removing white from images

Thanks! Feel free to jump on as many as you can, less for me to do later :) --Alan 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. I've taken care of all that I've seen you upload so far and will continue to do so throughout the night. --Morder 03:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Main Cast Listings

I noticed you reverted a few of my edits this evening. I was just wondering why you thought it was necessary. I added a lot of these main cast listings myself a few months ago - most of the episodes did not have them until then. The only reason I started updating them again is because I just noticed it this way in the episode article for ENT: "Silent Enemy", which is nominated to be a featured article! I had actually added the main cast listing to that article back in March, but someone else added the ranks to it earlier this month. I agree it could be a little tricky during some episodes where the characters appear in flashbacks, but I figured that if this featured article had it this way we should standardize. Maybe you should change the main cast listing for that article and see if anyone complains! In any case, we should standardize on something, no?

Also, I like the idea of adding Tucker's nickname at least, because it is shown at way in some of the quotes. That is also the way his name is listed on the site. I am going to go ahead and make only this change until we figure out the rest.

Frankly, your argument that the ranks appear in the character descriptions and so do not belong in the cast listing could be applied to their first names as well! — Greg (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. Most of the episode pages for shows don't actually have the Main cast listing as they're already listed on the main page for the shows themselves. As such I think it's redundant enough to have them on each episode as it doesn't change (with very few exceptions). Of course, I could be wrong and will open this up for discussion on how best to standardize cast listings since there are too many discrepancies between the listings already. By the way, I had discussed it with two other members before I reverted your changes. So please don't take offense to it at all since I wouldn't do anything like that without getting a consensus. My way isn't the only way. :) --Morder

No offense taken! I started adding the main cast listings a while back when I saw them in a few episodes and thought it might be a good idea to standardize. It is kind of nice to have a place in the article to go to find a link to the character profile without having to type in the name or search through the article. The episode pages list the main characters as well, though they do not list the ranks. But we do list the ranks for other characters, like Admiral Maxwell Forrest or Vulcan Ambassador Soval.

There is nothing wrong with redundancy, unless we are trying to save a few K of storage on the hard drive! LOL! — Greg (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason for the Admiral Maxwell Forrest and such is simply because they're guest characters and as such their full names are then appropriate for those who haven't seen the episode. I hope others chime in on this discussion or maybe I should move it somewhere else first. --Morder 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As an aside... credit listings should be as they were on screen. Not as they are on, not as they are assumed to be. On screen is what counts. -- Sulfur 01:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, for co-stars, listed at the end of the episode, but there are no names listed on screen for the main characters and guest stars! Also, Tucker is often referred to as "Trip" in the episodes, and even in the episode articles here.

Thanks for the civil discussion, BTW... it is refreshing! — Greg (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Above all I hope we can be civil. I noticed you're reordering the guest stars alphabetically. Shouldn't it be in the order stated on the episode? --Morder 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Just my two strips of latinum: I agree that there should be some standardization, particularly among the uncredited performers. On some pages, there's a subhead that says "Uncredited co-stars" followed by a list; on others, the uncredited are listed right after the credited co-stars with "(uncredited)" after their names. I prefer the former, and have tried to change it as often as I can. Ditto with the Stunt Doubles, who I also believe should be listed in their own subsection. Both sections should list those performers in alphabetical order as well. ThomasHL and I both have been making these edits for some time now, but I've been fairly random about them, adjusting when I happen to be making other edits to the pages.
As for the main cast, I personally wouldn't mind seeing them listed on each episode page. I find it highly annoying to have to search the Background section to figure out whether Cirroc Lofton was or wasn't in an episode. It's particularly bad on the Animated Series pages because right now, it's like trying to work a jigsaw puzzle to go through the Main Character non-appearances section and figure out who was and wasn't in each episode.
Regardless, though, Sulfur is correct that the listings for the credited performers should be as they were on screen, in the order they appeared on screen. If they have a name we can link to it (for example "Julie Cobb as Yeoman" with "Yeoman" linking to "Leslie Thompson"). I would be willing to write a set of guidelines based on what I've observed most users doing, if we think it would be beneficial to have something like that in our style manual. (There may already be such a section; I haven't looked for it.) - Bridge 01:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't reorder any guest stars listings, did I? I did split out a co-star and uncredited co-star from the guest star list of ENT: "Strange New World", and I reordered some uncredited co-star listings because I have seen it that way in other articles and it makes sense, I think. Humans first, though! — Greg (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(→Uncredited Co-Stars: Reordered alphabetically.) Ah...I misread that. Sorry. --Morder 02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. When you mentioned it, I was a little worried that I had screwed up!

BTW, is it better like this:


Stunt Double

or like this:

Uncredited Co-Stars

Uncredited Stunt Double

The credits are from ENT: "Civilization". I have seen it both ways, along with the stunt doubles listed under uncredited co-stars. What do you guys think? — Greg (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I went with the second, but left out the comma and included the link to the actor, for redundancy's sake! LOL! — Greg (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

tricylic whatever

Sorry, while editing i assumed that tricyclic input manifold ( from Relativity was the same as Tricyclic plasma drive and ya know what? Never payed attention to ENT or the Suliban (thought that the ST franchise should have taken a jump to the future to see the aftermath of the Dominion War - as DS9, I think had the best character driven stories of all Trek of all time...) fhew. so yeah.

There is something fundamentally different about a tricyclic plasma input - VOY was the first to test it in deep space... and B'Elanna in one of the Malon episodes that it technobabbles the waste products.

Any input back at Warp drive?? Kassorlae 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Massi Furlan grammar

Thanks for fixing my goof on Massi Furlan. :) --From Andoria with Love 18:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. I normally don't look at your edits because you're not someone I feel I have to keep an eye on. But looks like I gotta watch out for you! --Morder 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing Notes

As a suggestion, when you're removing a substantial amount of text from an article (such as nipticks, POV comments etc.) it's usually a good idea to add a note on the talk page with the removed info. It helps to avoid any misunderstandings and can assist in future discussions. Thanks. :-) – Cleanse 11:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I was going to but just felt so lazy at the time. I'll be less lazy next time so that I don't cause you more work. :) – Morder 12:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned templates

Note that anons get the {{unsigned-anon}} template as opposed to the {{unsigned}} template. :) -- Sulfur 10:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will remember that from now on. :) – Morder 10:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Here you go. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well... :) Ok then. I did fix that external links thing, but yeah, just figured Shran would take care of it later as we were briefly talking about it when I reverted. :) – Morder 03:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


You're awesome. ;) – Tom 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Doubtful. Sorry about all the dupes. For some reason some id's get redirected to other id's. I'll be working on the next million in a few days. I want to take a break before I get banned from IMDb servers. (if they care) :) – Morder 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dark Frontier Eyepiece Background Info

Will you please explain to me why you insist on removing this perfectly valid point? You removed it twice and have given no reason why. It has been there for a while. No administrator has removed it. Either give a valid reason or leave it alone. I will take this to an administrator if you remove it again.– Watching... listening... 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're free to take it to an administrator but you'll get the same thing. (I see you've already taken it to an administrator) It's a nitpick. It's pointing out an obvious mistake the writers made in the script for the episode. Just because it's been there for a while doesn't mean that it's valid. It just means that nobody has gotten to it yet. Please read Memory Alpha:What Memory Alpha is not for clarification as to what constitutes a nitpick. — Morder 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see CidHighwind agrees with you. Very well, then.– Watching... listening... 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry man (or woman)...I wasn't out to get you I was just enforcing this particular policy on the Episode pages. There are plenty of times I've been reverted by others :) That's just life. Please don't take it the wrong the way why are you listening... instead of watching...? — Morder 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And 1. I am a man, 2. I both watch and listen. :)– Watching... listening... 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RE The Gift

Chronological isn't the right word. I meant to say that the scientists were the first humans from that timeline (not time travelers, but native to that timeline) to be assimilated. But how do I make that not sound clumsy?– Watching... listening... 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know...I talked to Shran about it before I made the are correct but at the same time not...just like I am correct but at the same time not...I hate time travel. maybe..."so-and-so is the first non-24th century Human to be assimilated"? definitely needs to be rewritten but it adds the correct information...just terribly written :) — Morder 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...time travel...oy! :)– Watching... listening... 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying Again

I have tried again to properly explain the whole Moninger assimilation time travel thing. This time I left a note at the bottom of the article explaining that technically... well, you can read it for yourself. I hope it is acceptable.– Watching... listening... 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My name is captainbond

I am captainbond. Nice to meet you,sir. I am Japanese. English cannot be so used.

I'm sorry. It has made a mistake in the operation. I am participating in the project of a Japanese Memory Alpha.

--ボンド大佐 16:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wire

Moved to Memory Alpha talk:What Memory Alpha is not...

about my signiture

I just hadn't set up the page yet, now it works.

--Semajdraehs- any replies to my Talk page 10:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Morder, I think you've made an error by reverting my edit to "Firstborn", where I removed a link to "Selek".

The references section is for things that were referenced in the episode in some way -- which Selek was not.

The only connection is the background of the Selek article that mentions a similarity, in fact, there is no reference to Selek in the episode "Firstborn" - so the link should be removed or moved to the "Firstborn" article's background section -- it doesn't belong in the references at all. -- Captain MKB 02:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, my assumption was that anything referencing the article was put in references (I also checked the policy and couldn't find anything concrete but I chatted with Shran about it and he set me straight). — Morder 04:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yah, the reference section is for stuff that's referenced in the episode only. Any references/similarities between episodes from the BG goes into the BG only. -- sulfur 12:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving pages

Please note that when "moving" pages, please actually move the page rather than simply cutting and pasting the information on it. This preserves the history, and saves extra bother when people discover that you did that cut and paste a few hours after the fact, rather than having seen the move done and possibly replaced with a {{delete}} tag. :) -- sulfur 13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm used to moving partial pages and just wasn't thinking. I will remember in the future. Thanks. :) — Morder 16:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Female Shapeshifter

I was just wondering why you took out my background tidbit on the female changleiing page. I thought it was something worth putting in there, maybe I just didn't write it properly? (Vince 06:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

I didn't remove it. If you check the diff you'll see I just moved it. :) — Morder 06:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm new at this, well not new just bad. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vince47 (talk • contribs).

No problem. — Morder 06:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek

Sorry, I misunderstood the spoiler policy. :P My bad - can we get an actor page for Winona Ryder? She's the second biggest name star in the film under Nimoy. If so, thanks - if not, d'oh! The preceding unsigned comment was added by SCOTIMUS76 (talk • contribs).

Winona Ryder already exists here. Also — Morder 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)–

Wow, magical... I swear I looked her up & didn't find here on here, but undoubtably I did something stupid like spelling her first name with a "y". Thanks again, & sorry for the trouble. – SCOTIMUS76 21:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


does mean what I said it meant.

What was the problem?

Esperanto Guy EoGuy99 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It may mean that in Esperanto, but unless cited, it's an irrelevant fact. Also, you signed the entry on the article page. Article pages do not get signatures. Talk pages, sure. Article pages, no. -- sulfur 05:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
well...i guess i won't be the first to reply...but i'm going to anyway since i'm in edit conflict...
I'm not saying it isn't - but first off you signed it on an article, second it wasn't added in the proper format and third i think only the Aramaic definition has any relevance but that's not up to me to decide so i reverted for the first two reasons — Morder 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I broke the rules but I don't see how either the Latin or Aramaic definitions are relevant, either.

But it's not my wiki, anyway when all is said and done.

Esperanto Guy EoGuy99 05:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not our wiki, either. We just work here. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
gah, stop emailing me! — Morder 04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad Links?

My mistake. Maybe I can make an article on one of those. Vince 07:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means. In general unless the link goes to a page it shouldn't we don't remove redlinks :) — Morder 07:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Planet" Article

So what is missing, then? The page says it needs to cite its references. However, the sub-links to the pages ("gas giant," "ring planet" and "rogue planet") have references. What needs to change in that article? Plunking down three planet types with no description is not very pretty, either. -- Winn cochrane 03:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, the "planetoid" bit and 100km needs a citation. For types, different types should be listed. They don't need descriptions. That's what their articles are for. -- sulfur 03:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Action Figure

Pleasure doin' business with you on that article. Maybe next time I can try and keep the edits in the single digits. Vince 09:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Prometheus help

Thanks for your help with the links on the talk page. I was just looking up how to do it myself when I saw you had done it for me. Satyrquaze 17:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Figured it was easier for anyone to read it to find the right information you wanted them to see :) — Morder 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Thought I did remove that. Not sure what went wrong. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vince47 (talk • contribs).

Yeah, these things happen. — Morder 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


What article is that from? do you have a link? I'd like to see it. – Vince 02:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No. That's why I put an {{incite}} tag. — Morder 02:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. I just thought I had caught some kind of MA error, but that seems to be impossible. Vince 03:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blanked user talk

Let it go, especially since it is only a welcome message. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I already did, that's why I didn't bother reverting the other user — Morder 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling "correction"

Hey. I noticed this edit you made to an article, you indicated in your edit summary that it was a spelling correction. As I'm not familiar with this wiki or its favoured manual of style and spelling conventions, I can only assume that your edit was in line with them? Just a newbie asking for a bit of guidance and clarification here. Thanks. J Di 13:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to read the Manual of Style for information regarding this particular wiki's style. The section in question to my edit made to your British spelling is located under Spelling and style choices - the gist is that, because Star Trek is an American production we use the American spelling. — Morder 13:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. J Di 13:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No Problem and thanks for contributing! — Morder 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Image Filenames

"Could you remove the -'s from your uploads? Thanks. — Morder"

Huh? I don't understand. Please explain.– Watching... listening... 04:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of a "-" make them spaces. Standard image naming on Memory-alpha :) — Morder 04:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you do it? I do not know how to change a filename. :) – Watching... listening... 04:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant more for future uploads. Because you can't change an image filename. — Morder 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. No -. Thanks. :) – Watching... listening... 04:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


where you at? --From Andoria with Love 04:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all up in here, gettin' my freak on — Morder 10:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cargo bay article

Looks like we had the same thought there- at a minimum that information should be in a separate section, I think, if we keep it.--31dot 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

heh. yeah...i don't think we even need the info anyway - very nitpicky to me... — Morder 05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Invitiation to join service record game

Hey, how are you doing. I would like to invite you to take a look at a new internet game I designed. If you would like to play it, you can send an e-mail to It requires as much or as little participation as you want and the records generated by the game are regularly e-mailed and can be burned to a CD when/if a character retires. I think you will truely enjoy it and I am looking for live action players. Thank you! -FC 23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I read your page but I'm not sure exactly what your game is about. — Morder 02:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty much a role playing game played online. I updated the description of the game after realizing that it was a bit unclear. -FC 04:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ask J.J. Abrams Contest

FYI, I fixed my post so it's just 1 question now. However, I would like to say that I did read the intro section, and both "question" and "questions" appear in the instructions. It is not clear that no more than 1 question per user is allowed. Could you please clarify this for others? Thanks. Zidel333 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked someone to update the intro page. However the rules also state one question and everyone does need to read the rules. Hopefully soon. — Morder 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

47s in Star Trek

You removed the 47s from the Star Trek page, without any explanation. What is the explanation? Peter R 11:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We've been removing references unless specifically stated by production or has a production source that it is indeed a reference to 47 and not just a random occurrence. — Morder 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but why? I can't see any logical reason for that reasoning. If 47 is such a big number in Star Trek, then it should be enough that people watching Star Trek might be interested in the 47-occureances. Is there a public record for this discussion and decision so I can look at it? Peter R 16:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because not all occurrences are valid and are just an assumption. I'll have to find it later. But our policy states only valid production sources for production material are valid. Since a 47 link in any given episode is an assumption based on the viewer it isn't valid. — Morder 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I still say okay, but there is a problem with the reasoning (or maybe it's my lack of better english...) - All the 47s that I and someone else mentioned on that page are directly from the production. I'd say that the Star Trek movie is the main production source. If a number 47 has been mentioned in a movie, then I'd propse that it is valid. Every trekker, though, must always account for the random occurences as well, since the production team can't be responsible for every little number seen or heard on screen. Peter R 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your indentation the same. This has already been discussed and I will not do it again here. Except to say that a 47 reference is not necessarily a 47 reference unless it was intended to be a 47 reference. Just because a 47 somehow appeared in a show/movie doesn't make it intentional. — Morder 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am trying with the indentation - I'm used to the possibility of two ":" that will mean that the aligned text will be even further to the right. It works like that on the swedish (and international?) wikipedia. If you find the "47 decision", please let me know on my own talk page. I know what you've said on top of this page, but if you find it in a week or so, I can't be able to pop in every day or so just to see that nothing is found. And please, when you delete other items - mention that it's a previous decision. It makes everything a little bit more understandable. Peter R 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:47, most probably. -- Cid Highwind 17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Formatting discussions

Hi, Morder. I see that when someone responds to a comment made earlier in the discussion by posting after the remark they're responding to, you have a tendency to move the remark down to the bottom of the page. I understand that it's best practice to add new comments at the bottom of the page, but when you move comments it can make it look as if a remark is responding to something other than what it really was. For example, in this move, you make it look as if Randy1012 is saying "No" to my remark about levels of canonicity, rather than to Dangerdan97's remark about the proper form of address to former Presidents of the United States.

Since both the page history and the timestamp which is included in the signature provide a record of when different comments were made, why is it so important that comments be on the page in the order in which they're made? If someone wants to respond to a point made earlier in the conversation, it's easier to keep discussion on one topic together rather than have to jump around the page to follow it. I agree with Randy's comment in the edit summary here.

Frankly, having an edit war over the placements of someone's comments in a discussion strikes me as overly anal. Is this really the best way to welcome people to the MA community? —Josiah Rowe 02:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a requirement for proper discussions on this site. If you have an issue with it, take it up on the policy page and not here. This has been discussed before and will most likely not change as a result of a few new users. Placement is simply for ease of reading. If everyone injects comments within the thread it's much harder to read. I'll thank you for posting any future issues on the appropriate page. Thanks. — Morder 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
For reference talk pages. Please read that if you're unfamiliar with the established policies on this site. — Morder 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find it easier to read when conversations on one topic are kept together instead of moved to keep comments in chronological order. And that's the practice on the talk pages of most other wikis, such as Wikipedia. (Yes, I know, Memory Alpha is not Wikipedia.)

But if this is really a policy matter rather than a personal predilection I'll discuss it elsewhere — I assume the proper venue is Help talk:Talk pages? —Josiah Rowe 02:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You may find it easier. Most users - who agreed to current policy - find the current method easier. Yes, take it up on that page. — Morder 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Dialog for new movie

Thanks for confirming that for me. Out of curiosity, where did you confirm it? Having access to the dialog would be really useful in making new additions to MA. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well...I've been confirming just about everything I can...mainly quotes. Since they're easier to confirm than actual articles. :) If you're on IRC at some point I'll explain it. :) — Morder 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Did I say that?....:) Thanks for the catch.--31dot 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Sizes.

I was of the notion that image file sizes are supposed to be small as possible without sacrificing quality, because the server only has so much space, thus uploading hundred-plus k images was discouraged. This is what I told the uploader. I've been reducing all the images to less than 100k while maintinaing quality. Or is it the dimensional reduction that is a problem (i.e. smaller dimensions as opposed to smaller file size). If that is the case, I can fix that.– Crimsondawn hears you... 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If we have a high quality image available let's keep it. There's enough space on the server anyway. In general let's not sacrifice quality just a couple K. :) — Morder 21:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I am able to reduce file size and still maintain near-original dimensions and original quality. What do you think of the new :File:James T. Kirk Chris Pine during the Kobayashi Maru.jpg I did? It is just a bit smaller. It looks to have the same high-res as the 400k. How's that? – Crimsondawn hears you... 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

USS Mayflower Discussion

Can you move my discussion for USS Mayflower (23rd Century) to USS Mayflower (Alternate Reality)? Thanks.– Airtram3 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cid took care of it. — Morder 15:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Added Content.

I shall type in detail from now on. I'm sorry. (Live long, and prosper). Lol. :) Roger Murtaugh 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for that edit. Living in Massachusetts, we take our Revolution starting history serious. The Minutemen march to Concord every year in April, right by my house in fact. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, and my mother gets to experience the southern side of the war where she lives :) — Morder 02:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nensi Chandra Image

My apologies for using your Talk:Nensi Chandra image in an article. For some reason, it was in the Star Trek images category so when I was looking for uniforms from the film, I erroneously believed it to be a legitimate image (otherwise, why would it have the category and correct citation and everything).

This, and the fact that I moved Chandra to "Nensei Chandra" originally, means I'm the cause for all of your Chandra-related issues lately.--Tim Thomason 05:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's no big deal, the reason I added the categories and such was because of other users who would add them for me and I really didn't want anyone editing the image since I knew it would be removed shortly. — Morder 06:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nurse Chapel

Hi! I saw that you left "we've already decided against these" in the edit summary for the delete request on the redirect I created for Nurse Chapel. Can you let me know where that discussion was so I don't make the same mistake again? Thanks! —Scott (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a policy decision made 2+ years ago to not use any redirects that are in the form of "title name". -- sulfur 20:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayel photo

I'm unsure why you removed my photo of Ayel. It was IN-UNIVERSE. It was recently released, a photo of him on the Jellyfish, which was indeed in the movie. I believe that it is allowed, even though it was a publicity photo. User:Blair2009

yeah, better to have screencaps for Ayel than publicity photos - those are better used on the actor pages. anyway, they'll all be replaced by the dvd screencaps as soon as it comes out. — Morder 02:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you cite me the policy on here that says that? i.e. "better to have screencaps for [...] than publicity photos" ? Because I am honestly a little bit confused as to what is allowed. Thank you, appreciate it. – Distantlycharmed 02:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
here is a reference. — Morder 02:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not really a written policy, but we prefer screenshots to publicity stills... when the screenshots become available. I was not here when Star Trek: Enterprise was still running, so I'm unsure how MA handled publicity stills at the time. Since many of the publicity stills are the property of Industrial Light & Magic, it may be a copyright infringement to use them. Then again, they were expressly released for the purpose of promotion, so... I dunno. All I do know is that, ultimately we prefer screenshots taken by MA users to publicity stills taken by ILM and released via Paramount. --From Andoria with Love 02:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New Users

Hey Morder! Just wanted to make a bit of a suggestion. I've noticed you're really good at spotting anon users who are making changes that aren't good for MA, and fixing them (such as this [1]). I was wondering, however, if it may be prudent to drop some of these users a brief note when this takes place. In my experience (and I'm the first to admit I've been gone for a while) giving an explanation on their talk page often leads to really positive results (such as them registering and becoming active users) while simply reverting content leads to frustration, and occasionally vandalism.

For simple things, you can simply us the {{edithint-test}} on their user page, though sometimes I think it needs a more nuanced approach.

I don't want to sound too critical, because I think you do great work - I just think this may be something for you to consider. Thanks --- Jaz 07:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I understand. I don't normally do it since the they usually go away after the first edit. I usually put in the summary field why unless it's just plain vandalism - which is what this one was (in my opinion at least) — Morder 07:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of users do that, though its worth keeping in mind that new users probs don't know about the summary field, but they do, however, see messages on their page. Regardless of what you chose to do, keep up the great work! --- Jaz 07:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for removing the vandal post from my talk page. I was going to ask him/her politely not to do that again. A repeat would have seen his name being carried by me to an administrator such as yourself with a complaint of vandalism. In fact, if it happens again, I will still pursue that course of action. Again, thank you.:) – Crimsondawn hears you... 21:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Already taken care of. — Morder 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see Shran blocked the offender for 3 days. Apparently he has been making quite a nuisance of himself. – Crimsondawn hears you... 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


Ah, thank you for telling me this. I had not known about that policy before. Until It Sleeps 22:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing Question

Hey Morder. I've been working on the Nova class page: how does one code to control the spacing between the heading title and the text in its section? In this case I would like the "History" heading to have no space between it and the text beneath it. It seems to me that (in this case) part of the issue is the automated text wrapping around the side bar box image. Thanks.--Hribar 21:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...actually the spacing is controlled by css and is currently the proper space between the heading and the containing text. I'm not sure exactly how it looks on your system but the current spacing is what is considered appropriate for this site's setup. — Morder 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. Thanks.--Hribar 21:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Discussions for copyright violations belong on Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements, and not the other deletion pages. Not only is one specifically for copyvios, but the rules on how things are handled on that page differ from those on the other deletion pages. Take images, which you have been trying to move to the "Images for Deletion" page. On "Images for Deletion," something must be listed for seven days, while on on the copyvio page, stricter rules allow for deletion after receiving just two additional votes, and no wait. It also mandates presenting source and such, while "Images for Deletion" does not. There is a reason we have that other page, please use it and please do not stop others from using it. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I explained my other reason for posting there, this time I just forgot. I know where it goes. — Morder 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Forgot about the American spelling thing, my bad, my browser labelled it as misspelled and I corrected it without thinking. Won't happen again. Captain J 18:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Decoration ;)

The Christopher Pike Medal of Valor

Morder, in recognition of your outstanding commitment to Memory Alpha, most recently manifested in your diligent "minor" edits, such as nav plates on novel page, I hereby officially (and completely arbitrarily) award you the Christopher Pike Medal of Valor. --- Jaz 05:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I've only just begun. — Morder 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I have some help?

I am new to Memory Alpha, the one who wrote the original Harod IV article. I don't understand the coding so can you make sure the article is listed under planets? Thanks! --Starbase 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already added the appropriate category to the page, so it should show up there. Also you might want to read our policies and How to format wiki pages to help you in using wikis. — Morder 00:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I read it. --Starbase 22:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin nomination

I think you should be nominated for admin. You're one of the most active members here, and considering the type of work you do here (ie, taking care of a lot of small things) I think you should be granted sysop privileges. I've also notice that you tend to stay above a lot of the petty back-and-forth that goes on here. Anyway, I wanted to check with you first, because Admin Nominations inevitably bring up the worst in people - old grudges from edit wars, jealous non-admin members who've been here longer, nostalgic admins clinging to power, and the likes. Okay... I'm exaggerating a fair bit, but you get the idea. Anyway, I think you deserve it, and would do a great job, so if you're okay with it, I would like to nominate you. --- Jaz 07:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Chain of Command

Sorry, still very green but want to help out. Not sure what you're saying though. IF i take out the "inspired" line, and just say the line is "identical" would that be okay? The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpocksinnerConflict (talk • contribs).

Heh, well, I don't see the problem with removing it, however, if it was actually inspired by that, which I assume whoever wrote that note originally has a source for it, then we need to keep the "inspired" in it. Stating that it's identical doesn't really mean much in terms of a background note unless it was taken directly from the book - in which case, we need another source stating that it was and not just a coincidence either...hard to say really :) — Morder 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler banners

Are we removing all the Star Trek banners?-Archduk3 02:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them, the ones left have other things that need to be done to the article at the same time. It's easier to leave them there so that we know what pages to modify with what. I've mainly removed the ones that don't need anything else done to them :) — Morder 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Sorry about that; thanks for the heads up. 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it :) — Morder 01:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

{{real world}} -> {{article type|rw}}

Hey, how come you're changing these templates? The documentation for {{article type}} specifically says not to use the at|rw parameter directly, and always use {{real world}}. -- Michael Warren | Talk 08:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

heh, missed it :) i'll take care of the ones i've done. thanks. — Morder 08:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Strange, I read it the other day when Cid mentioned some of the replacements we need to do...darn. — Morder 08:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Spock images

To go with the "spocks" one, any clue if these are in trailers/etc? :File:SpockAcademy.jpg and :File:BabySpock.jpg. The uploader claims that the second is from a deleted scene, and it's used right near the top of Spock. -- sulfur 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking. — Morder 00:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see either in the trailer. Possibly from a star trek website? — Morder 00:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've Been Busy!

You deserve a trip to Risa! The preceding unsigned comment was added by DhaliaUnsung (talk • contribs).

Eh, just tedious work that needs to get done. It's easy doing this...what's really needed is the fleshing out of some episodes. :) — Morder 00:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am (embarrassingly) having problems with a link to the episode marauders in T'Pol's clothing section. Assuming you haven't fixed it by the time I've hit send, can you check it out for me pretty please with sugar on top? Thanks! -- DhaliaUnsung 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You just had a parenthesis instead of a bracket on the first closing one. :) — Morder 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh man, I feel so stupid. Well, thanks for coming to the rescue, I'll blame my mistake on my toddler, eh? -- DhaliaUnsung 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Spock (Alternate Reality Quotes)

I'm trying to find some really good Spock Quotes from the new Star trek movie so far only found one could use some help finding some. The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Sheppard (talk • contribs).

Are you asking me to provide quotes? If so I'm not a fan of quotes and don't generally like adding them. But the scene from the Kirk hearing has some good quotes about fear and such. :) — Morder 12:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah i am. yet i havent seen the movie in quite some time so im kinda outta the loop. The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Sheppard (talk • contribs).

Sorry, I don't like quotes, too subjective for my tastes as to what constitutes memorable, and won't be adding any. I only correct the ones that are added - or remove them if they're really long. I'm sure there are others around, maybe not right now, that will help you though. — Morder 12:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah well takes for ur help. The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Sheppard (talk • contribs).

Sorry... also, don't forget to sign your talk pages with ~~~~ — Morder 12:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
sorry....still kinda new to this forum. – John Sheppard 12:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC) John Sheppard


Congrats. ;) – Tom 09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, still have another day, but thanks! :) — Morder 15:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

reverting edits

Could you explain why you reverse an edit before you do it? Cause if you dont explain and just revert, I will revert back. I thought this was supposed to be taken to discussion anyway before we start reverting each other. Example: Titan. Thanks a lot. – Distantlycharmed 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the summary. — Morder 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify. I dont get why you remove "alternate reality created by Nero's incursion" when in fact this is what we put on the headers of most articles related to the new movie. – Distantlycharmed 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please indent properly. We've kept it as just "alternate reality" for a while. I'll have to look for the discussion as it's somewhere and link you but basically you're specifying information that doesn't need to be there. If people want to learn more about the alternate reality they can click on the link alternate reality. It's a fairly standard practice here. — Morder 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, forgot reply to your other statement about "the headers" - that's a background note and not an in-universe note. — Morder 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I cant get the indenting right. Anyway, it is still called "alternate reality created by Nero's incursion" here and here. I dont know why you remove it and I disagree i am specifying information that doesnt need to be there. Also, why do you italicize it? It is still in-universe as it happened in the movie, although in an alternate timeline. It's just really annoying when you revert edits and dont explain why.– Distantlycharmed 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I explained my reverts in the summary. I am not required to put a message on your talk page or anywhere else for matter. Second - with regards to italicizing the information. That's what we do with the alternate timeline information contained in articles primarily about the prime reality. Third - the links you gave me - yes, you pointed out exactly what I stated about your "headers" - non in-universe statements about where to find other characters with the same name contained in an article that is supposed to be in-universe. Hence why they're formatted as such - to separate them from the main article. You might want to read our policies regarding formatting of information. Whether or not you disagree with me in regards to "information that doesn't need to be there" - that's something the community has decided a long time ago. There's no point in specifying information that can be better explained on the article in question. — Morder 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Just remember "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." is on the edit page. You can't just assume that your edits will always be here or always accepted for that matter. We all have our edits undone at one point or another - it's not just you. :) — Morder 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No I get it. And i didnt ask that you post on my talk page to explain to me every revert you do...but you could have done it when you undid my edit in the summary section, so I dont have to keep asking and asking what you actually mean. I wasnt aware that the "alternate reality" has to be italicized in prime universe articles, but fair enough, now i know. But I still dont understand why you cant say in the text, besides the header, "alternate reality created by Nero's incursion". How does that go against policy and if so...which one? That "rule" seems a bit arbitrary to me. – Distantlycharmed 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I DID put my revert reason in the edit summary. it says "chronological order". Please check it again. — Morder 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. my bad. I really didnt notice it being there...But I didnt/dont get what you meant with that anyway, so just the same. Thanks for clarifying. – Distantlycharmed 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Starship sidebar

Do you know who I would have to talk to/what page to go to get the Starship sidebar format changed? - Archduk3 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, depends on what information you want to add. Any admin can help you there. :)

I was hoping there was a way to get a bottom image added in a way as to avoid what was done on the ISS Enterprise (NX-01) page, since that is all kinds of goofy. - Archduk3 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, I would bring it up on the talk page then. Since you're asking for a decent change. :) — Morder 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

New Admin

Hooray— Vince47 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, and I already screwed up :) — Morder 09:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Werent you an admin anyway? I'm confused. Did I miss something? – Distantlycharmed 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tallyho and all that rot! :) -- DhaliaUnsung 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I wasn't an admin, a current list of admins can be seen here. :) — Morder 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh...really? and all this time I thought you were one....I mean you acted like one :) But cool yo... Congrats. Now it's official...:p– Distantlycharmed 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Those are the colors of the insignia, see any image from VOY: "Relativity". And that is the same template I used for all the other insignia I have made; from what the screen caps show, it looks like it is all lines and no curves. - Archduk3 08:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Then there needs to be two insignia. One for Chronowerx and one for the starfleet one as they're not the same. Though the pixelation of that image is really bad...a higher quality one definitely needs to be created. :) — Morder 08:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what resolution you are using, or if you the others from the starfleet insignia page seem to have the same distortion, since I'm not seeing a pixelation at that size. - Archduk3 09:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a fairly high resolution monitor but the problem with the image you've uploaded was that there was no anti-aliasing at all and thus the image was very jagged and not smooth (the edges). Usually that's a result of a low-end image editor such as ms-paint or something similar rather than Photoshop or GIMP. — Morder 09:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I, unfortunately it seems, was using photoshop to make that image, I was actually using the same dimensions of the first image too try and keep the size down, but it seems like it backfired on me, though I'm not sure what else I could do at that size to smooth the edges out, might take another crack at it in the mourning. - Archduk3 09:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no big deal. Sorry I reverted it but it didn't match the previous image and you're using that on the chronowerks page - which has the blue logo and not orange. If the old chronowerks image isn't deleted I will revert the page back to that image as it's more appropriate and you can override the 29th century one with the orange logo. — Morder 09:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Timelines and Realities

So I had a idea about this whole New/Alternate/Prime/Timeline/Reality thing but am not sure where to post it, so do you know where the discussion on the termanology and whatnot is going on? -Archduk3 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on in talk:Star Trek (film)/Ten Forward#Star Trek (film) - SPOILERS - Where to place new information (post-release discussion), though I think it's long been abandoned. — Morder 20:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


I was told on my discussion page that I could ask here if had any questions. Actually, I was wondering about my user page. When I click on the edit this page link I just get a gray box that says it's loading and on my other computer I just get a white box like this exept there are no buttons on the top and I can't type anything Yarnek 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Yarnek. I'm not sure what the problem could be (other than possibly not loading javascript correctly). I've asked wikia and they said that it could be the "Rich Text Editor" stalling on load. It's not an issue you can control. What you could do is go to your "preferences", click on "Edit" and then uncheck the "Enable Rich Text Editing" checkbox and save. See if that works - I'm going to post this on your talk page incase you don't see it. — Morder 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Question

I was wondering about images. There are apparently a lot on memory alpha. If it's illegal to put in copyrighted images then how did all theese images get here. Is there a way for me to download an image here legally? Thanks. --- Yarnek 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All the images come from DVD's screen-captures or are production photos that we have been allowed to use. There are some that come from trailers that are from the official movie site such as those related to the recent film. — Morder 19:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I take an image from cbs? — Yarnek 21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

From their website? No. Unless it's marked as a promotional image that's allowed to be used... — Morder 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Voyager edit

Apologies. I'm new here lol. ( 10:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Starfleet Insignia

Do you have a better image of the gold delta that Spock has on his uniform when he talks to prime Spock, or at the trial, for the Starfleet insignia page? Also, any idea if that uniform is the dress version? - Archduk3 03:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found one. You do more then enough around here anyways. :) - Archduk3 07:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent ban

Just to let you know, User:Typhuss James Kira was in all likelihood an alternate name of recently banned anon User talk: -- we've been going through this with him on Memory Beta as well -- very strange. -- Captain MKB 17:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of it a few days ago and thought I'd give him/her a chance - oh well. I'm still trying to figure out what they're up to... :) — Morder (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

New sidebar

Not sure if you saw it on Forum:Holograms vs. Fictional characters but I suggested a new sidebar for fictional characters, code here, seen here, and I was hoping to get to the pages in question soon, since my last edit of most of them was to add the hologram sidebar, which is incorrect, it seems. Any issue with me just creating this sidebar and getting down to it? - Archduk3 02:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to me - be bold - just know that some others might not like it. — Morder (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Typhuss James Kira

That guy just started disrupting our articles as well, and after reading your comment on his english user talkpage, I banned him. I don't think he'll change his behaviour within the month he got here. -- defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] 02:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, given that he has done this same behavior across at least two language editions of MA, and one of MB, I think we have a pretty clear pattern of "is not going to change." --OuroborosCobra talk 03:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing Memory Alpha:Copyrights. I forgot the bot needed a list of exceptions and was just coming round to revert it here but saw you'd already done it. Angela (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My user page

Greetings, I was removing old messages from my user page. Is there a specific reason you restored them?Jlandeen 07:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a message in the summary telling where to read why. But I'll explain it here. We don't delete, you can archive them but it's for historical purposes. You can put your talk messages User talk:Jlandeen/Archive if you'd like but the page talk pages states what we allow and don't allow with regards to talk pages. — Morder (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, I have used the page you suggested and made the changes. Thanks for keeping me on track, feel free to archive this if you wish.Jlandeen 08:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


I wish to suggest, in my own humble way, if you have the time, what with your admin powers and all, that maybe some of the backlog of pages to be merged can be worked through, since I know you have suggest it somewhere in the mess of talk pages, if I could only find it (I didn't link the page since there seems to be a discrepancy between the page and what links to the template). - Archduk3 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (fan of run-on sentences)

Well, I'll check the list of pages and if there's a consensus to merge I'll look into it. I still need to practice but don't like doing it just yet unless they're small pages. — Morder (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No big deal, I stumbled across your comments a few days ago and have since then been randomly going through the merge pages. Most of them are quite old, and the Enterprise-J type was settled in about a fourth of the time the other have been up. I also need to stop using you as my go-to guy, since this entire page is me nagging you about one thing or another. So thanks for putting up with this. - Archduk3 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nov nav

Thanks for the help with the novel nav template. The "chrono" section is designed for those occasions where there's a clear throughline in the stories, but an intervening novel is published. Examples include Enemy of My Enemy and Full Circle, and the DS9 relaunch generally. I'll try and figure out how you've done what you've done, and see if there's a way I can apply it to that section as well. -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


You have new messages on user talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman 16:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks, I actually had an account at one point, but I don't remember the username or email address at all, as it was a few years ago. I'd rather hopefully spontaneously remember what it was.

I probably won't make a huge amount of contributions, honestly. I'm more of a Whovian, Pentababylonian and Gate-or than a Trekkie. Star Trek has always bothered me a little on the internal consistency problems, and got worst during TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds" when no one at all thought to launch a Genesis device at the Borg cube, thus destroying all organic life on it and making a conveniently habitable planetoid, instead. (Yes, I know Doctor Who Classic forgot innovations all the time, too, but it was intended as quirkier, and in many cases history could have changed to eliminate certain things from all but The Doctor's not-always-effective memory; Stargate managed to hold on to innovations and re-use them later more often, and B5 did things like bringing back the life-transfer device several seasons later, thus avoiding any deus-ex-machina. I was also more of a Star Wars fan, up until the prequels killed that pretty flat.

But since the new movie, I've been re-watching a lot of the Trek I liked better (certain TOS episodes, movies, and the occassional DS9 or TNG episode that tied into a complete "package deal" system, and thus went on a binge of In a Mirror, Darkly, followed by Mirror, Mirror, followed by The Tholian Web).

I was just struck, upon re-watching TOS: "The Tholian Web" at Spock's barefaced lie at the end, when the only immediately obvious (and what appeared to be the only intended) reason was the humour element. I felt a need to look up whether it was mentioned on Wikipedia or here, and it wasn't.

On writing the edit, though, while I do not believe that the screen writer for the episode really intended it this way, I realised that it could be interpreted as Spock following Jim's last orders, to follow McCoy's lead on emotional and intuitive matters, and that Spock may not have even entirely realised that McCoy was joking and thought he had some intuitive Human emotional reason to deny reading the orders, and thus followed suit.

(Regarding his claim that Vulcans were not affected by Tribbles, I see this less as a lie and more of an emotional struggle with pride)

Whilst reading over the rest of the section, I recalled the bit in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock where the Teen Spock on the Genesis Planet went into pon farr and the strong implication that horse-faced-and-uglier-but-less-psychologically-disturbing-than-thinking-I-once-found-Kirstie-Alley-hot Saavik "took care of it" for him. If Spock's regeneration followed the same course as his original life, albeit accellerated, and pon farr is a totally biological phenomenon, then Spock did, indeed, encounter pon farr at least once in his life prior to TOS: "Amok Time". Of course, that doesn't cover at least two times between those ages, or the fact that no one in Starfleet should have been surprised by pon farr, Vulcan's haveing been in it as long as humans.

And if the thought of how many times Spock must have gone into pon farr between that and the new movie doesn't disturb you, especially the concept of a crazy-horny-old-Ambossador-Spock, then consider it happening to the Zachary Quinto version. Or worse, consider this... a new cast remake of Spock's Brain:

McCoy: I'm going to have to cut open his skull to get it back in there. Spock's Brain hooked up to a communication device: Let me take care of that for you, doctor. Spock's hand raises up, points a single finger at his own forehead, and a line of blod appears streaking across his forehead, while a 'tick-tock-tick-tock' sound plays in the background 03:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for getting that file, didn't even notice that it was in caps when I loaded it. ; ) - Archduk3:talk 02:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Happens all the time - we didn't have the power to fix it so easily before though. — Morder (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Charlie Brill

IMDB. Questionable source, I know, but the only one that's there. --Joshmaul 04:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you'd say that... :) — Morder (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Image uploads

I don't need to say this, but your image uploads for your BG performers page still need the licenses and categories tagged onto 'em. And a couple are uncited. :P -- sulfur 11:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I got them all - I did miss the license from the latest batch though, thanks for reminding me. — Morder (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


Hey, what's File:Moore and others.odf? – Tom 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a file that contains all the geocities texts as geocities is going offline later this year. I uploaded it after a discussion on #ma. :) just rename it to .rar as mediawiki doesn't allow any archive files :) We haven't decided quite what to do with it yet. (See: Forum:Geocities going down) — Morder (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. – Tom 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as we don't start adding "Ron Moore thinks this episode sucks/was great/was embarassing", even if he had nothing to do with them again... ;-) --Jörg 08:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Naturally...:) — Morder (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unnamed residents

Hey. Just want to let you know that I've cleaned up the page Unnamed Deep Space 9 residents. You've added two people twice. Human with Aphasia - 3.jpg is the same as Human smiling at Dax.jpg and Human female in Quarks.jpg is the same as Human female walking on the Promenade 2.jpg. Just fyi. ;) – Tom 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did no such thing :) I just moved the Civilian section from Unnamed Deep Space 9 Starfleet personnel - didn't look through it once really :) — Morder (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Why have you deleted my stuff! I have gone to Wikisimpsons and they have not been so hostile! We, at The Sims Wiki, where I got it from, where I am an admin, like it and many users have talkboxes. If I get thrown out, I will report this. --TDM : Always here to help but only one thing : Call me Data 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


In my related sandbox, I was actually trying to put in better links for the other language versions of MA, as per something Cid said in when memory gamma was first brought up, it's in the main page archive. I stopped working on it when it became apparent I had no idea what I was doing, and I haven't had the time to get back to it. - Archduk3:talk 23:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew I saw it somewhere. I just couldn't remember exactly... — Morder (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Article question

Hey, I'm trying to finish one last reference to the heart attack atricle on Memory-Alpha. I was wondering if you have seen the episode "Rejoined" recently or can remember a reference to heart attack in that episode, as I haven't seen it in years, nor do I own it. Any help would be great, thank you. --Delta2373 08:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Not bad. Or I suppose we could throw ourselves at each other, profess our undying love for each other and complete disregard for Trill society."
"Doctor Pren would probably have a heart attack."
"Forget about him, my brother's head would explode. He's been a nervous wreck ever since we arrived."
The other chick with dax saying the heart attack line...That's it from the episode. — Morder (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

re: sources

[2](X) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Euphorik6 (talk • contribs).

Could you...

Can you look at Enterprise dedication plaque and figure out what the anon user did? I can't tell.--31dot 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he/she removed all the spaces from around italicized colons. Why? no clue, but I reverted. -- Captain MKB 23:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Captainmike, and thanks Morder if you looked. :)--31dot 23:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy and not on MA at the moment. :) — Morder (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
With regards to that particular edit - they didn't edit hardly anything. It's the stupid new editor that wikia pushed out that is making those edits. Most of them removed spaces from the table | - became |- and other formatting. The Editor actually didn't change a thing or maybe added a <space> somewhere. — Morder (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I hear Wookiepedia got the editor disabled -- i've requested Sannse have it disabled for Memory Beta too... sometimes people are looking at code, make no changes, but when they are done it makes drastic alterations to table code and things like that. One article got edited by the autoeditor and it removed 3KB of breaks from the article because it didn't like the table format not having every cell on a newline. -- Captain MKB 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we should probably bring it up for discussion in the forums. But, in general, I don't have a problem with it - just makes reviewing edits annoying. :) — Morder (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate reality

In the recent edits to the page, it has been brought up that Starfleet knew what the Romulans looked like before the Narada showed up. I just wanted to check to make sure I have the timing of events down, and it seems you have seen the movie more then the rest of us.

"Storm in space" -> Ship comes through -> Ship is ID as Romulan and attacks-> the Narada hails them (visual)

If I'm right, then there is no issue with Starfleet learning about how the Romulans looked right there, and the language bit could be anything from it's taught in the same class to what have you. Either way, the language part seems like is nitpicking to me. - Archduk3:talk 01:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reword it but most of the speculation has been removed. The only part that is left isn't a nitpick but might really be worthless information as they did learn romulan - especially after that attack by the romulans the federation would step-up their knowledge gathering about them - including language... — Morder (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess; either way, I don't see why people keep feeling the need to poke holes in this film, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier still has a ton of things people could complain about... :) - Archduk3:talk 02:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably just people who think they've thought of something new that isn't here...not necessarily picking apart the movie - just people think they're clever... :) — Morder (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

/Oh I know I am not that clever. --Frank Columbo 02:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I was not trying to nick pick. I only wanted to suggest that that Abram’s universe may have changed before the events depicted at the beginning of the film. I did not think it was pure speculation so I want to say that I am sorry if I miss stepped when adding what I did. --Frank Columbo 02:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
No apology necessary. The best way to bring stuff like that up for discussion is mainly on other message boards as this encyclopedia is here to provide what actually happened in the star trek universe. As for your idea I can't find any evidence as all the evidence we see could be explain in various forms. Nobody on the Kelvin knew that they were dealing with Romulans as it wasn't seen on screen, 25 years later - we knew they were Romulans. Same with the language. — Morder (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't take what I wrote the wrong way, I've seen a lot of "picking apart" since the film came out, and have gotten a bit jaded to it, so I went to check with the "higher powers". Being Bold isn't something to apologize for, it's what this site wants. I should apologize for not using the talk page on the article. - Archduk3:talk 02:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


I thought I'd respond here, since it doesn't have to do with the discussion, but I kind of agree with you about the novels. I used to read most of them but I've kind of fallen out of that with the "relaunch" ones, mostly because (as you said) it is basically even more fan fiction than the novels set during the series.--31dot 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I've always thought that but I apply it to all novels. There are very few novels I actually like, such as Q-Squared and only that one because of how well it tied Q and Trelane and episodes of TNG and TOS. I'm not exactly sure why I dislike them so much but it just seems like someone comes along with fan fiction but happens to have an agent and *bam* authorized production. — Morder (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Image quirks

There seem to be some quirks with the images lately. I had to upload a file twice to get it to work right, and some images don't seem to be displaying correctly, or at all. If you check my user page and all the images load properly, let me know, as at least one doesn't and I have noticed a few on other pages as well; or if they all display fine then disregard. - Archduk3:talk 10:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with the last two images but it's not because you didn't upload it properly. It's related to the cache server. I'll see what I can find out. — Morder (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You're not the only person having issues uploading. :) — Morder (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Though so, though I find it weird the images that won't display for you are different then the ones that aren't displaying for me, though I'm sure the explanation involves some technobabble. :) - Archduk3:talk 10:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, actually wikia has been having network connectivity problems lately too. Yesterday a server was disconnected from the network. Didn't read why though. — Morder (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been given the word that all is well in the kingdom. — Morder (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So I take it that John de Lancie snapped his fingers. Good news indeed. - Archduk3:talk 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I wish he'd snap his fingers and bring Legend to DVD dammit. — Morder (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You could always buy the bootleg? Though the cover does look really fake (and the file name sucks). - Archduk3:talk 11:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, there doesn't seem to be any plans to release that, which is weird. Couldn't even find a petition to get it released, maybe you should start one. I actually remember this show when VOY first came out, and it seemed Ok, just not that into westerns that don't have spaceships in them I guess. - Archduk3:talk 12:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling that all is not well in the kingdom anymore. I pray this is the result of background maintenance? - Archduk3:talk 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, we just have to be patient...apparently it's going to take a couple hours. — Morder (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


I was not observant enough- I saw you do that with the other link and did it thinking I needed to for a template- without seeing where the link went. Thanks for catching that.--31dot 14:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. I just thought I missed something initially and actually had to test it first. :) — Morder (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


I'm glad to see you accepted my photo, taken at Paramount during the shooting of The Quality Of Life episode. But why did you undo my contribution to my own performer listing on the site? I just wanted to clarify that I am primarily a commercial actor. I thought users might find it interesting that they may see me turning up in TV commercials; also it explains why I have few theatrical credits. Ian Ray

Well, the removal of data was because your edit caused the information to be duplicated in the wrong place. If you look here you'll see that you put everything in the "External links" section and duplicated the information above that. — Morder (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, please be careful when you edit pages as you deleted someone else's question on my talk page. It's best to add everything to the bottom of a talk page. :) — Morder (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

MORDER: Sorry if I am not using the site ocrrectly! I can't find any other place to enter a reply to your question. Hopefully you will receive this without me deleting anything. For members of the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA acting work is divided into commercial and theatrical. The contracts are widely different, the pay rates are different, and you need an agency to represent you for each category. I previously had an agency that represented me "commercially" (to perform in TV commercials) and "theatrically" (to perform in TV programs and movies). Currently I have an agent that only represents me commercially. Therefore I am known in the industry as a "commercial actor". Since I have no one repping me for TV and f;ilms, I have to find those jobs on my own, which is not easy. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ian Ray (talk • contribs).

Don't apologize, editing a wiki is a new experience for a lot of people. All you have to do is edit your own talk page and put your reply at the end of the conversation. I see what you mean about the difference between the two. When I first undid your edit it seemed to be a sorta "keyword" type addition that added nothing to the actual article and made it completely different from all other actors so I didn't see the need for it. I'll leave it for now but that doesn't mean someone else might not come and remove it later. (Just letting you know) — Morder (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Real Life"

So I am not allowed to edit the 'Real Life' episode page? I see nowhere on MA telling me I can't do what I've been trying. - anonymous user that isn't allowed to contribute 05:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at MA:NIT. That the Doctor's daughter is still breathing after she "dies" is a trivial production error. The MA community has decided that including such nitpicks is not appropriate.– Cleanse 05:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
In addition, the message I posted on your talk page explains why and provides a link to "nitpicking" to show you why. — Morder (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah I love production errors like that. They did something similar with K'Ehleyr I think. Anyway how is life as an admin? Last time I checked in you had just been "converted" or crowned...:) – Distantlycharmed 06:21, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
It's been fine, though I've been really busy lately so haven't contributed much. :) — Morder (talk) 06:28, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah same here. I actually haven't edited in months. In between being super busy and the new movie coming out it sort of cooled off. But I miss Star Trek and everytime I watch an episode I wonder how its worked out in MA. Ha :) – Distantlycharmed 07:00, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Pages Requiring Attention

Hi! I was wondering- is there a page with articles requiring attention? Thanks. Ajraddatz (talk)

Category:Memory Alpha stubs is one place to start. — Morder (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ajraddatz (talk)


Found this under Uncateorized Files: File:Moore and others.odf, what is it? - Archduk3:talk 02:46, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

See the description. You can also read it here. — Morder (talk) 02:48, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I didn't read the description because this warning came up when I tried to view it: "Warning: This file may contain malicious code, by executing it your system may be compromised."


Hello. Since you're an admin here, I figured out you would be the right person to ask. Could you please revert Ltarex's edits to the Starfleet casualties page? He keeps changing it to chronological listing, although it has been decided to list people alphabetically. Besides, he has screwed up two tables. Thanks. QuiGonJinnTalk 11:21, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Well, all you have to do is "edit" a previous version and you'll accomplish the same thing as a revert. As for the order of the list, I see nothing on the talk page about the order so it should probably be brought up for discussion. Though really, if there was only one table for all items you could sort the list any way you'd like with table sorts. :) — Morder (talk) 11:37, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
The page lists the order as alphabetical by date, thought it should be brought up on the talk page if it keeps happening. Now about these table sorts, please explain. - Archduk3:talk 14:10, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5
12442 24554 5465 2345644 2309834
79978 78978 234 23907 4545778
45665 98756 4567 4645 1
7987 4546 23432 544654 988
46577 989232 12323 233333 5
There ya go. — Morder (talk) 14:32, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) - Archduk3:talk 23:14, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you with this again, but do you know a way to get the episodes to sort in production order, which is the whole issue behind the ablity to sort the table in the first place. If not, then the whole thing may be moot. :) - Archduk3:talk 14:08, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where you're having problems with the production order. Could you point me to the table in question? — Morder (talk) 20:26, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't save the changes, though it seems to only sort by alphabetical order. I was using the table for the NX crew on the Starfleet casualties page. - Archduk3:talk 22:58, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Well, check out {{ENT Season 1}} for an example of production ordering since it works fine there. — Morder (talk) 23:09, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

That's actually the issue, if you sort the titles it lists them alphabetically. I was hoping there was a way to use the episode number without having to add another col to the table, but it seems that may be the only way. Thanks again for you help with this; I'll toy with it on one of my subpages to see if there is a way to do it. :) - Archduk3:talk 23:28, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to add a column to be able to sort the list. — Morder (talk) 23:51, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

(Side note: Could you weigh in on the page split at Talk:Starfleet casualties? Trying for a real consensus there.) - Archduk3:talk 06:31, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


Thought it was odd that there wasn't a page for him, and no disambiguation link on the Chakotay page. Really frustrating when the info is already there and you can't find it. Thanks for the cleanup. - Archduk3:talk 06:31, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

It happens. In general there's no disamib since they aren't actually the same name, just happen to sound similar :) — Morder (talk) 06:53, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Well, we should keep some link at the top of the Chakotay page, so I don't do this again the next time I can't sleep. :) - Archduk3:talk 06:58, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Bring it up on the talk page since I'm sure it's been brought up before. — Morder (talk) 07:10, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Deletion question

If I end up deleting them, do I just delete the file and then restore the version that was there before? I haven't done that with a file before.--31dot 11:37, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Revert to the past revision, then delete the version you want. -- sulfur 11:44, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


I didn't mean to revert your rollback, it happened at the same time. Sorry :)

We may want to protect the page from anons for a little bit. This has happened before.--31dot 00:09, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

No problemo. I don't see a need for a block though. It's just another random post. If the anon continues to edit the same article then sure. :) (but then i'd block the anon for it) — Morder (talk) 00:12, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


Hello. I was wondering if I could discuss this with you. I was watching VOY: "Friendship One" recently. In it, Tom Paris tells Brin that B'Elanna is going to give birth to their child in only a couple of months. Since a later Voyager episode, "Homestead" is set on April 5th, 2378, shortly before "Endgame", when B'Elanna gives birth, would I be correct in assuming that all episodes from "Friendship One" to "Endgame" take place in in 2378? --Delta2373 01:00, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I hope you're not starting something with me :) but, like I said elsewhere you can only make those assumptions based on the facts. One episode specifically stated a date, if another episode says "2 months later" then sure you would be correct. Though I tend to think that "couple of months" means 2 months. The real question is how long was the gap between homestead and endgame. If it was any longer than 2-3 months then you can't really say since Paris would have been wrong in his "couple of months". But we have to go by what Paris says so endgame must have been a couple months after Friendship One. (Not sure but did Torres go into premature labor - if so that changes things - looks like she didn't after reading the summary) Anyway, really I don't think it's necessary to put everything into years. — Morder (talk) 01:24, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but IMO it could be anywhere between 2 and 6 months, where "half a year" would replace "a couple of months". - Archduk3:talk 01:41, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
But would it be OK to change the year on Friendship One's page from 2377 to 2378? --Delta2373 01:57, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
It's up to you. Paris does say "couple of months" which usually means two - Archduk3 thinks it could be more - but under normal use it means two while "few" means more than 2. Let's put it this way: Why is it currently under 2377? Someone must have thought it belonged there based on other evidence at his/her disposal. — Morder (talk) 02:01, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
I think this is pretty much a border case, where (again) both dates would be equally valid or invalid. 2378 is now based mainly on the interpretation of what exactly "a couple of" months may be (both "two" and "some" are valid interpretations), while the previous 2377 was probably based on the standard stardate hypothesis, which would put any 54xxx stardate in 2377.
In any case, the key point with all these changes is what Morder already hinted at: Please make sure that you don't only change one arbitrary number to another, but add your reasoning to the relevant talk pages. If you fail to do so, it's only a matter of time before this will be changed AGAIN. Also, discuss first, and then change everything that is necessary, to avoid our articles being in some horribly inconsistent state. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 09:20, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
I didn't hint about it at all on Nero201's talk page :) — Morder (talk) 09:38, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


Hey there Morder just replying to your comment on my page. I got where you're coming from and like I said I'm not taking anything personal or as an attack. No worries I'll be sure to discuss in talk before future major changes. --Nero210 07:43, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

bearing article

Hi there. You undid my additions on the Bearing article, and instead provided a link to Wikipedia. Could I ask, what kind of information would you add to this article in order to elevate it from a mere stub status to qualifying article? JulesB 01:04, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Basically the information that missing from all references in the show. For instance in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Kirk asks for the bearing and distance to the whales from their location in central park which then spock attempts to use that information to find the location on a bus stop map. — Morder (talk) 01:07, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
I've added a list of known missing references to the talk page. — Morder (talk) 01:20, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (Still made a contribution, yay! ;))

One more question, would you include a reference to heading, since the two are similar (with a basic difference)? If so, in what form? (I guess that's two questions.)

Probably just a see also section would work. — Morder (talk) 01:36, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Picard and the Borg

Locutus of Borg was not Picard, since he had no control over himself, much like Riker with the Type A Trills. - Archduk3:talk 20:17, October 23, 2009 (UTC)\

Didn't see the comment on the talk page before I left this, sorry. - Archduk3:talk 20:29, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

On origin of Dominion tech

I don't know if your edit of the article Dominion constitutes removing speculation. While the line "the Dominion seemed to possess a deep respect for Federation engineers" does somewhat reach, Keevan's line about Starfleet engineers being famed and being able to "turn rocks into replicators" is clearly a comment on the technical ability of Starfleet engineers.

Also in the episode (DS9: "Starship Down"), we find out that the Dominion get at least some of their technology from the Karemma, one of their member races. I don't think it is speculation to say that it is unclear how much of their technology is Dominion (read: Founder, Vorta, or Jem'Hadar) built.

I think that if anything the note at the end of this section that states something about the Dominion having more time to develop their technology is more so a piece of speculation --Illwill 02:12, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

"Deep respect" is an opinion of how you feel the dominion thought of the federation not canon fact. Therefore it's speculation. I left the line in that is canon and left it up to the reader to decide how to interpret it. As for the "unclear" part - what we don't know we don't mention. If it's unclear then you don't bring it up. — Morder (talk) 02:17, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Here's a rule of thumb, if you say "Possibly" or "it is unclear" or "might" or any similar word/phrase then the statement doesn't belong. — Morder (talk) 02:21, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Your first point is valid, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the second. We have always clearly pointed out when a piece of technology is acquired from another race. As when the Klingons exchanged starship designs for cloaking technology with the Romulans. In addition with all the contact between the Federation and the Dominion we have never seen aDominion engineer, so I don't think stating that some of the Dominion tech wasn't homegrown is much of a reach.

Either way, I can live with your edits.--Illwill 02:47, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your technology from other races...the part that is contested is your statement "This may be because some or all of Dominion technology may have been purchased from individual races within the Dominion itself" - that is speculation. You can say that they have purchased weapons from within the dominion but your statement as you have evidence of that fact but "this may be because..." is your speculation and isn't canon. — Morder (talk) 02:51, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Would this have been more acceptable:

At least some of Dominion technology was manufactured by Dominion member species, it is known for example, that at least one type of torpedo carried onboard Jem'Hadar attack vessels was sold to the Dominion by the Karemma, a Dominion member.(DS9: "Starship Down")--Illwill 02:59, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

That is acceptable. Before your statement was saying that the dominion thought the federation engineering was great and gave a possible reason why. Now you're stating fact. — Morder (talk) 03:04, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

You are correct and I was mistaken. --Illwill 03:17, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

No big deal and don't worry about it. Eventually we all get it right...just takes time. — Morder (talk) 05:12, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar dvd

The changes you've made to Sidebar dvd have broken it - take a look at DS9 Season 7 DVD for example - the image caption are now incorrectly formatted, and the whole first line of the template is out in plain text. -- Michael Warren | Talk 06:01, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

well pfft. i guess i'll take that to user space and test it there. — Morder (talk) 06:03, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Turns out it was the template }} you can't have a formatting code after it - in this case the <space> — Morder (talk) 06:09, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

If You Could Be So Kind...

If you could will you archive the talk page for User talk: That was mine before I set up my account. Thanks. --Nero210 21:48, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

IPs don't get that advantage here because they're IPs and only temporary. Someone will come and clean up the old items in a while once they've expired. What I could do, if you'd like, is move the talk to your archive. Unnecessary but it's up to you. — Morder (talk) 21:50, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

If it will be deleted at some point then that will not be necessary, thank you though. --Nero210 21:52, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I wouldn't worry about it either as long as you don't use the IP and only your username nobody will read it anyway. :) — Morder (talk) 21:54, October 30, 2009 (UTC)


I was thinking, not very hard mind you, that it might be a good idea to have an "edit hint" about spam, since it comes up frequently. I'm mentioning it instead of just making it since I'm not really sure on how to word it. - Archduk3:talk 04:21, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we don't do that because it's generally better to ignore the spammers than to call attention to them. Tell them they can't or shouldn't do something is just asking for them to continue rather than just deleting and ignoring. If they continue after that we can just block them but they already know they're idiots. Pissing them off by drawing attention to it usually results in stuff like what happened a year or so ago where someone kept changing ips to bypass the block just to post an ascii-picture of a confederate flag and of picard doing a face-palm... — Morder (talk) 04:30, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

As much as I love face-palm Picard, I see your point. :) - Archduk3:talk 04:34, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Parser bug with ~~~~

When using "includeonly", a string of tildes gets parsed, even if it is contained within "nowiki" tags. It totally sucks for our templates. Just fyi. -- sulfur 19:03, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already told wikia about 3-4 months ago. Though it seems to work now. — Morder (talk) 19:44, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Image galleries in Monaco

Hello there, Shran suggested that I speak to you (per the discussion here), what I was wondering was, that the table galleys throughout MA when viewing MA with the Monaco skin (long story short, I'm forced to use it instead of Monobook), have white around the images, instead of the color themes (although they do when the pointer is hovering over them). Is this intentional, and if not, would you be interested in the code to fix that? I have recently themed a wiki to fix this (Monaco is really, really hard to work with, isn't it?) (Check it out here to see what i mean), and can provide the code (or you can just steal it from there if you can find it on the commons page, either way) if you would like. --Terran Officer 06:00, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't need to see the source code as it was a pretty easy fix. Thanks for letting us know. — Morder (talk) 06:26, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I know what a pain it can be to try and cover the bases on different wikia skins, especially if the coding is drastically different between each type. --Terran Officer 06:45, November 25, 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the picture. How'd you know I was looking for one? ;)--31dot 02:49, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

You created an article. :) — Morder (talk) 02:50, December 5, 2009 (UTC)


I would also update the list...but thanks. ;) – Tom 23:14, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Hehe...I just want to make sure that none are missing...took forever to find them all :) — Morder (talk) 23:17, December 7, 2009 (UTC

Re: Speculation

I only included the speculative comment because I have noted several instances where, in fact, Memory Alpha does include speculation in its articles, often much to the confusion of those who base their conceptualization of the Star Trek universe strictly on canon. Granted, this is speculation that has been around for quite some time and has in many cases been done by "officials" within the Trek production staff, such as Brannon Braga or the Okudas, but it is speculation nonetheless. If you really want to remove all speculation from Memory Alpha, you could start by removing any and all references to the Original Series taking place between the years 2266 and 2269. That is speculation not supported anywhere by canon, and there are actually several canonical sources that contradict it.--Antodav 02:24, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

You may see speculation in articles and the only reason for it is because nobody has removed it. A while back speculation was rampant but rules change and now cleanup has commenced. Speculation by production is fine because it's a production source though it's only as a background note. — Morder (talk) 02:26, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
As for the dates, please feel free to contribute to the project on removing speculation from the dating system: Timeline reference project. Please note that dates that can't be found in canon at the conclusion of the project can be "found" in approved secondary sources. - Archduk3:talk 02:55, December 8, 2009 (UTC)


Do you have any idea how to get the chart templates, seen here, from wikipedia to work here? I have no idea what we would have to do to the code to get it to work, and if there are any copyright issues. - Archduk3:talk 01:54, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Go here and scroll down to see additional templates in use by that template - you'll need them all. It's not an easy undertaking and I would suggest you bring it up with the community before you try and implement it. — Morder (talk) 02:16, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid it would need them all, though it looks like a handful of them are for the documentation and not the chart proper, which only leaves about 30 or so, right. :) Thanks for the help, I'll get a forum going on this. - Archduk3:talk 02:33, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Good luck though I don't see anything that this particular template would offer this site that a nicely done image wouldn't get done a lot better :) — Morder (talk) 02:35, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, but I know I can't get a image to links to everyone in the Picard family. You might, but I know I can't. :) - Archduk3:talk 03:01, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Mediawiki supports image maps. :) -- sulfur 03:19, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
Heh, already replied on the new forum :) — Morder (talk) 03:20, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

The Trouble of Tribbles?

Regarding the note removed to Talk:Nichelle Nichols, is that supposed to be The Trouble with Tribbles, or is there another book? - Archduk3:talk 06:32, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed it was a behind the scenes book. — Morder (talk) 06:40, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
After looking at the contents it is supposed to be that book. — Morder (talk) 06:41, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the edit on my page, I'm still learning how this site works (never edited anything-wiki), and this gives me a chance to brush up on my html ^ ^ tyvm The preceding unsigned comment was added by PrfctDrk (talk • contribs).

No problem. — Morder (talk) 07:00, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


I am terribly sorry. I was only trying to help as a 5 year old who is having their first glimpse of Star Trek. I bow humbly below your vast experience. Sorry again. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathanrowe (talk • contribs).

External "links" vs "link"

Under your logic, you would have to change the section title when someone adds an additional link. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:44, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It's just the standard adopted by this wiki. — Morder (talk) 00:46, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar images

The captions aren't working correctly, see the show pages. Also, I'm trying to fix the assignment patch image captions for the starship pages. - Archduk3:talk 00:51, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you're already on it. :) - Archduk3:talk 00:52, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to add a second caption spot to Template:Sidebar image so this will work for the starship sidebars: {{sidebar image|{{{Logo}}}|175px|Assignment patch}}}}? I only ask because 292px is way to big for the logos, and it currently only lets you resize or caption. - Archduk3:talk 19:33, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why you want a new size as the point is that the images fill up the sidebar. That being said all you need to do is not use the Sidebar image template and just use the [[File...]] with your size in it. — Morder (talk) 21:39, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to have the option of reducing the size of some non-standard images in use in the sidebars, Earth-Romulan War and USS Exeter (NCC-1672) have images that are just way to big, while still leaving the other images at the same size. - Archduk3:talk 21:55, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

(How edit confict notice) You know I just realized that you can't add a File command to the sidebar in the way you want. But know that this is something you should probably request for on the sidebar image talk page. — Morder (talk) 21:55, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

That did seem odd...I added a request at the template talk page. I have a File command in the template I've been playing around with, but like you said, it still has issues. Thanks for the help with this. :) - Archduk3:talk 22:03, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

cleaning out background notes

I really hope I'm not coming of arrogant with this, requesting something from an admin with ten times more edits as me, but it is my impression that when stuff is deleted, like the speculative background notes that you are rightly going through right now, the deleted text should be moved to the talk page. You've done that most of the time, but sometimes you didn't. Again, I hate to be preaching to you, but there was that Teplan incident, and going through your edits I saw at least a few notes the removal of which might be debatable, or which might have been better served with a rewrite. So, in the interest of transparency, could you please make sure to move all deleted notes to the talk page? Sorry if I'm incorrect, or out of line, but I felt this should be said. -- Capricorn 01:57, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I generally only move items that are obviously in doubt to the talk page. Stuff like "it's unclear..." or "it's unknown..." I just remove outright as they're not even speculative and unnecessary in my view though I'm willing to concede that I'm wrong. I'll look at them at some point. — Morder (talk) 02:04, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, and it's certainly a valid one. I guess that personally I just tend to see "it's unclear..." notes as potential jumping off points for further research, awaiting just the right production quote to confirm or deny it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing them, but I like to err on the side of caution; puting them on the talk page just might one day spark someone's memory, while banning them to history pretty much makes sure that no one ever sees them again in practice. I know that I'm no longer debating anything to do with policy here, but I thought I'd give you my perspective. -- Capricorn 02:53, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

It's a judgment call, of course. My 2 cents is I usually err on the side of moving to talk because someone reading the talk page (as I do for fun or to see what's been disputed or added before) can get a better handle on what we usually remove and why, and what has specifically been removed from that article before. Some won't read it, but it'll educate the others. Also, if someone re-adds something like it, you can point to it and say it was removed before. And even parts of "It's unclear whether Trills are best in bed" might be workable in another form. Or not. :) Setacourse 03:50, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Great work on the Moore chats

Great work on sorting, relinking & providing improved nav for the Moore chats, you and Renegade54! Setacourse 01:32, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that- great job! --31dot 02:13, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
I'll second the second (third?) that. - Archduk3:talk 14:40, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) — Morder (talk) 21:56, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Spock's mention in "Star Trek: Generations".

In the scene where Kirk tells Picard what Spock would say if he were there. It's in the quotes on the page here. Roger Murtaugh 06:26, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine. :) I'm just a huge fan of the Original Crew, so I know a lot about their appearances. :) Roger Murtaugh 06:27, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
This user believes in keeping talk page conversations in one place. If you leave a comment here, expect a reply on this page. Thanks.

Welcome! – Tom 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For Archives go here


I actually meant to bring this up to you a few days ago and forgot. I was thinking of changing {{Edithint-personal files}} to a general image message and moving it to {{Edithint-images}}, since it seems we get more uncited or unformatted images than personal ones. I thought I would get your input first since they were your idea. - Archduk3:talk 11:25, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Or we can just make an {{edithint-cite}} that would apply to images and additions to articles. — Morder (talk) 11:36, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I'll add them to the message page. - Archduk3:talk 12:02, January 6, 2010 (UTC)


Makes it easier, Eh? My plan is to put an archive thing in there next. And a flag to hide the "start new discussion" thing. But for a starter... :) -- sulfur 20:37, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want that "start new discussion" on mine. :) Really though I don't think it took much to add that header by hand. You do it once and it almost never changes. — Morder (talk) 20:39, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a few people ask how to do it over time, so I figured that it was easier to respond with a template rather than a chunk of code. -- sulfur 20:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good idea then. :) Shame people don't seem to read it sometimes. — Morder (talk) 20:44, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Memory Alpha documentation category

You need to add <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the category to prevent the template itself from ending up in the doc cat. :P -- Renegade54 21:26, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

wtf...really? ok, gonna fix, thanks :) — Morder (talk) 21:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer you to be nicer

All you had to do was say that you had trouble reading it, and would like me to change it. You did not have to act condescending about it. The policy itself says "Please." This indicates that it is a request. Granted, I didn't know the policy existed, but it's not my fault that no one else pointed it out TWO YEARS AGO.

I don't have a problem with changing how I respond on my talk page if asked nicely. I just resent being told I have to. And I greatly resent somebody trying to force my hand by adding that not-quite-signature at the end of every comment. It doesn't even add the timestamp, so you didn't even add any information.

The thing is, I was going to change the color anyways. The main reason I didn't want to sign is that my signature is purple, too, since (as of when I changed it) we were allowed to personalize our signatures. I chose this purple specifically because it was touted as readable on another site, yet different. (It's no darker than the followed link color.) My monitor is going bad, and it's still perfectly legible, if gauche with the new colorful theme.

I'm now trying to figure out a way to personalize it so that it fits the color theme, and actually has something to do with my name. But I've had to take to fixing the color on the Wikia widgets and Home pages first. Until then, enjoy my purple signature. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 18:58, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. It doesn't even make the request. User talk pages have their own section, and nothing about requiring signatures is there. If y'all want to enforce that, you might want to make it clearer that's what it means. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 19:01, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

It falls under the general "signing your posts" bit. Which applies to all pages. Don't selectively pick and choose. I've reworded it to try to make the point for you. Which, I'm sure, will still fail to be made. -- sulfur 19:53, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

There you are again with the attitude. Stop it. Acting like a jerk is not allowed. Stop assuming bad faith. Follow policy yourself. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 12:00, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

C64: I'm not entirely sure what your problem is, especially when you don't give any examples. If you're referring to the comment above, take a close look at who signed it. Yes... me. I signed it. So if that comment's your beef, take it up with me. -- sulfur 12:07, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I responded on his page because you did. I took it you were the same person. Why else would you respond on his talk page? No matter.

All that happened is that, on my talk page TWO YEARS AGO I had thought it was an okay idea not to sign my own talk page, but change the color of text. I'd pretty much even forgotten about it. I haven't been doing anything at all lately here except trying to fix the skin, because the Wikia widgets are very jarring on this dark background, and I think the user panel should match the other panels on all the other pages. (I don't remember them being messed up when you first created the news skin.)

I noticed that one person had said "You need to sign, even on your own talk page." So I said, "I don't see why I need to sign on my own talk page." In other words, I wanted somebody to give me a reason. Morder did so, but he also went through and signed them all for me. And said, "If you don't want this to happen, then follow policy." I thought this was quite rude. I was steaming mad, but I that the above was a very civil response.

I come back, and I see a comment that says, "I clarified the statement. But that probably won't be enough for you. Don't pick and choose." How is that not supposed to be rude? Why assume that I intentionally misread it and will continue to do so, rather than assume that I didn't get it, and that I would appreciate your attempt to make it clearer? [ETA: I tried to fix it a bit too. I'd appreciate your comments.]

I realized after the fact that my comment was probably ruder than yours, and was going to fix it. But, since you've already responded, I am leaving it as is. I'm going through a pretty hard time right now (foreclosure on my house, bankruptsy, panic disorder, depression), and I'm probably a bit too on edge. That's why I had been staying away from anything remotely controversial. And I feel like I had a controversy thrown on my lap. I don't want to cause problems, but I don't want to let people be rude to me.

It doesn't help that I'm now scared that you guys won't even look at my proposal to make the skin look a wee bit better. I've spent way too long on it for it to be rejected because I didn't know about a policy two years ago. But, if you feel it's okay to be rude to me, then I feel I must have done something absolutely horrible. I didn't mean any harm. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 12:34, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

And now I see the reason I should hold off before I respond. While it still seems you were accusing me of "picking and choosing," I can read the other comment as you being self-effacing. You could be saying "I tried to make it clearer, but I don't know if I did a good job. What do you think?" My response thus should have been. "I like your change. However, I wasn't picking and choosing. The sections are separated, and do not clearly refer back to each other. I'll try to fix it to show you what I mean." Anyways, the main problem that I don't know how to fix is to explain WHY it's important to sign your own talk page, rather than try to be stylish and use something else. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 13:08, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can reply to a general statement/question on my talk page unless it specifically requires a comment from me. Your statements had no such requirement so anyone can reply. As for signing your own talk's clear you don't remember all the time as evidenced by this talk page's history which required you to sign it after you already posted. It would probably help you to sign all talk pages so you won't forget. I never said anything rude, I simply stated you should follow policy. You took it as being rude and that was up to you to do so, I didn't call you a jerk I just said "follow policy". You're the one who started calling people names. (I can only assume you did as a result of your above mentioned problems.) said you wish you didn't have controversy thrown in your lap but if you had at least listened to what people have said to you then you wouldn't have had any controversy. People are here to offer you advice and you just seem to have ignored it rather than considering it. Anyway, I consider this discussion over. If you still have a problem with "rudeness" take it up on the other person's talk page and not mine. — Morder (talk) 17:17, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Let's take this one part at a time.

  1. I had a "beef" with your actions. Therefore, I only expected an answer from you. When I saw the response from Sulfur, I thought it was you. The names are quite similar.
  2. I don't like that you tried to infer how my mind works. The reason I forget to sign has nothing to do with my talk page, and everything to do with the fact that I haven't been here in a long time. Still, thanks for finally answering my question--"Why should I sign my own talk page?" "Because it helps you stay in the habit of doing so elsewhere." Had you answered me thusly, I wouldn't have had a problem.
  3. You didn't "simply state that I should follow policy." Had you done so, I wouldn't have been upset. You signed all my unsigned comments for me. You even said, "If you follow policy, this sort of thing won't happen." How am I not supposed to take that as a threat, even if a fairly innocuous one? That is what I had a problem with.
  4. I don't know where you got the idea that I thought you called me a jerk. I simply believe that threatening someone, even with something as innocuous as signing their posts, is improper behavior.
  5. I'm not calling any names. I was rude, but I admitted such, and said I only posted without thinking. I think what it throwing you is my use of the word "jerkish". But this is describing behavior, not you as a person. Heck, I saw some of the comments you made on some other pages. You're a pretty nice guy. That's why the way you responded hurt so much. I can't blame it on you having a different style of talking that just gets on my nerves, like a certain admin here. (See my talk page. I was trying to help a poster get over feeling that the guy was rude, and I used some poor verbiage that was insulting. And the thing is, I don't even remember who either person was.)
  6. The problem I have with both you and the admin that responded is that you are not assuming good faith. Since you both made the same mistake, have similar names, and responded to something I thought was clearly intended for you, I got y'all mixed up. But, just sticking with you: you said I am "not following advice." It can't be that I didn't understand it. It can't be that nobody told me it was a policy I was violating, and not just some stodgy custom. No, it had to be because I willfully decided not to listen to people who were trying to help me. Can you see why that would rub someone the wrong way?
  7. Even if you don't, check the little datestamp. The advice I got was two years ago. During that time, if I made any edit to any talk page, I signed it. I didn't even know anyone had said anything since my last response. Which is why I responded so late. It wasn't an act of defiance, it was a (perhaps poorly formed) request for information.
  8. Finally, I'm going to take the first step. I'm sorry. From your response, you obviously weren't trying to be rude. You were trying to help. And I appreciate that. I just wish you would have given me a chance to fix my own problem, instead of doing it for me. They're my comments. I should be the one to sign them. Now, since you've done that, I can't even sign it myself, since that would involve deleting your "not-quite signatures," and, as they are comments, they are sacrosanct. The best I could do (and still follow policy) was sign your comments with the same template, and then sign that.
  9. And I'm sorry I didn't just say what I said in item 8. I'm sure that would have went over better. I hope you can forgive me for being so--well--rude. Cheers.

--—Commodore Sixty-Four(TALK) 19:59, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, It's done and over...I'm not going to read a huge post by you again, just leave it be — Morder (talk) 20:02, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Of Stones and Gol

No problem. ;-) From what I gather, the "Gol" reference originated in the TMP novelization.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:01, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Interesting too as I actually checked the script for a reference of the name but didn't see one. I assume the city in ENT was named after the Stone, as well...but we'd need to find evidence... — Morder (talk) 01:03, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for bringing the point of view page to my attention. The consistent use of past tense was confusing, considering it's supposed to be kept in-universe. I appreciate the correction. Cephalopod 09:11, January 16, 2010 (UTC)


Regarding Vulcan freighter merge:

"If, after seven to ten days, there's consensus, perform the merge by copying all information from that page to the new one. Note the source page of the new information in the edit summary, and leave a note about the performed merge on the talk page."

You barely gave it 24 hours.... --Alan 17:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I did it as a result of another user performing the merge manually. I should have read the talk page about it but assumed the merge was appropriate given someone was attempting to do it. I'll be more careful in the future. — Morder (talk) 17:41, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Morder, I took a talk page off track, and I'd like to move the text to my talk page, as its a disruption of my own personal making. Is this feasible? OC keeps reverting, edit warring. I think this will totally derail any discussion of the actual Dr Who issue, so I wanted another opinion. - Captain MKB 05:39, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of the Doctor Who article is continuing fine in the new section you created, where you and I are even in agreement. If you don't like that other comments are on the page, you shouldn't have made them to begin with. I will not have my comments attached to another conversation that they had nothing to do with, be characterized as me being petty and restarting a days old argument, just because you don't like clutter. Sleep in the bed you made. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Let's just end the discussion - Leave the Doctor Who talk page the way it is (with full text) and start a new heading. — Morder (talk) 05:46, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Amazing that OC cannot accept that I'm embarrassed no matter how this ends up. I've been put in my place. I yield. I've apologized, I've tried to redirect the discussion I disrupted. But it doesn't matter, OC is out for blood. My mistakes must be punished. However he sees fit, he is the decider. -- Captain MKB 05:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, totally out for blood, that's why I let you get the last word on the IP Unblocking argument, letting you get away with disparaging remarks at my expense. So out for blood that I just don't want my actions misrepresented by you to seem as if I restarted the IP argument when you did. So terribly out for blood. I'm willing to compromise, if you want to move everything after this edit to your talk page, fine. It leaves comments of mine that I made regarding the Doctor Who page on the Doctor Who page, and it correctly would depict the restarting of the IP debate being your action, not mine. If that is your solution to "uncluttering it," I'd be willing to go for it. That said, another administrator has suggested just leaving the whole thing. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, now that this is all said - let's end it. If you two wish to continue please do so on your talk pages and not on Doctor Who or my talk page. The best thing to do now would just for both to quit now because it will never end until someone just stops. — Morder (talk) 05:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Template documentation

Should not include "includeonly" tags to hide the documentation. Otherwise, there's no real point in categorizing those things into the documentation category. -- sulfur 14:53, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

I gotcha, Someone else, thomashl or cid or someone mentioned I should do that and I really didn't give much thought to it as whoever it was claimed it solved a problem...oh well, I guess I'll go and fix them later today or something :) — Morder (talk) 20:43, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
If it was me, it was probably regarding the categorization of the template itself. If that is included via its doc page, the category link should in fact be "includeonly", to avoid categorizing the doc page, too. The rest of the doc page could of course be visible. ;) -- Cid Highwind 21:22, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
so if I understand this correctly...which I think I don't...It should be something like this
this is the documentation
This would allow documentation categorization on the doc page while note including it on the template, right? — Morder (talk) 22:06, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I confused myself a little... ;) Anyway, I think it should be like this:
this is the documentation
That way, all category links are located on the /doc page (means they don't take away from the overall template size limit on articles), but only the doc page is categorized as "Documentation", and only the template page is categorized as "Template". -- Cid Highwind 22:35, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with the second, is that it doesn't actually show up in the category, due to the way the software handles things. It's bloody annoying. -- sulfur 22:40, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought and it makes sense that way. Something else for me to look forward to doing :) — Morder (talk) 22:41, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Bah, that sucks (looks like an edit conflict since i didn't see your msg sulfur but it still went through...) — Morder (talk) 22:42, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Cardassian Guard

While the discussion is in progress, it is safer if the article remains "Cardassian military", as an emergency measure in order to prevent likely myth-spreading, simply because the evidence for my title is so much better at this point. If someone should come up with proof that Cardassian Guard is the formal name of the Cardassian military, the article can easily be moved back, but I just discovered that the underlying evidence is dangerously weak - the article referenced "Emissary" as the only source, and it turned out to be an ambiguous line of dialogue. This is not fanfic or a licensed publication - it's an encyclopedia which must merely follow the lead of the canon, never speculate, assume or expand upon it creatively. – NotOfTheBody 07:55, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

There's no such "emergency" that requires the page be moved right now. If your evidence is satisfactory then it can be moved after a discussion can be had. — Morder (talk) 07:59, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


Dude, I don't even use this. 01:16, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the response on my question in the Star Trek talk page, by any chance (and the a reason why I moved the discussion here), how did you see the script? --Terran Officer 21:50, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

The internet... :) That's why I'm not sure about the accuracy. My copy is also an old version, as well as a lot of the scenes have been rewritten. (Strangely too there's a lot of cursing comments by the writers) I'm sure a search for "star trek script" will result in the same copy I have... — Morder (talk) 22:12, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


I noticed you added some personal CSS to try and center the "new and improved" galleries, and was wondering if it had any effect as similar code does nothing for the monaco skin. - Archduk3 02:45, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it puts a border around each thumbnail and a border around the entire gallery and also centers it. I was just tossing some ideas there to see what would happen because I thought it was being discussed. I'll check the monaco skin and let you know. — Morder (talk) 19:45, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
My god monaco is ugly. Anyway, it does the exact same thing in monaco as it does in monobook. I can't remember what the old gallery looked like so I didn't work on it anymore. If someone has a screenshot I'll be able to reproduce it - possibly. — Morder (talk) 19:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

You're a frakin genius. I don't know if the visible border is necessary, see Constitution class model, but having them centered again is worth it. :) - Archduk3 19:57, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to just make it similar to what it used to look like - but I just forgot how it looked. :) — Morder (talk) 20:39, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

And you just made something possible that a few people across wikia have been trying to do since it changed, though not very hard. I'm for putting this in the site's css now if everyone is cool with it. Personally I would tweak the border color, but that's small potatoes. - Archduk3 22:33, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should change the border to match the current borders - I only did it as a test. — Morder (talk) 05:33, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


Didn't see that the talk page box was checked. Thanks for fixing that quickly.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 04:17, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

No problemo. :) — Morder (talk) 04:19, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Space shuttle missions

The deletion discussion kinda stalled out after you said you had a link to a page saying these patches were used on the set. Do you still have it? - Archduk3 18:33, July 17, 2010 (UTC) It was a comment by Eaves that says he believes they were originals. — Morder (talk) 05:47, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Are you still for deletion? - Archduk3 07:29, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

In it's current state, yes. If we're going to have any real info it should just be noted on the background information for the 602 Club. — Morder (talk) 16:50, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'll move the info later today/tomorrow. After that, I can delete the page noting that the info was moved. ;) - Archduk3 17:00, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

I put up a suggestion at the deletion discussion, to see how that pans out before creating a bunch of pages. Also, this page is a real help with IDing what was actually on screen. - Archduk3 10:07, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


Hello. I was trying to finish the article for plasma injector and I was wondering if you have seen or own VOY: "Bride of Chaotica!", since this is the last episode that is needed to finish it and I don't own it, nor have I seen it for years. Thanks. --Delta2373 04:25, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

What specifically are you looking for? — Morder (talk) 06:20, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

A reference to plasma injectors in said episode. --Delta2373 08:31, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reference off hand. Are you sure it was mentioned in the episode? — Morder (talk) 16:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

On the discussion page for missing references, there is a reference to it in the episode, according to Gvsualan. --Delta2373 20:28, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'd venture a guess and just say it was a mistake - unless it was visual evidence and not spoken. Post a message on the talk page and see if anyone else might know. — Morder (talk) 22:16, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for all your help. --Delta2373 22:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you sir for your help. I sent a message to wikia as you suggested and i await for their actions. If nothing can be done, i will just never log in and since i have no contributions, the user profile page will be essentialy unreacheable and therefore non-existent. Once more, thank you User9872345 15:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Nyota Uhura

Hi, I am writing a paper for class on the Swahili Language. I reference several items in the article you have on your webpage. I need to be able to reference who wrote the article on Uhura, in my bibliography. Can someone help me? I also need to know the date for when this article was written. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The "history" link on the top of the article will provide your answers. In order to cite the article, you should use a citation format similar to the following:
Hope that helps a bit. -- sulfur 18:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

bad quality images

Euh, I feel a bit bad for bringing this to your notice, but I've seen on Distantlycharmed's talk page that you've remarked on this issue before, so you seemed the best suited admin. In short, Distantlycharmed has been uploading bad quality images, which he keeps defending vigurously, and despite you previously talking to him about this he seems to continue to do this. I've just tagged a batch of these files which I've happened to notice as needing attention. Don't get me wrong, this isn't personaly for me or anything. But since these files had gone unnoticed until I accidently stumbled upon them I feel the need to bring it to someone's attention that this particular influx of bad images is still ongoing. -- Capricorn 02:08, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

What simply needs to happen is the offending images need to be marked and replaced. If there are no possible ways to get a higher quality image - such the episode capture is blurry itself - then we don't mark it.[File:Beach on Risa.jpg|This] image definitely needs to be replaced. It looks as if Distantly Charmed applied a filter to make it look like that, which is a shame. Don't bother discussing it since the issue just causes problems. — Morder (talk) 00:41, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your points, though the "don't bother discussing it" might be hard given that that was exactly what I was doing, until with a critique on my talk page, and on two pages a removal of the tags I've got dragged into this whole thing. Frankly I fully expect that the next time I com uppon a batch of problem images by the user the roughly the same thing will hapen, and it feels kind of rude reverting the removal of a tag without addressing Distantlycharmed, when the comment for his edit is essentially a suggesting that I'm imagining things. It's bound to alienate him, which isn't my intention at all. But oh well, I guess there just might not be a perfect way to deal with this. I can't walk away from these images being added, but I'll try to be less confronting in the future. -- Capricorn 17:51, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't mean not to say anything, just don't continue the conversation beyond that. It ends up being a really long conversation that results in no realization of the problem and nothing is resolved. I've just replaced the Beach on Risa image with an actual DVD capture and I hope someone can see the difference as to why we need DVD captures and not images from other, low quality, sources...but we'll see how it goes... — Morder (talk) 18:01, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Capricorn, I suggested on your freaking talk page that you use the appropriate tag. That is all. How the hell is that a critique and why do you see that as some sacred violation of holy principles that you need to be whining about? And that is exactly what it is: whine whine whine to the admin about the unfairness and rudeness of it all. This is insane. You are blowing this issue waay out of proportion and completely exaggerating. And speaking of rude, nearly every tag you placed on the image was commented with "there is something horribly wrong with this picture". Well buddy maybe there is something horribly wrong with your assessment of what constitutes politeness. I have no problem with Morder's re-upload of the beach image and except for some color variations, I do not see anything "horribly wrong" with the first picture I had up to begin with. But he changed it and i dont mind. Heck even I have added tags to pics that I thought could use improvement. So just back off with your childish attitude and creating drama. Wanna add tags to pictures you think need improvement go ahead and do it. If you cant handle debate and comments on your talk page in a civilized manner (and it was when I first posted), I suggest going editing somewhere else... And by the way I am a she not a he. – Distantlycharmed 00:41, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


Hey Morder. Can I remove the red links on your subpage which have nothing to do with Star Trek. Some of them appeared in fan projects and we don't create articles for them. And is there a possibility that you could "update" this page. Only if it is not too much work for you. I think there are a few more by now. :) – Tom 16:49, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

No problemo Thomas. Go ahead and remove the items. As far as updating the page...That will take a bit of work because I've long since lost the original code....but I'll look into it :) — Morder (talk) 20:25, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be great. I think you've used some keywords like "Star Trek" in your search, right? Maybe you can modify this search and using "Deep Space Nine", "The Next Generation", "Voyager", and "Enterprise" in a future search, too. I think we'll have even more results then. – Tom 20:28, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm downloading the databases now. Also, what is this a list of resumes for, just actors & actresses? — Morder (talk) 20:29, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think I scraped IMDb as I don't think have the ids in their database...damn... — Morder (talk) 20:30, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.