Since you're new to Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:
- Our policies and guidelines are the best place to start. Particular items of note are the content and resource policies, the editing guidelines, our point of view, copyrights, and guidelines for proper etiquette.
- We strongly encourage you to use the "source editor" in your editing preferences, so you can use our standard formatting templates. We also recommend you click this link and save the page.
- The Manual of Style and how to write a great article can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday.
- Want to help build the category tree? Check out Category suggestions.
- You can look up your past changes in the contributions log and keep track of your favorite articles through your very own watchlist.
- Create your own user page and be contacted here, on your talk page. Please make sure to sign any comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) to add your user name and the date and time.
If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in one of our forums. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha!
--Alan del Beccio 21:47, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Writing articles in the correct p.o.v.=
- I believe we discussed this in the photon torpedo talk page, but when writing articles here, and I believe there is a link in the above welcome message (specifically the Manual of Style), but in regards to Engineering Circuit Bay and Trititanium, they are written in the entirely wrong perspective.
- In fact, from "Talk:Photon_torpedo":
- With respect, I re-included my info about photon torpedoes in TOS in the article because it is the only canon info about photon torpedoes in the entire article. All the rest is from tech manuals or fanon, but every word of what I say can be verified by the episodes. --Atrahasis 06:01, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Except that it is written it the entirely wrong perspective. Our articles are written from within the Star Trek pov, and your additions were added from the perspective of "outside looking in". They either need to be rewritten from the Star Trek universe perspective or placed into the background section, which would be written in our perspective. --Alan del Beccio 06:10, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Although having once thought you understood the style issue in our previous discussion and with this revival of the coversation, once again, please review our Manual of Style. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 03:58, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Hello there. I noticed you were in discussion with several people about Memory Alpha POV. Up to now, we never had the need for an explicit policy regarding this, as there was a wide concensus concerning the 'in-universe' nature of this encyclopedia. I have now included an explicit policy regarding the POV on Memory Alpha:Point of view. If you have any questions or remarks, let me know. -- Harry 22:04, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I have added the possibility of tritanium and trititanium being the same substance as background info on both of those articles. For future reference (although I'm sure this was explained to you somewhere in that lengthy debate you had with Alan), background info and warranted speculation should be placed seperate from the rest of the text, centered, in italics, and should clearly be defined as background info or speculation. For example, like I did in the articles:
- Trititanium may be the same substance as tritanium, although this has never been canonically established.
Some cases will call for background information to be placed in its own section under a seperate heading, but this is usually only when there is much background information to cover. Speculation, on the other hand, should always be kept italicized and centered. Speculation does not receive its own section in an article.
I hope this clarifies matters for you, and I hope you don't have quite so much trouble now, especially since the POV policy has been made official. That said, welcome to Memory Alpha. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:23, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I would like to remind you that Memory Alpha is not a discussion forum. Talk pages (both article and personal) are not designated for "chatting" about topics unrelated to Star Trek. Subjects about point of view, disambiguations, article content and the fact that trititanium is not tritanium, would be considered valid topics. God, the word "thusly", and expecting the entire world to revolve around you would be considered 'off-topic' and are not considered valid topics for talk pages. The fact that I said the conversation was over, and wished to no longer discuss it, yet somehow received another irrelevant message from you, might be constituted as harassment. Please use the proper talk pages to address the proper issues, and let sleeping dogs lie. Period. --Alan del Beccio 08:34, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- The truth is though that it's YOU who contacted me first and went off on emotional rampages when the rest of us were trying to have civil and logical discourse. It's all a matter of record now. --Atrahasis 08:36, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Again, I would like to remind you that Memory Alpha is not a discussion forum. Talk pages (both article and personal) are not designated for "chatting" about topics unrelated to Star Trek. --Alan del Beccio 08:53, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- How logical is it of you to plead "Let sleeping dogs lie" and then come back and do this? --Atrahasis 08:56, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
You wanted policies, I'm giving you policies, and as long as you keep bringing up our previous conversation about who started what first, which is, as far as I am concerned, off topic from what I originally posted, then it seems logical to remind you of those policies. Let it be known, that I contacted you first because I so happened to be the first administrator to sweep up behind you. Frankly you could be having this conversation with anyone else, and personally I'm sorry it was me, becuase my time is much better spent improving this website outside the limits of babysitting. As far as, "Let sleeping dogs lie", that was clearly in reference to our previous conversation, which has nothing to do with my re-posts regarding policies. --Alan del Beccio 09:14, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- You're the one who clearly seems to want to continue this, and might I say I was mortified by your inability to participate in the reasonable and adult conversation which the rest of us were having, when you started going off on emotional tirades and using the Lord's name in vain. The rest of us actually went on to delineate policy better. --Atrahasis 20:15, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Main engineering. At least Corbomite Maneuver does not state that Main engineering is on Deck 5. Please specify your references, or I will revert the article again. Thanks, Cid Highwind 11:44, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Hi again. I moved the article to Engineering now, and added a small "todo"-list to the talk page. Perhaps you can have another look at that and see if you are content with it. I would have changed the article itself, but have to leave now. Feel free to start with the edits if you want to, otherwise I'll do it later. -- Cid Highwind 14:13, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Atrahasis, if someone reverts an edit and you wish bring it into question, please add it to the talk page by clicking the discussion tab - if you re-revert an edit you are in violation of policy and this will not be tolerated any longer. Use the discussion area rather than starting edit wars! --Alan del Beccio 04:48, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)