinking this, but I just don't want to snipe your edits or anything. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:12, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I see Memory Alpha as the product of a collaborative effort, wherein the team takes the credit for each article.Throwback (talk) 04:37, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

So do I, actually, but I just wanted to make sure :) -- Capricorn (talk) 13:58, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Sources questionEdit

Looking at two articles you created in june, Office of Special Plans and Applied Sciences Division, I was looking at your quoted source, and well, I won't pretend I have deciphered every bit of text on every one of those articles, but I couldn't help but wonder, the specific image it was one wouldn't be this one, would it? -- Capricorn (talk) 03:49, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yes.Throwback (talk) 03:53, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for the info :-) -- Capricorn (talk) 04:09, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Articletype template Edit

Please note that the articletype template with parameter "ar" should only be used on articles that are solely about new timeline stuff. If an article has content from several timelines, it should use "xx" instead - and if that info is located in a background info only, the template shouldn't be used at all. --Cid Highwind (talk) 11:27, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco SectorsEdit

Hey, concerning your changing the Earth sectors the San Francisco Metropolitan Area‎, I happen to disagree with those changes. But then again, the graphic we're basing this on is infamously confusing, so I thought that rather then do something dramatic I'd just ask you about it here first. In my view, the mention of the SFMA is in a sub-header of a Sector 2 news report, so to me that seams like it clearly implies that the SFMA is either part of, or just is sector 2. On the other hand, I'm guessing you've got the Sectors 45 to 49 from the large SF area map to the right of the weather report, and I can't see how that information could possibly be wed to the sector 2 mention, but apparently it must be, and given a clear implication of which sector it is in, and a bit of information somewhere else that is seemingly contradictory (but probably still makes sense in some way in-universe), I think we should clearly go for the former.
(that is of course, unless you've found a second instance of Metropolitan area label, on the map or something. But I've looked, and if its there I don't see it) -- Capricorn (talk) 11:13, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

I included your post in a discussion on the SFMA at that page, and included my thoughts on the matter in a separate section.Throwback (talk) 16:59, October 2, 2013 (UTC)


When adding links to articles, please double check them to make sure that they are going where you think that they are going. "Satellite" is different from "artificial satellite" (for example). -- sulfur (talk) 12:57, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Creation of "part" articles Edit

San Francisco buildings Edit

I notice that you're creating quite a few articles lately concerning buildings and other landmarks from the San Francisco area as seen in Star Trek. I applaud your effort, but are these articles really necessary? I'm sure that if you watch certain episodes and movies very closely, you will probably see every major landmark in the bay area. Many of these articles merely consist of "X building, in San Francisco was seen in the background of such and such scene in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." I don't mean to belittle your efforts, but perhaps it would be more efficient to only have full articles for prominent locations that were either mentioned or actually visited by characters in the show. If you still want to mention these other locations too, they can be merged into a single page, perhaps San Francisco Landmarks.-Cpthunt (talk) 04:40, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Multiple delete pagesEdit

Also, may I ask what your goals are with the multiple "delete page" templates you're adding to a large number of articles? Please note that when you add these templates, you must fill out the reasoning too. -- sulfur (talk) 13:00, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

We are having a discusson about deleting buildings. My rationale is there.Throwback (talk) 13:04, October 8, 2013 (UTC)


I've noticed you've added redlinks for Bay Area Cities, San Francisco Buildings and San Francisco Streets to the voyage home reference section. I'm not sure what you're planning to do, indeed a lot of your actions over the last day have confused me. Note that the discussions on those matters have not reached a consensus yet, and what you feel is the right course of action might not reflect the views of everyone on the site. (hence the previous section on this page too). I would advise you to take a deep breath and try to slow down a bit. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:54, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, uh, are you doing ok? I've noticed your further changes, and in light of your comment about feeling like you're trapped in a corner, I'm starting to get a bit worried. I'm sorry that this discussion has been a long and complicated one, but I hope you do know that none of it is personal, and that everyone appreciates your contributions, and, maybe most importantly for you, that once this is all resolved you'll hopefully have a nice framework of guidelines for adding things under again. Just have a bit of patience. :) -- Capricorn (talk) 01:41, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words.:)Throwback (talk) 02:38, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Stop Edit

...creating deletion discussions. I'll let you know when something has been decided reguarding policy. - Archduk3 09:26, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Spacecraft components Edit

First of all, I took the liberty to group all these related discussions on your talk page under a common heading. Feel free to revert that change if you don't agree, but I think the whole number of comments should give you the idea that something is not quite "optimal" at the moment.

Regarding your creation of many articles for "component" of spacecraft that itself weren't even seen (Ranger 5, Nimbus 1 etc.), please note that I suggested on the one currently active forum page about this topic that these articles shouldn't exist separately, either. It might be best if you at least paused your creation of still more articles for a while, if not stop them. To be honest, your actions throughout the last few days are very confusing to me, and I don't know if you are just doing these things "randomly" or with the goal to put even more fuel to the fire, so to speak. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 12:20, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

search tipEdit

(no idea if I'm supposed to put this in the subsection Cid created or not btw)

I haven't had time to post this before, but concerning your lament that the wikia search engine is a joke a day or two ago: did you know you could search memory alpha with google? Just go to google and type in your search term in the following format:

[search term] site:

That way you will only get results from this site. You can even use all of google's advanced operators and features, very usefull. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:56, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

The point is that I shouldn't have to find an article in Google. I should be able to find it in this wiki, using its search engine.Throwback (talk) 10:51, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest to at least use this when you're researching our policies. Ending up quoting Wikipedia's definition of something just because you don't find ours using our search engine is not useful. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:22, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

Links and category sortsEdit

Please ensure that your links are going to the appropriate locations as "Paramount" is a link to a disambiguation page (for example). Also, when adding categories, it is best to ensure that you also add a sort key to the category if required. -- sulfur (talk) 12:01, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I must mention this again. "Deep Space 9" is the space station. "Deep Space Nine" is not. -- sulfur (talk) 01:13, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

I am accustomed to writing out the number. Thank you for the reminder.Throwback (talk) 02:57, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Edit summariesEdit

Hey -- when you're removing chunks of information from a bunch of pages, please leave an edit summary explaining what you're up to. Courtesy to other editors both at the time and in future when they're looking at a page's history. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 13:05, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Andoria edit Edit

If you could visit this discussion and post an explanation of this edit you made on the Andoria page, it would be appreciated. 31dot (talk) 18:20, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

USS EnterpriseEdit

This is not a ship. If you're looking to link to the TOS ship, link to {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701}}. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 12:46, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Denkir Edit

Hi, glad to see your pages looking like they should again :-)

I happened to notice your edit to Denkir (star), and specifically how you moved the discussion of the paintings to the background note. I'm not sure about your thinking (hey, edit summaries are a really cool feature you should maybe try some time :-p), but that made me wonder, have you changed your opinion on this discussion? Because if you have, maybe we can close that year and a half old inconclusive discussion. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:23, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Yes.Throwback (talk) 23:12, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Cool. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:30, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, maybe it would have been polite to add that I've reopened that discussion because of this. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:40, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forumEdit

I take it you know that by now, right? Using an active discussion as a place to air random related thoughts and grievances can be very confusing, especially if you don't even say that's what you're doing. If you have a genuine issue with the title, then propose a change, no one will have a problem with that. (and I certainly don't think the NAZI vs German naming debate is irrelevant). And if you feel that you don't, then you should really go somewhere else to discuss your personal views. Like, an actual forum for example. Or your user page if it must be here. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:29, June 29, 2014 (UTC)

Talk page questionEdit

A few days ago I've posted a concern I had at Talk:Norcadia Prime which I'm guessing you haven't seen, but looking at the history of the page I'm guessing you might be the right person to address it. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:41, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Continued links to disambiguation pagesEdit

When adding links to pages... please take a couple of minutes to test them to ensure that they're going to the right places. "Galen" is not the same as "Richard Galen". I've mentioned this a number of times before. This creates a fair bit of work for other editors when these links are not double checked. -- sulfur (talk) 12:46, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

And again. "McCoy" is not the same as "Leonard McCoy". Just as "Deep Space Nine" is not the name of the station. That's "Deep Space 9". Please be careful with your links to pages. Cleaning up after can be a fair bit of work. -- sulfur (talk) 12:32, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

You fragmented almost the entire MA-wiki Edit

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

For the record: I have never called it "damage". It is not about the information, it is about HOW it is presented... and that this has apparently never been discussed before, although you have been re-formatting articles for quite some time now. --36ophiuchi (talk) 21:16, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Please stop with the pronunciations Edit

The american english pronunciation actor directions guides are not an "official canon thing", plenty of languages in canon with different pronunciations for everything. Leave those in the bg notes and stop again please. --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:15, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Power wallEdit

Before you go on and declare everything in the Into Darkness power wall non-canon, remember that our policy is that if something is on-screen and illegible, it is still canon. A version of the wall with the news casts, text scrolls and starbase 1 statistics and earth maps was seen in Pike's office at 13:55-16:37 and in marcus's office at 30:55 in the film. Everything in them is canon even though it was illegible. vimeo-video can be used as a reference, but the parts that were edited out are not canon. --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:20, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

I have seen videos of Kirk and Spock in both Pike's office and in Marcus' office. The wall is barely seen in both cases, so it's hard to know what was in the canon and what was not. The best and clearest view of the wall comes from the deleted scene in Marcus' office. I have read where you have declared the reference to the Alpha Quadrant is non-canon because it doesn't make an appearance in the film. I don't know for sure that it does, as our view of this portion of the map is blocked by the characters. I am simply following your lead, as we don't know if Andoria Prime or Galordon Core was on the wall. There does seem to be changes to the wall, but the extent of these changes are not known either. The issue with the power wall puts us into that gray area between what is canon and what is not canon.Throwback (talk) 20:36, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

The Motion Picture yearEdit

Please remember that the exact year of The Motion Picture is canonically unknown. We list it as "the 2270s" and do not use the apocryphal "2273". --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:00, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Remastered info Edit

Information coming from a remastered source still needs to be ID as such in a bg note if the new information "replaced" old information. Generally, there should also be a link to the old info and the remastered page as well. - Archduk3 00:25, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Daystrom Institute rant Edit

Hey. I'm not even sure anymore if something like this post has much of a point, you never really answer them, you just get angrier and then it comes out again in some other place and while I think you keep heading in the right direction with your edits, no progress is ever made regarding your frustration with the issues that remain. But when you say you think people think of you as less then Human (spoiler: no one does), based on a complete misinterpretation of what is going on, it's too much to completely ignore. And after all the off-topicness of that I don't want to derail the discussion any further even if just with a quick attempt at diffusion. So instead here's a longer reply, in the right place for this kind of stuff.

Now, regarding your last few posts on the Daystrom Institute talk page: it's very hard to respond to them, half of it is confusing, all of it is off topic. For example, are we happy that you removed the text to Daystrom Institute? No, absolutely no one would ever be happy with that, because it is not anything to do with what was discussed, nor is it in any way a constructive thing to do, it is instead just you trying to resolve general frustrations. And notice how you're using "we" yourself in that question. You talk about "we"'s as much as anyone. "Our" use of it only offends you because you see it as the mark of some nonexistent cabal that is out to get you. You are indeed clearly angry. I'd try adressing that again, but you never respond to that. Instead you obsess over criticism and see it as a personal assault. Not to mention you derail discussions by abandoning their substance when they become too unpleasant for you. But you know what? it's not about you. I'll never attack you, but I'll gladly attack any contribution I see or suspect a problem with, regardless who wrote it. (And naturally, depending of which mistakes I tend to notice, and which mistakes others tend to make, that means I'll interact with some people more then others)

Also while's we're on attacks, I'm not going to answer your assertion that people think you less then human, because, just fucking trust me on this, it is not true. That may be an issue in your real life, I don't know, but here you'll only ever be criticised on merrit. And not even your merrit as a person, but that of the things you added, based on abstract and sometimes even counterintuitive rules which have absolutely nothing to do with who you are or what you're worth. Your humanity, important as it may be, just doesn't play into it. That being said, you know perfectly well what article talk pages are for, and they're not for airing personal grievances no matter how urgent they feel. Behaviour like that may frustrate people (including me, right now), and while no one will think of you as being less human for it (if anything, it makes you more human), it will generally trigger the kind of stern and/or upset comments that you then see as people attacking you personally.

Your "I can't win either way" comment and your earlier offer to drop a line because it proved controversial to me both suggest that you don't understand some important things about how this whole wiki editing process is supposed to work. (mainly, you seem to look as things as being about politics, cliques, and keeping people happy way too much) But that's perfectly fine. You do a load of predominantly good and welcome work, and the rest of the community is there to make sure it remains within the parameters of the wider project. I get shot down over on stuff I thought was ok too you know. My talk page, and that of many others, is as full of gentle reminders regarding the correct way to do things as yours. (although maybe yours has a few more slightly less gentle follow-ups). I woudn't be surprised if Sulfur often "personally targets" my specific edits for an extra argus-eyed look, because of how even after all these years editing I still make a shitload of spelling and formating mistakes. I can't help it, I always proofread but I'm so scatterbrained that many errors still remain. But that's where the strength of a community comes in, we all have our own unique set of strenghts and weaknesses, and because others help migitate our weaknesses we end up with something that's better then any one person could do.

Oh and your "speculation law" is right here, by the way, you've been pointed to it before and not being able to explain everything that happens using your best interpretation of those exact words doesn't make it unfindable. If that feels too vague for you to justify some supposed "attacks" on you, well, again that's where the community comes in, is supposed to come in in fact. All "laws" are subject to some ambiguity, and its up to the community to evolve a consensus interpretation. The "we" you complain about not including you. That interpretation has evolved since long before you (or me) joined here, and not everyone may like every bit of it, but it is needed for this to be a coordinated project. And one person dissagreeing doesn't automatically shift a consensus, and it's not denying you as a person to for the sake of coherence enforce guidelines that were made without your input. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:09, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki