Hornblower article

Howdy Shran. I've rewritten this article, including another citation (from Nick Meyer's Wrath of Khan commentary). Since you put up the pna-cite, I was hoping you'd take a second look and consider it's removal. If not, I'd like to hear what you think. Thanks! Aurelius Kirk 09:05, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shran, I'm not sure if you're interested in my POV, but I reckon the main bulk of this Hornblower article should be moved to a background section, and then links to things in the Trek universe should be added, such as the ships USS Sutherland and USS Horatio. What do you think? Maybe we could also merge this article with the Horatio Nelson page. Zsingaya Talk 09:45, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
At least the resultant article would have more Trek references... :) I reckon, we should keep the Nelson article, but put the background section of Hornblower at the bottom of the page in a background section, then put a section of the ships named after Nelson. What do you think? Zsingaya Talk 09:57, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Someone else just suggested the same thing. I'm happy to move it over to Nelson. Aurelius Kirk 10:22, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

A few older articles did have links to a non-existent Hornblower page. That's what got me started in the first place, and I added a few more from articles mentioning Hornblower. Should those links (like Horatio disambiguation)be disabled or re-directed?Aurelius Kirk 10:22, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, Shran. Zsingaya Talk 10:31, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Tim Russ

Yet another fantastic effort from our friendly neighbourhood Andorian... I salute you! Zsingaya Talk 09:33, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kirk Article

Thanks for the compliment and encouragement. I think I took on the easy stuff first. Fleshing out Kirk's Friendship and Romance section may not look so pretty, but I'll take a stab at it. Aurelius Kirk 21:10, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

BTW, ironically enough you're the one who gave him his original formal welcome message according to the talk page history. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:50, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
To Aurelus: Don't worry about how it looks initially, it can always be revised later. To Dukat: You're right... You know, I never even thought about looking at the history for some reason. I think it's lack of sleep. :/ --From Andoria with Love 22:16, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

"actor info is placed in article regardless of table info" - You're wrong, look at Beverly Crusher, Katherine Pulaski, Benjamin Sisko and 99% of the other main chars pages, if there is a sidebar, you don't need the other reference. And the top is always the wrong place for this. --Memory 22:10, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's already a stated style policy, I agree with Memory. If only for elegance's sake, the opening paragraph should be a concise description of the character. If there's a person on the planet who doesn't know William Shatner played Kirk, it's easy enough to find out. --Aurelius Kirk 22:41, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's no policy stating what to do if the name is already in a side table. According to the Manual of style, however:
There are two different methods available to indicate the actor or actors who play a character. First, the actor's name may be added at the beginning of an article, immediately after the character's name.
Shran (played by Jeffrey Combs) was...
Alternatively, the actor's credit may be placed at the end of the article. In this case, the credit should be placed on a separate line, italicized, and indented.
Toral was played by J.D. Cullum and Rick Pasqualone.
If the Crusher, Sisko, etc. articles don't have that, then either they need to be corrected or a policy stating what to do when the name is in the sidebar should be written. --From Andoria with Love 23:26, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)


Shran, thanks for the expansion--I'm still getting the hang of things. Also, could you do me a favor? I accidentally started a page for "Gene Coon," not realizing I should have added (as I did later) to the page under the name used here "Gene L. Coon." Could you delete my "Gene Coon" page? -<unsigned>

No problem; glad I could help. :) As for the Coon page, I think a merge will be better than simply deleting the page. Oh, and welcome to Memory Alpha. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:26, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the welcome. - Sir Rhosis 03:29, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:31, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)


Well, like I said on my talk page, thanks for the heads up. It was only one person's opinion in favor and one against, though, so I don't think there was really much of a discussion involved. See Talk:Dame Judith Anderson if you wanna get picky about it, but I don't think it's worth debating (I'm right of course :P). --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 07:27, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Removal of template / Bot

Hi Shran. I just noticed your comment in the Vfd-discussion of Template:IMDb-name. If we decide to delete that, it would be a good task for a bot to remove the template from all article pages. You could still do it manually if you want, of course, but I think it would be easier otherwise. Let us just keep that discussion alive a little longer... :) -- Cid Highwind

I noticed you made an alteration in one of my entries...

You said "this is how it's done"...but for the life of me I can't figure out what change you made or how...could you elaborate? It'll help me become a better poster. Thanks! :)

  • OK, it's me again...I don't understand what you said...when I clicked on the "edit page" button, this was the text I got to edit:

The following is a list of all starship classes.

Note: Further articles about starship classes can be requested on the list of unwritten starship class articles.

Where in that should I have put what I was trying to add to the list? Thanks in advance! " :)

/msg chanserv op #memory-alpha ThylekShran

PNA opinion

Hi, I have an opinion question.

I noticed you supported my PNA idea for the Kathryn Janeway page. Because most of the Voyager character's articles seem to have large cluttered sections, do you think I should PNA the rest of the Voyager character's articles? I wanted your opinion because, well, your what I call a "super contributer to Memory-Alpha" :). Thanks for the advice!

Note to self...

Check on R.J. Williams article later and add to major contributions. Also, be sure to keep track of Ten Forward MediaWiki convo.

And now, I'm off for lunch. Good day.

Add Michael Nouri to major contributions.

Opinion requested


First of all, thanks for giving me advice on PNA-ing the VOY character articles.

I was wondering what you would do in this situation (I am a relatively new user):

The person who made the major contributions to the VOY character articles took away the PNA template on those articles (I'm not sure if he took it off all of them). I don't want to put them back on for fear of looking bad. What would you do? Thanks for your opinion! --Galaxy001 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Another note to self

Add Teresa E. Victor to Memoriam list.


for exepting me in IRC :) Whopper 04:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I am not yet familiarised with the writing style, for it was a habit to have a stub if under 10 sentences on wikipedia, so ill read all the rules, and get familiar. Whopper 04:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Read all rules

I read all the rules and guidelines, so I shouldnt be much of a bother anymore.. Whopper 18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists cat

Your talk page is categorized in [Category:Lists], you might want to find where it is in your talk page and de-categorize it. --User:Gvsualan


How come you kicked me from #memory-alpha :\?

Ping? Pong! -

  • You were kicked from #memory-alpha by ThylekShran (ThylekShran)

- Ping? Pong! -

  • I kicked you because it was late at night and I felt like doing something incredibly stupid. For the record, though, I also kicked myself... then Alan decided to kick me everytime I tried to log back on. Ahh... fun times. :) --From Andoria with Love 19:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


That was funny, when you blocked eveyone, but I was wonrering, do you know how to archive your talk pages? Whopper 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC talk reminder

<ThylekShran> Paramount Television should become a redirect to CBS Paramount Television, and info on the old Paramount Television should be added there.

<ThylekShran> While info on the old Viacom needs to be moved to a new CBS Corporation page.

<ThylekShran> Viacom owned CBS... then they split. Viacom became CBS Corporation. CBS acquired the rights to Paramount Television and renamed it CBS Paramount Television.

<ThylekShran> In the meantime, a new Viacom, this one in ownership of Paramount's film division, was formed.

<ThylekShran> CBS Corporation owns CBS Paramount Television (including UPN) as well as Simon & Schuster and Paramount Parks (which runs Star Trek: The Experience)

<ThylekShran> Viacom owns Paramount Pictures and Spike TV, among others

<ThylekShran> Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed

--From Andoria with Love 17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm curious why you found it necessary to revert my edit in TNG Season 1 performers. Susanna Thompson really plays Varel and Jaya in TNG. --Patricia 17:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't paying attention. Sorry for that. --Patricia 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rank images

Hey Shran, thanks for the note on that user's contrbutions to the rank page: Even before you wrote that, I had gone through a few dozen of his images and weeded out the non-canon ones, and converted the ones i felt were "valid" to a more appropriate format so they would have a place in the Starfleet ranks page. So to sum up, yes, he added a group of disallowable, non-canon images -- but he also added a handful of valid, useful images. I'm working on making sure he is credited for them, but he hasn't gone through and clarified the "fairuse-ness" of any of them, though he claims they are all his work. I can't verify that he made the drawings, but the ones i'm allowing to stay originate from canon source material, and i can verify he probably didn't "steal" them from any publication i'm familiar with (unless its one i'm not familiar with)

check out how Starfleet ranks to see where the images fit in. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hornblower redux

Howdy Shran. You advised my on my premature attempt to make a Horatio Hornblower article several weeks ago. Jörg just found some support for it. Would you mind looking over the article, recent talk, and my talk page, so I can be sure I did things right this time? Thanks. --Aurelius Kirk 18:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking my work. --Aurelius Kirk 08:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Sorry about "ignoring" you on the chat room at 1:30 CST. I was off busy elsewhere, and didn't notice until a few minutes after you left. If you need to talk about something just IM me or try the chat again, but I think I got the gist of what you were going to suggest on Talk:Picard family album#A valid source?.--Tim Thomason 07:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Finish what you started on the Stephen McHattie article, then move on to Andreas Katsulas. Also, don't forget to complete DS9 Season 3 performers and DS9 Season 4 performers sometime in the near future. --From Andoria with Love 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to knock your memoriam thing, but shouldn't we restrict main page mourning messages to people who were at least primary characters, or unusually important/popular ones like Garak? Just a thought --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Tomalak was a major enough character to commemorate the actor who portrayed him. He appeared four times as Tomolak and made one additional appearance on Star Trek: Enterprise. Now, if he only had one or two appearances, then I would agree. However, if anyone has any problems with it, then I'll remove it. --From Andoria with Love 22:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem, but I'd personally never heard of any of his characters (but then you know how much of a poser I am when it comes to Trekkie-ness :P). Maybe you should just take it down after a few days instead of weeks or however long we had the Piller notice up there. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 01:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll probably remove it on the 22nd. Then it'll have been up there a whole week. Will that be alright? :) --From Andoria with Love 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Inconcievable! --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 03:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Stopped at William Lucking in recent changes. --From Andoria with Love 10:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Light-speed breakaway factor

I must protest the series came out before the movie--Illwill 06:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Illwill. Considering we use a distant future POV, the most recent known term should be used as the correct one. Jaz talk | novels 06:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That didn't occur to me. It does make sense.

I just thought that since we refer to "black holes" as "Quantum singularities" its hard to reconcile refering to a method of time travel as the "slingshot effect". The term is more of an analogy and isn't very descriptive of what occurs or how it works. I suppose its possible that as the idea of time travel entered into popular vernacular, the average person would be more likely to use "slingshot effect". So on that arguement alone, I guess the change is justified.--Illwill 15:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Khitomer Accords

I must take issue with the description of the contents of this article. The Khitomer Accords refers to the actual treaty document. Its article should be primarily concerned with describing what laws or rules were set out in this document. The history section of this article is what one would use to describe the events that led up to the signing of the document


  • First Khitomer Conference: assination of chancellor , kirk goes to jail
  • Second khitomer conference: martok is a changeling, Cardassia joins dominion

In short, the conference is the meeting and circumstance, while the Accord is the actual document and treaty

This rational can also be applied to the Temporal Accords

Temporal accord:

  • time travel is only used for research

History of temporal accords

  • great powers realized the dangers of time travel
  • possible evolution of temporal prime directive

--Illwill 16:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I'll bring this up in the article's talk page; I recommend you continue the discussion there, since that's where this belongs. :) --From Andoria with Love 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

reverting vandalism

you forgot to go through and check all the pages the vandal of your page had also changed. I fixd it but don't forget --Illwill 08:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes, why was I banned off IRC. It said there was a trojan virus, so I was asking you about it... Whopper 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

troll/auto troll?

can any one tell me what happend yesterday when the baligerent post about user shran was added to a bunch of pages???Its Time For The White! =/\=Talk=/\= 00:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

is there anyway to prevent this from happening again? a way to absolutly block/ban him? and i dont think his message was completly automated, when i saw it on my talk page i posted a meeage that said i didnt post this, a few seconds later a differnt post on MY talk page said "yes i did" and nothing else, so this implies that he was watching the recent chabges page or something and hit my page again.Its Time For The White! =/\=Talk=/\= 06:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Vic Fontaine song pages

Hi Shran. I notice that it was you who added the lyrics last year. And I notice that you adjusted my minor edits, mostly "words and music by" statements to fit the Memory Alpha style. Thanks. I didn't know exactly where to put various concepts.

I think the style that puts the notes at the bottom is very classy. But I think the "In the real world" approach is slightly confusing because is it the real world outside the holodeck or the real world outside the TV set?

I wonder if there's a consistent style we could come up with. Maybe the "words and music by" phrases should be at the top of the lyircs section, like a by-line. What do you think? - Pete Snakespeare 23:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated Reminder

English actor Jack Wild died of cancer on 1 March, 2006 at 53. He is best known for Oscar-nominated role as Artful Doger in 1968's Oliver! and for playing Jimmy on H.R. Pufnstuf. --From Andoria with Love 20:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

unprotect Portal talk:Main

Hey Shran! You may want to unprotect Portal talk:Main which is "temporarily protected for a few hours" - since more than 48 hours now. I wanted to say that the spanish interwiki isn't working. This was done in "International"-template by JCCO. Maybe he's just volunteering to create it, dunno. Did you notice he's only active in March? — Florian - talk 01:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Nice work! -- Renegade54 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Voyager episode chart

Episode 7x15 "The Void" the link points to the place not the episode. It should be: The Void. I would fix it myself butI don't know how.--Illwill 05:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I didn't know how to get to the template. I still don't know

--Illwill 06:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

resource policy and talk:USS Chekov

Hey Shran, noticed you were contributing to canon policy discussions and policy edits.. i was wondering if you could weigh in on the USS Chekov discussion. Someone suggested that, since the producers removed a mention of USS Chekhov from the script, all of a sudden USS Chekov article (about the ship labeled USS Chekov in that scene) should be deleted. I think this is a symptom of problems with the policy, or a misunderstanding of where the data ws sourced from. Bernd at worked with this site's own founders to interview Michael Okuda and get this info, i think its simply too valuable to throw away because of confusing language added to our policies recently... in short, this info is as real as it gets for our Wolf 359 shiplists -- why are people trying to tear them down? -- Captain M.K.B. 22:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will do so as soon as I get home, I must leave right now. Be back on in about half an hour. --From Andoria with Love 22:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm back, checking it out now. Sorry for mistaking you for Cid, btw. It musta been the "C" at the start of your names. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandal

Thanks for spotting the vandal on my talk page, Shran. Zsingaya 21:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) --From Andoria with Love 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

rushing things along


Memory Alpha:Ten Forward#Vote of no confidence, hiatus on information removal edits regarding Canon Policy -- Captain M.K.B. 04:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

--From Andoria with LoveAndorianEmblem 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

--From Andoria with LoveTerran Empire insignia, 2260s 02:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

--From Andoria with LoveStarfleet logo, 22nd century 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


I've been peeking at the Ten Forward page, waiting to see which way the wind was blowing. Seems no real consensus to change things or not exists as yet. However, I wanted to let you know that my opinion is that under the current policy the articles on Livingston and the USS Chekov would each most likely pass muster as a Restricted Validity Resource which could have its own page. So I don't think they would be deleted, but they would each be labelled "non-canon". It would be hard to keep the USS Hawk (discarded from a script prior to filming), and I would need to do a little more research into Martin Madden. Just thought I'd pass along my thoughts on it, since you brought the articles up specifically! Aholland 02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, welcome back. :) Thanks for clarifying all that. However, I still believe that in order for Memory Alpha to serve as a complete guide to all things Trek, there will have to be some instances where production material – such as scripts, cut scenes, graphics, etc. – are allowed as a valid, canon part of MA. One such case is Neural; this planet's name was never revealed in the episode itself; it comes from the script. The USS Hawk runs along the same lines, although it was hardly as integral to the episode's plot, so it's exclusion as non-canon or non-valid I might understand. In the case of USS Chekov, I believe that the label on the filming model used – verified by Michael Okuda on both that website as well as the Star Trek Encyclopedia to read "USS Chekov" – takes prescedence over a likely typographical error in the Encyclopedia. (If you wish, we could simply remove the registry number from the main article and mention that model, according to a website, has so-and-so registry number, while the Encyclopedia has so-and-so registry number.) I knew there was no danger to Livingston because everyone – possibly even Cid – would have had a fit over it as he and the origin of his name (though never mentioned) is just such a big part of the Star Trek mythos. And although the scenes with Martin Madden were cut from the final film, they turned up on both DVD releases. Basically, all I'm saying is, if it's official production information – why not allow it? If it's something that's contradicted later in dialogue, we can deal with it then, but for now, why not make MA as complete a Trek source as possible? (By the way, I notice you've stated that inclusion of such material will mean MA was giving way to "fanon" – not true. Fanon is written by fans; canon is written by people who actually worked on the shows.)
But wait! I'm not done yet! Truth-be-told, aside from it's length, "legalese" and little nitpicks regarding production info, I think the canon policy as it stands now works pretty well. It defines what we allow and what we don't allow, although it does so it a little more detail than it needs to, IMO. I hope you know we're not out to get rid of the policy, simply to rephrase it and make it more understanding.
And lastly... about labeling articles as non-canon. I'm still very iffy on this. Seeing an article labeled as non-canon could certainly raise a few eyebrows for those who thought MA was about canon source only and who have difficulty differentiating between what is canon and what is valid. Saying it's from a Memory Alpha permitted resource helps it a bit, but still... I'm not totally sure it's necessary. Isn't it enough just to say where something came from (i.e. production notes, scripts, etc.) and let the reader make up his/her own mind?
Anyways... that's pretty much all I have to say, which is a hell of a lot more than I intented to when I began. So, um... yeah. The end. :) --From Andoria with Love 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I'm not sure I'm back yet or not - I'm still testing the waters.  :) I, too, think that Memory Alpha should include information beyond that seen on screen. Bits of discarded scripts, DVD extras, production notes are all fair game I think. However, if we were to simply present the data and let people make up their own mind, the articles should all be written from the "meta" standpoint. Sort of a collection of data bits that people could weave together or dismiss as they wish. But MA's articles attempt to present a conclusion as to which of the bits of data are appropriate to put together into a coherent description of something - by implication construing what is actually "canon". In other words, judgements have to be made as to what to include in the body of the article as "canon" and what to include in background as "things of interest". (And by the way, I think your solution to the Chekov's registry does just that in an elegant manner.) I am happy to participate in that process. But to the extent that material from outside the shows is included in the body of the article and, by implication, made out to be canon, I feel that we owe it to readers to identify it clearly and consistently as such. That is where I'm afraid I may have to part company with MA: if a consensus is reached that allows data from outside the shows as presented without a standard note that it is non-canon. I just feel it is misleading to say that (for example) a deleted scene has equal weight to one kept when trying to figure out what Trek is. So I'll watch and wait and see how things go. I hope the better direction, but I'm not at all sure about that at the moment. Aholland 18:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh! I see where you're coming from now. Our difference in opinion comes in that I feel that simply saying a piece of info was derived from something not seen on-screen is enough to say that it's an "iffy" subject, but you wish to make it perfectly clear. I personally don't have a problem with this (well, not to the point that I would actively argue against it, at least not now), I'm just worried that some users may find it a bit confusing, seeing as MA is supposed to be the source for canon Trek... yet here we allow non-canon articles. That's why I think stating it comes from a permitted resource will help to quell such confusion, but I would just as soon leave it to the user to realize the "iffyness" of the article. But, yeah, I see where you're coming from, so I guess it's really no biggie. I still don't think Livingston should be non-canon, though. I think "non-canon", if we do go along with this labeling, should be reserved for articles based on information that was not used in the final episode or film. Subjects such as Livingston were seen on-screen, so just because their name is derived from production notes, I don't believe it should be labeled non-canon. (I know you said Livingston's not in any danger, I just thought I'd use him as an example. As you can tell, I love that fish. :))
As for the use of production info as canon, I didn't mean that such things should be used and not noted as not being in an episode. I agree that items not seen in an episode should be taken with a grain of salt; I also agree that deleted scenes and such do not hold "equal weight" with those scenes actually used. In this respect, I suppose labeling them as non-canon would be alright, but I would really be against deleting/merging the info. The same goes for such things as Thomas Vanderbilt and his cronies from the It's Federation Day! news clipping.
Anyways, I hope we're at an understanding, and now that we may have gotten the Chekov situation resolved, I believe we should move on with writing the rest of the encyclopedia. Like I said (at least, I think I did), we weren't trying to drive you away; we're just very passionate about what is allowed on MA, just as you are. So let's get to writing those articles! :) --From Andoria with Love 20:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope we are at an understanding as well. A final note on your fishy, though: in my little world the canon part of Livingston is that he exists in Picard's Ready Room (in a crash-proof tank, apparently!); the "non-canon" part is his name since it was never uttered or displayed on screen. I would NOT recommend changing the article's title since the name crops up in the Encyclopedia, but I would recommend the dreaded "n-c" label in the Background section solely as to his (her?) name itself. Do you see what I mean? I hope this makes sense in some way.
I appreciate your understanding my point of view on this, even if you are still a little unconvinced.  :) But I'm not at all sure that users like Captain M.K.B. (or whatever he's calling himself these days - I've seen three name changes in two months!) will be as accepting. I really just wanted to contribute information and verify canon statements (or note otherwise). But I'm just so tired of fighting every step of the way. See Talk:Efrosian for an example of editing hell, where I questioned the name and no one has any source for it other than some FASA material. It should be a five second conversation for archivists to recognize the name is bogus and to then move the conversation to figuring out what to do with the title of it. Instead, people are defending the name to the death! Things like that really give me pause to consider whether the consensus on the site is allegiance to the episodes or allegiance to a personal belief system (putting up as canon what people simply like, episodes be damned!). So I wait to see the outcome of the Ten Forward discussion - which I hope will be soon one way or t'other! Aholland 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you have to understand, the Efrosian page has been here for awhile and it's name and its origin (like that of Livingston's) has been generally accepted as canon in Trek lore despite it never having been referenced on-screen. Because of this, there are bound to be people fighting for what they believe is its protection. Anyways, I can tell you, I will probably never be fully comfortable with labeling articles (or portions of articles) as non-canon, but if it comes between that and arguing until we're blue in the face and at risk of splitting up the community, then label away! (By the way, although character information and what-not from the FASA stuff are non-canon, their background info is generally trustworthy; at least, I'm pretty sure they get their info from official sources.) But, yeah, as for the Ten Forward discussion, I'm not even paying attention to it anymore since my last comment. As I said there, if it's something that could split up the community and pit fellow archivists at each other's throats, I want no part of it – I don't even wanna look at it. --From Andoria with Love 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
But Shran, I thought you were always blue in the face! (Sorry, my Andorian friend, I couldn't resist). I again appreciate your understanding, hope others share it, and I'll try not to clutter up your Talk page with this line anymore! Aholland 13:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Plasma cannon

Sorry, its been a while since I saw that episode! I was working on the fact that the particle beam seemed to expand towards the suliban ship rather than towards the Enterprise. Looks like Jorg has already uploaded another picture anyway... good ol' Jorg! Zsingaya 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. No worries. Thanks again! :) --From Andoria with Love 20:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Look, you might not like what that Stargate vandal is doing (and it is wrong) but it's way uncalled for to call it "stargay". -Teh Wraith 07:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

New categories

Hi Shran! thank you for the welcome message. I created new categories as I am used to this at Wikipedia. Sorry for that. But why do we need a consensus in order to create new categories?--Arado 17:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page revert

Hi Shran... I hope you don't take the reversion of your edit to the main page too personally... while it's nice to have strong contributors return from a long absence, I believe a "welcome back" on his talk page should be more than sufficient. We shouldn't make it look as if some users are more important than others. I'd like to get a dialogue on what should be considered appropriate material for the main page banners on the talk page... please feel free to contribute. Thanks! -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 03:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I didn't think it would sit to well with other contributors. I just thought that since he'd been having a tough time trying to get things back in order after the fire that it would be nice to have a welcome back banner on the main page for a day or so. But, I guess not. :P I do see your point, though. --From Andoria with Love 03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Whose Policy Is It, Anyway?

Shran, while I think labelling the new canon policy as "Aholland's policy" is a nice shorthand, I also think I'd prefer not to have it named after me. I suspect that will only further enrage some people. Besides, it really was collaborative and ended up very different than the way it started. So no hard feelilngs but I think I'll decline that particular honor right now if you don't mind!  :) Aholland 06:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way... at least, I don't think I did. I meant to say it was your version, as you were the policy's primary writer. That was only to distinguish it from the previous version, but I guess I could have just called it the new policy instead of your policy. Sorry about that, but there was no harm or insult intended. :) --From Andoria with Love 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I know you meant nothing beyond a way of referencing which policy was up. I just didn't want the term to catch on is all! Thanks for understanding. Aholland 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Layman's Terms

I realize you forbid me to do it, but I'd be happy to take a crack at revising the Canon policy on a temp page along the lines of my summary (yes, a little expanded) if you want to see what it might look like. I've no problem as well if you just want me to keep my grubby little mitts off it - but I wanted to offer in case you thought it would help the cause. And just to be absolutely clear about it: I understand fully why you suggested I have no hand in it, and I take no offense whatsoever.  :) Aholland 15:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was merely a suggestion; I, of course, can't forbid you to do anything. ;) Feel free to make another draft, though, if you wish. Okay, now I'm off to study. Cya later! :) --From Andoria with Love 15:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll think about it. Good luck in your studies. Aholland 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
See User:Aholland/Canon, Take 2. Let me know what you think. I'm not widely disseminating it, and it was a quick job - but see if you think it any better. Aholland 20:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Maureen Flannigan reminder

Maureen Flannigan

Unrelated reminder

Paul Hipp, David E. Peckinpah


I noticed you changed my "test" message to a "welcome" message after that user copied from Wikipedia. I can't completely disagree with you, as neither one really fits. If you're interested, I've started a discussion at Ten Forward to create another template that welcomes users who've copied, and explains our rules. Jaz talk 04:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Right-o. I'll take a gander at that. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry 'bout that edit conflict, looks like we were both trying to say the same thing at the same time. Jaz talk 04:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's hope he got one of our messages. :P --From Andoria with Love 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Shran, can enter IRC for minute. Jaz talk 04:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

are you really the same person as the shran?, or is that an impersonator/coincidence?--481284 11:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I can tell you now that that user is not me. --From Andoria with Love 14:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, the block template has now been changed to reflect that--481284 16:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that didn't go over so well, User talk:Shran#Not The Real Shran at Wikipedia--481284 01:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Um... well, I'm not really that concerned about it since I know it's not me and since my real account here on MA is in no danger of being affected (at least I hope). I use Wikipedia frequently and I do have an account created on there - I just can't recall what it is and, if I did remember it, I don't know my password, so I remain as an unregistered user - however, what happens to the Shran username over at Wikipedia does not concern me in the least. Anyways, I've let them know that the 137 IPs are what is used at the IT lab at CNU, and the 172 IPs are from my home computer, so hopefully that will clarify some things. Like I said, though, I really don't care... although it would be nice not to have someone pretending to be me... --From Andoria with Love 03:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar episode

Hi Shran. In the past, you commented on Template talk:Sidebar episode about possibly optional credits such as "Teleplay by", "Written by" etc. I don't know much about this - if you know which of these credits are mandatory and which are optional, could you please join the discussion at the bottom of that page? Thanks -- Cid Highwind 09:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

neural parasite redirects...

Neural parasites TOS and Neural parasites TNG are both redirects from nowhere, and with your move of the others, they now become double redirects. You can prolly turf 'em along the way. -- Sulfur 16:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I took care of 'em. Thanks for pointing those out. :) --From Andoria with Love 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shran. Regarding your bot request, I right now have some minor problems with my bot that I need to fix first. Perhaps Kobi will get to it first, otherwise I'll do it later. This is just to let you know that it might take some time... :) -- Cid Highwind 08:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty then, that's no problem. Thanks for letting me know. :) --From Andoria with Love 09:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi the redirects are now cleared, sorry it did take so long, but I can only start the script from my workstation and forgot when I last was on it. -- Kobi 15:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


I noticed that you wrote on my talk page that you saw I had already contributed to Memory Alpha. As far as I know, all I had done was write on my user page. Is this to what you were referring? Thank you for your time. KahlessTheUnforgettable 00:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)KahlessTheUnforgettable

Voyager ensigns' ranks

A lot of personnel appear on <file removed>.

at Talk:USS Voyager personnel a discussion has yielded that many of the names are "behind-the-scenes-ers" who were verifiably not aboard Voyager when it got lost, because we know that the same people were still in the Alpha Quadrant, since they appear on later dedication plaques.

The most suppositional part of this is assuming that there were probably no living commanders and lieutenant commanders on Voyager besides Lt. Cmdr. Chakotay, and the fact that next-in-line Tuvok was a lieutenant.

Regardless of the rank problem, the correlation between individuals is primarily the dedication plaques and [other personnel-listing sources]. These people were listed on Voyager computers but were not aboard when the ship left DS9. Perhaps unarrived crewmembers (additional medical people, +torpedos) were due next tuesday?

Since many were also credited for contributing during the construction on the USS Voyager dedication plaque, it seems that they might have been listed on Voyager computers because they had recently worked aboard the vessel.-- Captain M.K.B. 05:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, that makes sense to me. You're the captain, Captain. :D "Wouldn't it be ironic if James Kirk died on a Tuesday?" --From Andoria with Love 06:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Main page suggestion

I was just asked about my Main page suggestion here. User:Cid Highwind/Main Page. Maybe you could join the discussion and leave comments on Portal talk:Main (or the talk page of that user page)? Especially, would you still be willing to maintain the suggested news section? Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 20:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll get on it ASAP. Right now, I'm about to eat dinner, so it'll have to wait 'til afterwards. For the record, though, I would still be willing to maintain the news section. --From Andoria with Love 00:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ST:TMP Blueprints as Canon

First thanks for the welcome. That said, I do have to wonder why the ST:TMP are not considered canon. They are as authoritative if not more so, than reference works created by production staff such as the: The Star Trek Encyclopedia The Star Trek Chronology The Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual The Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual

These are/were not the same animal that the Franz Joseph non-canon blueprints and technical manual after all. Lestatdelc 11:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

These are the blueprints I was referring to. Lestatdelc 12:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your question which page, I would have to run down the blueprints themselves, but I believe it was the supporting text on the profile sheet of the Klingon cruiser. Lestatdelc 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ST: TAS stuff

Fyi, Jorg (I can never get that little sideways : on the 'o' :) ) informs me on my Talk:Sulfur page that the TAS stuff appears to have been copied from elsewhere. I've not had a chance to confirm it as yet, being before 9am and all, so for the time being I've just been trying to fix the format stuff that the fellow's been putting in. I also must have missed the nitpick discussion on MA:TF, elsewise I would've done those too. whee. -- Sulfur 12:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Bp said something to that effect, but it just went right past my head. I'll look into it. Thanks for bringing it up. --From Andoria with Love 12:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... so far, with "The Terratin Incident", I've found items copied from Ex Astris Scientia (sp) and Some of the stuff doesn't even belong there anyway, such as nitpicks, so I'll go ahead and remove those. --From Andoria with Love 12:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bot requests

Hi Shran, you don't bother, actually that is why I have a bot. But since I have just little time I have the bot change all links to "Muse (episode)", please have a look at where it needs to be "Muse" only. -- Kobi 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


I saw your note on Jenolen/Jenolan, and wanted to correct what I think is a misapprehension. The spelling of Chekhov in the script of BOBW was, in fact, correct. That is how the Russian author's name is spelled. That is why the ship's name was changed in dialogue to the "Tolstoy", another Russian author. The clear intention of the writers was that a Russian novelist be the basis for the name of the ship. The model makers simply used "Chekov" on the ship, since that was perhaps the only way they knew to spell it. We are left with "Chekov" as the ship name, but I wanted to let you know that the writers kinda knew what they were doing there. Thanks! Aholland 12:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought they were intentionally naming it after the TOS character rather than the author and the writers just goofed. Thanks for clearing that up. :) --From Andoria with Love 13:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

the vandal "Shrаn"

I noticed that you were wondering how the vandal Shrаn was able to register your username. It is because the "a" in his username is not the regular English a. Instead, it is actually the Cyrillic a, a different Unicode character that looks exactly the same (represented by designation %D0%90). The vandal's username would sometimes appear as "Shr%D0%90n" in the URL. -- 22:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. Well, that would certainly explain things. Thanks for the info. :) --From Andoria with Love 01:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

IP Spam

I see no reason not to infin-block IP spammers. They are most likely automated computers, inserting spam into wikis, or computers in mass-ad agencies. Either way, there is zero possibility of usefull content. Jaz talk 19:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's not my rule. I think you should take it up with Cid, 'cause I think he's the one who told me IPs shouldn't be blocked for more than 1 or 2 days unless in the case of excessive vandalism. --From Andoria with Love 20:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Most of the IP addresses I see being used for spam are used in one attack, then never again. Blocking these for "infinite" would definitely have no positive effect (because they aren't reused anyway), but might have a negative one: Sooner or later, a serious contributor might be blocked.
IP addresses should only be blocked for a longer amount of time after several acts of vandalism (spread across several days), and even then, a month-block might be enough... -- Cid Highwind 22:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there ya have it. Hmm... I've defintiely broken that rule a few times... After vandalism from an IP who has been warned & blocked about three or four times, I just ban the user indefinitely. :-( --From Andoria with Love 15:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Script and filming dates

I got your message about script dates and filming schedules. I put them in the boxes because I wanted to convey a show's development from story outline/script to aired episode. I've been using the 1981 The Star Trek Compendium which I reserved from the library (the branch I reserved it from was closed for remodeling for about two years, so it took quite a while for me to finally get the book). The book gives more story outline dates for the second and third season, and I've noticed it often takes almost as long to go from outline to script than it does from filming to airing. For instance, "Day of the Dove" had a story outline date 6/3/1968, first draft script 8/9, and revised final draft ten days after that. It was filmed in late August of that year and aired Nov. 1--Robert Treat 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. What was with that 14 minute edit of my name profile on May 18?

Different "Shran". The one in red was a vandal that used a name very similar to the admin's. -- Sulfur 21:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I looked over the discussion page and saw an article about the Vandal "Shran". I'm sure it was that person--Robert Treat 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC).
For a further followup on this, see Robert's talk page -- Sulfur 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"little blonde lab technician"

Hello. You just sent me an invitation not long ago to set up an account, and I decided to take it. Glad to be a member.

I made an addition to the article on James T. Kirk that you seemed to disagree with: I turned the phrase "little blonde lab technician" into a direct link to Carol Marcus's page and claimed that she was the only one of the women listed who was blonde. In response...I admit I forgot about Ruth, or the fact that she was blonde. I don't believe her name was listed though in the paragraph in which I said. "She was, however, the only one of these women who was blonde. However, unless I'm mistaken Kirk knew her while he was still at the Academy, and the "little blonde lab technician" was someone that Kirk met after after he had graduated--which rules out Ruth as a possibility.

As for Janet...looking at her picture, I would argue that she is in fact a light brunette. But I suppose she could be considered dark blonde too. Carol Marcus however is I think the most likely candidate for the "little blonde lab technician" and the only person I have ever seriously considered as such.

I viewed your user page and appreciated a lot of your comments and theories about Enterprise. I have developed similar theories of my own as well as some that differ somewhat. I look forward to expounding on those in my own user page in the future.

Thanks for the welcome.


OK. Well I guess you have a point there. And yes, I did miss Ruth's name. Perhaps we could just say "possibly Carol Marcus" after "little blonde lab technician," so demonstrate our suspicions without saying out and outright that she IS the person being referred to? Antodav 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, as a fair compromise, I added a direct link to the Ambiguities section right after the mention of the "Little Blonde Lab Technician." This way, we avoid being redundant, the line between canon and fan speculation is respected, and the point that the LBLT is quite probably (and most likely) Carol Marcus still gets across. Hopefully this will be a fair compromise for everyone :-) Antodav 06:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Species Page

sure no problem, i didnt know that was preferred.

Thank you for telling me

Muchas gracias

My User Page

Okay...I didn't know you could do that; I thought my user page was protected so that I was the only one who could edit it--but in this case I don't really mind, so thanks, I guess. I was actually going to go through and try to do that myself anyway.

I had trouble deciding what probably merited an article on Memory-Alpha and what didn't. Certain things may not be directly Trek related but may be related to themes addressed in various Star Trek episodes (for example, political topics). I'm used to posting on Wikipedia where you're supposed link pretty much every significant term in the article for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with those terms. I recognize that I went too far with it.

There are a few things there that I linked to which I do believe actually merit articles, though. There was no article for Niners, for example, so I went ahead and created one. There were a few other terms, such as "Newbies" and "gushers," which I felt deserved articles as well. I guess I'll formally put forth a request for those articles before writing them, however.

I won't create an article for my own series, certainly not before it's even been posted online. However I don't see why there shouldn't be at least one article that briefly mentions and links to fan-created series on the web, even if such series can't get their own articles outright. I might put forth a request for that too.

Now, if you can help me with somethiing do I get a user subpage like the one you have? I have a few Trek-related articles, theories, etc. that I'd like to put on there.

-Antodav 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for the instructions on how to create a user subpage; I really appreciate it.

The Catholic Church

I see your point about the Roman Catholic Church never having been directly referenced in any episode of Star Trek. Christianity, indeed, is almost never mentioned on Star Trek, certainly not during the latter-day incarnations of the series. During the time of the Original Series, the few indirect references to Christianity, for example the episode "Bread and Circuses", were oblique at best and deliberate "bones" thrown to conservative Christian audiences to ward off TV censors of the 1960s (who were far more conservative than they are today and probably would have taken serious action against Star Trek if Gene Roddenberry had promoted his atheist views in a more blatant manner). As I described in the text of the user page, if you read it, the Federation's seeming lack of any sort of religious faith whatsoever (unless, of course, you count the Federation people's virtually unanimous and unwavering support for the state itself) is indeed one of the elements of the series that I lament the most.
Nevertheless, that of course does not in and of itself justify an article about the Catholic Church on Memory Alpha. It's worth pointing out, however, that there are several references to Catholicism in the article about Christianity. Even if the Catholic Church has never been referenced outright and directly, the oblique references to the Catholic Church and Catholic traditions that are mentioned in that article may justify an article about Catholicism, if for no other reason than simple clarification. I admit, of course, that I am somewhat biased. :-).


I'm not sure how your references to articles about Star Trek producers, fan clubs, etc, relate to whether or not there should be an article that briefly explains the meaning of a Newbie. However, as far as how the term relates to Star Trek, it was a term that I was unfamiliar with before I became a Star Trek fan and began posting regularly on the bulletin boards.
A Newbie, in case you don't know, simply discribes someone who is new to Star Trek, and thus, presumably, does not know much about what they're talking about on a Star Trek bulletin board. it can take a neutral connotation or a derogatory one, in the latter case often to dismiss an arguement made by someone when a person who has been a fan for a longer period of time than that person cannot come up with a reasoned argument during a debate.
I have never heard the term applied to fans of any other series or franchise, though I suppose there's no real reason why it couldn't be (except, perhaps, that there is not nor has there ever been any television franchise in existence with the scope, complexity, or mangitude of Star Trek). While not necessarily Trek-specific, neither are the terms basher or gusher, but the Wikipedia article on Star Trek: Enterprise nevertheless explains the meanings of both terms. I believe that it is reasonable to use Wikipedia as a standard for judging what is or is not appropriate on Memory Alpha. Therefore I argue that, because the term does have at least some tangential relevance to the Star Trek fan community, if not to Star Trek canon, it diserves some kind of reference and explanation--at the very least within a larger article describing fan-related terms. Trekkie after all has an article of its own, and to my knowledge the term has never been used onscreen (unless you count Free Enterprise or the documentary Trekkies).

Fan Pages and Commodore

I was unaware that there were already pages for "fan films", fan fiction, and "fan publications". I stand corrected. Once I have something posted online and ready to be viewed perhaps I will link to the site one of those pages. I'm not sure which one I would want to do it on though...obviously Commodore is not a film, since #1 it's intended to be a television series and #2 I take it too seriously to ever try to make it with cheap special effects and amateur, unpaid actors, which would undoubtedly produce a final product that looked ridiculous--yet the version of it that I finally post online will most likely be script-based, so "film" seems to fit it better than any of the other two categories. The term "fan fiction" usually refers to original stories based on pre-existing series, or new, narrative-based stories or series that are not intended for serious consideration as part of canon, so it's not one that I like to use to apply to Commodore either. Fan publication I suppose might fit except that the word "publication" sounds very final, and a website is hardly the highest aspiration I have for Commodore. Furthermore the article on fan publications, from the looks of it, doesn't really seem to be appropriate this kind of project.
I have always referred to Commodore using the term "series proposal." However, I doubt there's any such category on Memory Alpha, and further doubt that I would be allowed to make one. An article about the series itself of course is out of the question, because first of all it's not canon (yet, anyway) and second of all because it would--fairly--open the door to every fan-based idea for a series ever concieved of getting its own page, which would of course seriously bog down Memory Alpha. That's not something that I would ever want to see happen; it's a good site, even if I do take issue with some of the information presented on it (when I make my user subpage, you'll see what I mean).
At any rate that's not something I really need to worry about until after I build my own site. For now I think I'll just add a subsection about it on my user page, if that would be acceptable ;-).
Thanks again for all your help. You have really given me a very warm welcome, and I appreciate that.
--Antodav 10:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: Out of curiosity, how was your user page vanalized? I do have a genuine fear of the same sort of thing happening to mine, especially considering the page's political content.

I don't think that Newbie, Gusher, or Basher are relevant enough to Trekkie to add sections about them in that article. I'll just forget about them for now. Going by the standards that you described, my only concern now is that my article about Niners might get deleted. And I'm sorry to hear about the vandalism your page suffered; I must be sure to save mine as soon as possible before someone ruins it. I don't know how to revert an edit though.
Now, as for religion (and I'm deeply sorry now for opening this can of worms)...
We can debate Gene Roddenberry's motives for deliberately ignoring and/or attacking religion on Star Trek forever. None of us can actually talk to the man now, so I suppose no one can really know for sure, what his views are, and why he chose to tell the kind of stories he did. If anyone had asked him though if he were hostile to religion he probably would have denied it or just avoid the question entirely (especially during a time when McCarthyism was still being practiced).
I don't think you can say though, that Roddenberry didn't focus on religion. A great many episodes of Star Trek have themes about religion--only thing about them is, they're almost always negative. It's undeniable that Star Trek has a history, going all the way back to the Original Series, of depicting virtually anyone who believed in God as being backwards, primitive, and ignorant, in contrast to our noble, morally impeccable, "evolved," "humanist," atheist Human heroes. In cases where such a portrayal is not possible, such as the Bajorans or the Klingons, religious followers are shown to be either irrational, violent, fanatical terrorists ("The Homecoming"/"The Circle"/"The Siege", "Chosen Realm"), or mindless sheep blindly following rules laid down by religious leaders who are either soulless machines ("Return of the Archons", "The Apple", "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky")--in which cases the point was clearly to say that God is a creation of man, like a computer, or a machine--or power-hungry, hypocritical demagogues bent on repression, control, censorship, and manipulation (the Bajoran religious leadership on DS9, particularly Kai Winn). That's more than just wanting to show humans "having faith in themselves" rather than some spiritual entity. In my book, that's outright, flagrant, and unapologetic bigotry. And besides, there's a differnce between wanting to show humans having faith in themselves and their capacity to do great things, and having humans worship themselves and view themselves as superior beings (destined for godhood, as Picard once implied to Q ("Hide and Q") at the center of the universe.
It wasn't just Gene Roddenberry who insisted on stereotyping religion and religious followers this way though: Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, and Manny Coto were all guilty of it too throughout all four spinoff series, and indeed, all of Hollywood has a habit of seeing religion in those terms (just look at The DaVinci Code, for a current example). It's probably more to do with the culture of the industry than it is any deliberate attempt of malice on the part of any producer, though I do believe that Roddenberry was in fact determined to discredit religion as much as he could get away with in the 1960s.
As for Roddenberry not wanting to show which religions survived into the future and which didn't...most religions on Earth have been around for thousands of years; it's highly unlikely that any of them would just vanish from existence within the next three centuries. Yet that seems to be exactly what Gene Roddenberry was trying to get people to believe would happen. The only reason plausible reasons why all of the world's major religions would cease to exist so suddenly are if they were
  • (a) forcibly suppressed (which is typical of communism),
  • (b) had their followers wiped out through acts of mass genoicde by atheists against believers (otherwise known as pogroms),
  • (c) the cultures to which those religions pertained completely ceased to exist and were supplanted by one whose dogma is atheism (consider the abandonment of Olympianism by the Greeks and Romans in favor of Christianity).
Which of these took place in the case of the Star Trek universe we will not know until there is an episode that deals with that period of transition. However it happened, it was probably quite some time before the Federation was formed, most likely during the time of the Postatomic Horror.
Anyway, this discussion is clearly getting out of hand. Clearly I'm overrruled as far as having an article about the Catholic Church is concerned, so I'll cease to promote the idea of creating one. I'm hereby dropping the subject.
--Antodav 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank your for the information about reverting a page, though I hope I will never have to use it. I am also relieved that the discussion about religion has been terminated; I want to make friends at Memory Alpha before I make enemies. :-)--Antodav 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek fan fiction

I've recently come across a wiki site devoted to Trek fanfiction and fanon, Star Trek Exanded Universe, and I was wondering if it would be okay to put a link to that site in MA's Fan fiction page--Robert Treat 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

Fen Domar

'Kay, well, I made the appropriate changes. I really don't think we were meant to believe that the Fen Domar are a Delta Quadrant race though. --Antodav 07:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know whether they were or were not... they could have also been an Alpha Quadrant race, as well. ;) --From Andoria with Love 07:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how they could have been an Alpha Quadrant race, since it would have taken Voyager more than just "a few years" to get that far, but whatever. I think the discussion on the Talk Page of that article helped to clear everything up enough. --Antodav 05:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User subpage

I have a few quick questions:

  • First, how many user subpages am I allowed to have?
  • Second, what content am I allowed to put on my user subpage?
  • Third, how long is a subpage allowed to be?

I ask this because I have a lot of theoretical content, similar to what you have on your own subpage, that I'd like to post on those subpages, as a way of contributing to the discussion about resolving various continuity issues, the timeline, etc. I'm not sure if it can all fit on one page, because when I tried to add additional information to my main user page, it told me to keep it under 30kb.

I'd also like to, if I may, add some key information related to my series proposal, Star Trek: Commodore, for anyone who is interested in knowing what I'm talking about. The information I would want to include would be approximately equal to that which exists on any of the five pages about each of the series, sans the episode listings of course (particularly since most of them have not yet been fully written out yet anyway). This would include:

  • a brief summary of what the series is about,
  • a description of its relationship to established, canonical Star Trek
  • a listing of the series's major characters.

Once I create my website I'd probably like to include a link to it on either my main page, my subpage, or both. The FAQ on user pages is unclear in this regard: I'm not uploading any files or using the subpage as storage space, but Commodore is not, as the FAQ demands, "strictly related to the project" (being non-canonical at this time and my own personal creation). Still, it's not like I'd be posting the entire series on here or something; we're talking 500 words at the very most.

I want to make sure I'm not violating any policies before I create this subpage. If anything is inappropriate I'll just leave it off.

Thanks in advance, --Antodav 05:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, seeing as how I'm getting conflicting information as to how many subpages I can have, I think I will limit the pages to just two: one for Commodore, and one for all my speculations and theories. If I get too many objections to the Commodore page after a while I'll simply delete it and just link to my webpage after it's been created. I promise not to spend excessive time and effort on the user page; in fact I should be done with it by the end of this week.

Regarding talk page formatting...sorry, that was a misunderstanding. I was unaware that the indentations were being use as a way to denote the speaker; I thought that indenting something on a talk page was a way of indicating that a comment that was made was a reply to something else. I'm accustomed to doing it that way on Wikipedia talk pages. I didn't realize I was causing a disruption; my only intention was to add clarity to the discussion. I apologize.

The whole Fen Domar/Beta Quadrant issue is semantic in my opinion, but if you want to change it to make it clearer that we don't know for certain that the Fen Domar are from the BQ, then please, just go ahead and change it to whatever you think it should be. I tried several times to reword the first sentence of the article myself, but eventually I gave up because I just couldn't get it to sound right. I thought that the added canonical evidence of Voyager's position at the end of the series (as discussed both in the article itself and on the talk page) would allow me to say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the Fen Domar are indeed a Beta Quadrant civilization, but apparently I'm wrong, which is fine by me. I admit that I don't completely understand Memory Alpha's canon policy yet (for example, I just read the article about the Federation Starfleet, which is full of conjectures stated as though they were canon), even after having reviewed it thoroughly several times. I suppose there is something of a learning curve that I have to ovecome first before I can make the proper judgement about what should or should not be in an article. I appreciate the help that you're trying to provide. Since you seem to understand the canon policy much better than I do, please do just go ahead and make the necessary edits, and I will go with whatever you say it should be. As long as the suggestion of the Fen Domar being a Beta Quadrant civilization remains in the article somewhere (which I still feel is a reasonable conjecture based on the evidence), I'm content with whatever other changes need to be made. This discussion is really staring to get kind of old, and I just want it to be done and over with, so we can move on. Thanks :-)

--Antodav 07:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure its okay for you to remove a comment becuase of foul language. It was used as an adverb, not a personal attack, so I don't think it violates any of the behavourial policies. I'm putting it back for now. Jaz talk 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it not only because of the language but also because it really had nothing to do with the article's content. But mostly I just removed it because I didn't like the guy's attitude, so yeah, you should go ahead and put it back. ;-) --From Andoria with Love 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Question on banning an IP

I think you are an admin. I have noticed a particular IP address ( that has contributed 4 or 5 articles today suggest anime references in star trek. They are not well written, have little to no evidence, and I think they are spam. I have tried finding a place to report someone, but can't find one, so I am bringing it to your attention. --OuroborosCobra 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I don't think banning will be necessary, though; the user may simply not grasp what MA is about and seems to be creating pages explaining the possible source for the name rather than explaining what the item is. The pages he has created are linked to nanite, so they're apparently valid; he's just not explaining what they are, instead explaining where the name may come from. I'll talk to him and probably delete the pages as well. Again, thanks for letting me know. --From Andoria with Love 03:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Top 100

There are many informations from this user that should be eliminated from an admin (too many for me) as MA should not list episode ranking from every fan website. - Philoust123 17:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I did notice those. I didn't think too much about them, but now that you've pointed out that it is a fan site and it opens the doors for others to state the favorites on other fan sites, I think they should probably be removed. (They don't really constitute "background information", either.) --From Andoria with Love 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think poll should always be avoided even if it is not a fansite ranking (even from because :

  • results can change constantly
  • results reflects only the opinion of those who have voted : fans who use Internet (mostly young), fans who speak english (mostly americans), fans who have generally seen only a part of the 700 episodes.
  • fans can vote many times for their favotite


I don't actually know since when my user page was gone but I definitely know that left some information about me here on the English page about two or three months after my registration. I don't want to blame anyone - maybe it was erased by accident. — defchris (✍ talk) 20:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


If you've a problem with images like today, you can have a look on MA-fr (fr:Catégorie:Images) where the same images are generally used. Even if you don't know french, you can find them easily here, as the images are all multi-categorized, classed alphabetically (there is a TOC) : by series (TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, Movies in movie order), by individual characters, by insignia, by ship or by planet... Your requested image is this one, I think. - Philoust123 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the TNG crew image! Since Ottens is only rarely online, I thought it would be quite some time before we could get the "real" image - assuming, of course, that he still had it on his computer. With your help, though, I was able to correct my bonehead mistake. You're a life saver. Thanks again! :) (PS: Remind me not to delete images again for the purpose of clearing out spam. :P) --From Andoria with Love 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You just had the chance that this image was on my watchlist (maybe because I was looking for additional informations about the season of this image). MA-fr images mostly comes from MA-en. To make sure of it, you can always find an interwiki (en) link to establish the (en) source. But if these images are changed on MA-en with new versions, I may not have the more recently one. The TNG crew image dates back to March 13. - Philoust123 17:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, don't forget the 94th Rule of Administration :) "Never delete vandalized articles which already existed before vandalism." - Philoust123 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

March 13 sounds recent enough. I don't think the en image had been changed since 2005, so it's all good. Thanks for the advice, and I'll be sure to follow that rule of administration from now on. ;) --From Andoria with Love 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I may not contribute a lot anymore, but I check out my Watchlist at least once every week, so never be reluctant to ask me anything ;-). I see the problem has already been solved, fortunately, since I didn't have the image saved on my computer anymore. Ottens 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear you still hang around often. :-) And yes, it would appear we... or at least, I... was very fortunate, and it's a good thing the image was available elsewhere. This is definitely a mistake I won't be making again; who says admins don't learn lessons? :-P --From Andoria with Love 18:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks okay to me in terms of content (thou I only really breezed through it), except I'm not sure we are any better off assuming that image is of it firing phasers vs. disruptors. Historically red beams have been phasers and green disruptors-- that has nearly been a constant throughout. As for the page view setup I cant tell since I got IE here at work and like 640x480 resolution not mozilla at 800x1000 resolution like at home. -- Alan


Hi! You recently added to warp factor scale (22nd and 23rd centuries) a statement that "According to Gene Roddenberry, this scale was called the 'Cochrane scale', with the 24th century recalibration being called the 'revised Cohrane scale'." I've never heard this before, and I didn't come across anything like it in my research on the article. Where did you find this? Thanks! Aholland 11:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

RPG Authors

I've been going through and adding in several of the Last Unicorn Games RPG supplements, and noting their authors, etc, etc. Now, as I was creating a page for Christian Moore and preparing to link in his various Star Trek related works (he was in on pretty much every release by LUG and Decipher, being the president/head of each, and an author in his own right), I discovered that he'd previously existed, and his entry had been deleted back in early February.

Now, I don't want to see the entry turfed again right away, and if it's deemed that separate author entries for these RPG guys aren't such a good thing, then perhaps it'd be best to create a general page for RPG authors, whether FASA, Decipher, Last Unicorn Games, or otherwise.

A couple of the author pages I've done up for these guys thus far include:

And a few of the others I came across include (that I was planning on expanding, but decided to hold off on until this matter could be resolved):

What are your thoughts on the matter? -- Sulfur 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I posed the question in Forum:RPG Authors -- Individual Pages, or all together?. I essentially copied my question from here, and added your response to it (so that at least the vague gist of the start of the discussion could be understood). I hope that's not an issue for you. -- Sulfur 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, no I havn't noticed yet, sorry. It's no issue for me, though. I'll probably post another comment there momentarily. --From Andoria with Love 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Previewing Changes

I'm told that it's good to use the preview button before saving the changes to the db. ;)

Just teasing after that 'Rooney' experience there. -- Sulfur 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah... :P --From Andoria with Love 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey there. Just an FYI... someone with a better knowledge of starships and registry numbers needs to take a look at the edits the anon user has been making. He's made some significant edits that may be based on non-canon sources. -- Renegade54 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed. I'm not sure I'm one with a better knowledge of starships or their registries. I do know that this isn't the first time someone has made these changes, though, so it's likely all speculation. If you haven't already, I recommend bring it to either Cid's, Alan's, or Mike's attention as they may know more about it. In the meantime, though, I'll check it out and see if I can come up with anything. Sorry for the delay in replying, btw, I've been watching "Paradise Lost". Thanks for the heads up. :) --From Andoria with Love 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've had time to look things over, and aside from the issue with the Excalibur, I don't think there's really much problem. The icons on the Operation Retrieve layout were Constitution-class, so it's most likely they were meant to symbolize the actual class of the ships, and their registry numbers were seen, so that's no problem. The other edits are simply transferring the registry from the section header to the article text for consistency. Again, though, we need to continue discussions on the Excalibur. --From Andoria with Love 19:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool... thanks for looking! -- Renegade54 19:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Careful what you ask for

Also, please do not add phony information to our articles. Untrue, unproven info which can potentionally damage a person's reputation should not be added, especially not without a valid, credited source. Since these are most likely personal, biased comments, they have been removed and taken as vandalism. --From Andoria with Love 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No phony information was added. Ask literally anyone who worked on the series. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean its phony.

Listen, I'm not going to get into an argument with you. We don't care what your opinion or anyone else's opinion is about them or anyone else. We're here to note facts, not what one anonymous user says other people are thinking. Thank you. --From Andoria with Love 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No opinions here. Just facts. Get out of your mom's basement and find out for yourself.
I'll say again, we don't accept crap that people claim to be facts. We also don't accept insults (I wasn't aware I had a basement, or that my mother owned it), so unless you wish to be prevented from editing, I suggest you drop it. --From Andoria with Love 05:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tritanium, et al.

I can appreciate that you want to defend consistency on Memory Alpha. Although I am also a big fan of ST, I am also aware that there are some scientific errors in the way names of materials are described in the franchise. Tritanium is an example of this. I merely wanted to correct erroneous references to make them more respectable to someone with a real science background. Granted this is a fictional series, but one that appeals to people who love science. Thus I believe that making corrections to the references are warranted.

In the Technical Manual and many other references tritanium is called as a metal alloy. The technical manual also states that that it takes several terajoules of energy to vaporize a cubic meter of tritanium. This however means that tritanium has several times the thermal strength of any real element. Yu must understand that an cannot have a higher melting point or significantly different specific heat than its primary metal constituent.

If one wants to invent a fictional material with extreme thermal toughness, it should either be a new element or a new chemical compound with extremely stable chemical bonds between existing elements at the molecular level (like tungsten carbide tungsten + carbon atoms or water hydrogen + oxygen atoms). Thus, tritanium must either be an entirely new element (as it sounds like it is since it is found as naturally occurring ore) or a new chemical compound. Alloys are merely two elements that are melted together in a liquid solution and not bonded at the molecular level. Strong enough for 21st century uses but hardly sophisticate.

Phase pistol additions

hey. i'm totally new to the whole talk thing, so please forgive me if this should go under phase pistol, instead of on your talk.

but...i have concerns about some of the additions you made. while it's great that they're expanding the article, they seem to be very minor details that don't add any weight or real imformation to the subject. you cited several events in which people were threatened or stunned by phase pistols, but only from a few episodes. it seems to me that if we are to cite such minor cases of their use, we should include many more. however, citing every time the phase pistol was used would be a nightmare, and it's safe to assume that they were used frequently on 'enterprise'.

i would suggest the removal of the following passages:

Crewmembers from the NX-01 Enterprise first used the pistols while they were aboard a Suliban helix to rescue Klaang in April of 2151. During this mission, Captain Jonathan Archer used his pistol to stun a Suliban crewmember. The Suliban known as Silik would later attempt to kill Archer with his own phase pistol inside the temporal communications chamber, but the bizarre temporal effects within the chamber allowed Archer to escape relatively unharmed (ENT: "Broken Bow").
An away team surveying a class M planet which would become known as Archer IV later that year was equipped with phase pistols. Trip Tucker, under the influence of the planet's toxic pollen, threatened T'Pol with a phase pistol, believe the Vulcan to be conspiring against him and the rest of the Enterprise crew. T'Pol was later able to incapacitate Tucker with her own phase pistol. (ENT: "Strange New World")
Ensign Masaro commited suicide with a phase pistol in 2155. (ENT: "Terra Prime")

and a rewrite of the final paragraph. Deevolution 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to be argumentative here, but it still seems fishy to me.

i mean, you cite 'broken bow' and 'strange new world' and 'terra prime', but you forget about in 'E2' when tucker's own offspring shoots him with a phase pistol, or the time in 'chosen realm' when aliens took over enterprise using phase pistols taken from the armory, or when reed shot t'pol with a phase pistol in 'north star', or even in 'strange new world' when tucker shot the cave goes on and on and on. that's why i thought citing examples of their use, except in extraordinary circumstances, to be a little futile.

i mean, i guess their use in 'broken bow' can be rationalized as that was their first time being used, so we can say 'the first use of the phase pistol came in 2151 when archer stunned a suliban soldier aboard a suliban helix' or something. but tucker's threatening t'pol in the cave seems just a bit much to me. i dunno. Deevolution 08:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Would you check out my userpage and let me know what you think???

Captain Wall::: 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me with a few things I don't know?

Captain Wall::: 09:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Need Help with.

I want to make my page more perfect any idea's

Also I do not know how to put things like where you discribe who you are where ur from that Long Bar thing u know? srry I am new

Bad new registered user

There is a new user, Otrich11, who is leaving random comments, like "Burp" on people's talk pages. He also has done a lot more messing around on Captain Wall::: talk page. To make matters worse, this Ostrich11 has started signing with other users names. He left a message on my user talk page, and signed it "Captain Wall:::"

In addition, this guy has uploaded at least two new photos. both are not seen in Star Trek, and one is a possible copyright violation. --OuroborosCobra 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

what do you mean do not erase user pages. I am srry for asking ppl to look at my page but i want my talk page to be empty and not full of stuff ya know i can't delete that stuff?

You shouldn't remove stuff relating to policy or behavior, no. It should stay for future reference, at least for several days. Also, you don't really need to keep removing some immediately after it's posted, as that just puts more on the dataload. --From Andoria with Love 04:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

media wiki popup browsing?

does it work here? is the default monobook still at [[User/monobook.js]] or does MA keep it somewhere else? it doesn't seem to be working the way it should--Telderado 02:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Three/Four Musketeers

My bad on the Porthos article :)... In this case, however, would Wikipedia be wrong? It seems a shame that there can't be something to explain the difference... 18:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my. The breadcrumbs of my afternoon would crisscross both Wikipedia and MA many times. At any rate, I was reading the Porthos article on Wikipedia, and clicked an interwiki link here. The Wikipedia article states three Musketeers :) The problem, of course, stems from the fact that the book itself is titled "Three", although, as proven, there are four by the end. No, I haven't read the book... =P 19:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The discontinuity still bothers me... although I can be convinced to drop it :) Perhaps we can say "- named after the four musketeers from Alexandre Dumas' book The Three Musketeers. It is cumbersome, however.
By the way, that also reminds me: The original edit had "The Four Musketeers" in italics, which would be technically incorrect, unless they were referring to the movie... 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Shran, do you have a Bot? If not, do you know which admins do? -- Jaz talk 22:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

deleting images

Just a head's up, but I noticed you deleted File:Fed sydney.jpg without removing/replacing the image/link from two associated articles. It may be necessary to check other images you deleted to see if there were still any articles linked to said images. --Alan del Beccio 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proper name of the horn

Just wanted to let you know that the instrument is properly called just "horn" as seen by the [International Horn Society], orchestral rosters such as the [fh=cso&cso.submit.viewSection=1&cso.sectionid=horn Chicago Symphony Orchestra], and even in the Wikipedia article linked on the memory alpha article page. Although it is important to note that it has been called the French horn as well, surely from the "Star Trek future" perspective Memory Alpha is supposedly written in, the instrument should be referred to by the name recognized as the official name since the 20th century, right? 19:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Shut Up

I do not want to hear any of your hippicrit "expliation" (Moral: You did the same thing)


stopped at 18:29

Calendar Days

When making new calendar days, can you follow the style of the October dates? (ie 1 October). They're done with a template underneath with the events (in this case Template:1 October), and then the day page is actually a simple template using just the day and month nr. Thanks! -- Sulfur 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I thought they were just written manually. Anyways, sure can do. Sorry about that. :) --From Andoria with Love 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. They were originally written manually. Then we started tweaking them because other people wanted to be able to do other cool stuff with them. And eventually, they ended up in the format that you now see. A template that links to a template that links to a... etc.  :) -- Sulfur 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So I see. Very cool indeed, and very useful to boot. :) --From Andoria with Love 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

protected page

Since I'm being accused personally (another user is sending various messages about "Captainmike is wrong" rather than "add my viewpoint into the article differently", i protected Shelby. I'm bowing out to allow others to work on it, this is called for by the protection policy. I shouldn't be involved anymore now thats its gone personal and i stopped the situation. I am doing this to prove that i can follow policy. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. --From Andoria with Love 05:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shran,

Since you stated that I should bring problems to your attention, I would like to do exactly that: I have some problem with the fact that I have been accused of "repeatedly bringing up" another user on talkpages (plural), "banning" users (plural) from my talk page, making "silly allegations" toward members (plural), and that I am "trying to start trouble".

Here is the page in question:

User talk:OuroborosCobra#user controversy

The user in question who is making these claims did so during the course of a dispute which (hopefully) is now resolved; however, it is disturbing that I am being gossipped about on other users' talk pages while this was going on.

I thank you in advance for a resolution. Roundeyesamurai 09:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

ETA: Likewise, the same allegations, or similar ones, or complete mischaracterizations of the dispute, have been made on the following talk pages:

User talk:DarkHorizon User talk:Cid Highwind User talk:Gvsualan#Possible issue on Shelby

I understand that these persons are administrators, and it is appropriate policy to bring potential problems to their attention; however, no good purpose is served by mischaracterizing a dispute to gain favor, making incorrect allegations about a person (example: pluralizing a disputed act to give the appearance that an individual "has done it to someone other than me, too"), or gossipping about a person with whom one has a dispute (see previous post).

Again, thank you for your attention. Roundeyesamurai 10:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oy! I am waaaay too tired to handle this now, but I shall make an attempt anyway. I think this is where that failure in communication thing I mentioned comes into play. Mike was attempting to let others know of what was at the time a current situation since he himself was backing out of the discussion altogether. He wanted others to get involved in order to resolve the situation. He apparently had reason to believe that you were trying to cause trouble and expressed that opinion to others, an opinion you have already disputed and may dispute again if you wish. Also, I wouldn't take the pluralizing of words too literally, I do that often even though something only involves one of something (if that makes sense). Also, you and Mike were discussing things on two talk pages – Talk:Shelby and User talk:Roundeyesamurai – and you questioned his actions on both pages. So, technically, in that respect, he was correct. I don't really believe he was writing these messages to gain favor; rather, he was just expressing his view of the situation, a view which you disagree with. Like I said, you can feel free to dispute it, but it appears that Mike has moved on and, if you want you fast resolution to this whole ordeal, I would suggest you do the same. Your call, of course. I wish I could be more help than that, but I would really like to see this whole thing come to an end. --From Andoria with Love 05:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Two bad IPs

Just wanted to bring to your attention to bad IPs:

  • spammed Jaz's talk page (poor guy, on vacation and still attacked), and created a previously deleted article, Bilaren Prime, filled its contents with only spam. I have removed the spam, and nominated the article for re-deletion.
  • created the article Rock climbing, filled contents with only spam. I have removed the spam and nominated the article for deletion (although I admit it could probably be developed into something real, I just don't think I could do it justice).

That's all. Like my new sig thing? --OuroborosCobra talk 07:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

another bad IP


Created by a spamdel. I am too tired to fix and or nominate for deletion. Trying to go to bed, but these petaQs attacked my precious Klingon article. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Day Pages

I (on the one hand) like the idea of putting roles/whatever in for people as they are born and die, but on the other hand like the idea of making the lists simple and letting people explore to see who someone is. The one thing I worry abot with the roles is that 95% (or more) of the day entries done thus far don't have 'em, and I don't want to update them all! :)

Thoughts? -- Sulfur 18:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the roles, as well, hence why I started adding them. ;) That said, however, I do see your point about keeping things simple. I think we should just leave the template the way they are; however, may I suggest having the person's occupation in front of the name? For example, "Actor Brent Spiner, Composter Jerry Goldsmith, etc. It looks more, I dunno... professional I guess. We wouldn't have to change all the templates immediately for that, though. We can just do all the remaining templates that way, and just update the previous templates when we come across them. --From Andoria with Love 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That could work. What about Actor/Director/Composer people though? Or many role people? Perhaps "Performer"/"Production Staff"? I'm not sure on that one. Not convinced either way, to be blunt. As an aside, I created all of the "day" pages for November to get them off of the most wanted list, and am working through the Templates for each day slowly right now. Such a joy it is. Or something. -- Sulfur 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Good luck with that. ;) In any case, I don't really think it matters whether the occupational terms are included or not. The templates are fine the way they are. :) --From Andoria with Love 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the additional information too. There are a lot of people who I have no idea who they are, and it's better to get a clue about who they are before hitting a link. I suggest the following way of handling it:
Actors: Only list their primary role(s) in parantheses after their name.
Majel Barrett (Christine Chapel, Lwaxana Troi, et al.) is born.
Malcolm McDowell (Tolian Soran) is born.
In the actual Majel Barrett listing, for instance, there's too much.
All other production staff: List their primary job(s) in parentheses after their name.
Ronald D. Moore (writer, producer, et al.) is born.
Michael Westmore (make-up artist) is born.
Always keeping the person's name up front adds to readability and appearance (IMO). 9er 19:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
That could also work. Like I said, though, if it were to be added, we wouldn't need to update all the templates immediately. The main info is already in the templates, we can just add the additional info when we have the time or when we come across the templates. Assuming the additional info is accepted, of course. ;) --From Andoria with Love 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Busted Templates

They seem to be hosed again. The ifexpr (used in datelink, born frex), switch (used in all of the calendar days) seem to be the big culprits, and the action=purge thing doesn't work on 'em. Any idea what's going on? Again? -- Sulfur 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The folks at Wikia have been testing upgrades to the MediaWiki software throughout the week. The templates will likely be broken from time to time until the issue can be corrected. --From Andoria with Love 03:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I saw your announcement. Looks like we was writing at the same time or so. heh. -- Sulfur 03:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. ;) For the record, Wikia's been testing a new version and then returning to the previous version, so all should be back to normal shortly. --From Andoria with Love 03:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Couple of things

Just a couple of things. First, I want to apologize for filling up the recent changes list with my recategorizing the images of Klingons (I think I did somewhere near 150, there were only about 20 in that category when I started). Unfortunetly, I am probably going to be doing this again over the next few days, as I have nowhere near finished going through all of the klingon images I can find.

Second off, I am thinking of nominating Star Trek: Armada for removal from Featured Status. I want to get your opinion on whether I should do that first. The article has been in a lot of flux over the last month (mostly me). I have added a lot of information, corrected a lot of errors, but now there are sections of the article which seem incomplete. I don't have ships stats for all races (particularly the non-playable). I have images that need replacing (I am working on this, but it is coming slowly), and have formatting work that needs to be redone. In many ways, this is simply not the same article that was featured.

Here is a history of the article changes from right before I started up to now: [1]

It probably sounds weird coming from me, since I have been the one doing all of these changes to that article, but until I am done, I don't think it is worthy of being featured. What do you think? --OuroborosCobra talk 08:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Okay, first off, I think you should just have a bot take care of categorizing the images. After all, that's what they're there for. ;) Those users who have bots include Cid, Alan, and Kobi; I suggest asking one of them to take care of it.
As for removing Armada from Featured Status – wow, it's only been featured since January 2005. :-P It's also already been our Article of the Week. Personally, I don't think that an article should be removed from Featured Status just because it's incomplete; featured articles can be expanded (and should be, if needed), just like any other article. Then again, it might be a good idea for some featured articles to be removed from Featured Status to undergo a refit now-and-again. Then, when it becomes featured again, it can become Article of the Week again. Eh... whatever. Personally, I don't think it's needed, but if you want, bring it up at Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates and see what others have to say. --From Andoria with Love 08:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to put a stop to Special:Contributions/ quick. -- Renegade54 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- Renegade54 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll take care of the pages he created momentarily, if nobody beats me to them. --From Andoria with Love 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of those pages, what is our policy on redirects made for non-canon starship names? For example:
They would seem to me to be unnecessary. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was gonna get to those, like... after my shower... and, like, secretly hope someone would, like, beat me to it. Um, I think we keep non-canon redirects. All the same, though, I'd bring 'em up either at Ten Forward or on Vfd. (Yes, you have officially volunteered for that assignment. Enjoy! ;) ) --From Andoria with Love 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

see my talk

see my talk page to see what you are restoring.--Alan del Beccio 19:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

anon signatures

why are you removing all of them?-- 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Majel Barrett song

I left this message with AJ:

Hello. Our friendly anon who keeps uploading that Majel Barrett song did it again today. He has also put it into his user page, Special:Contributions/
Also, a new image was uploaded, and I am not sure what its source is. I can't seem to find the boilerplate message to mark it as needing its source and copyright info added (really tired right now, long last few days). It's at File:Nemesis comparison1.jpg --OuroborosCobra talk 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But I see that you are doing edits right now, so maybe you can do something about it. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

the Tasha Yar vandal

Shran - perhaps you should block User:, since I think this was the initial connection of the Tasha Yar vandal. The page for User: was created just before the User:Tasha Yar page and contained the same Billie Jean lyrics - which you have already noted as a copyvio. Just a suggestion :> --Jim 02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think that would be a good precaution, although I don't the s/he would need to have a very long ban. Lemme see if s/he has been warned yet; if they have, I'll ban 'em, if not, I'll warn 'em. --From Andoria with Love 02:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


In addition to the two you blocked, and the one AJ blocked earlier, there were two others in that spur of vandalcrap that AJ and I cleaned up. The other two users were 'Gentleman Jack' and 'Bobby Digital'. Fyi. -- Sulfur 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bobby the dweeb made some moves too that us regular users can't clean up... JACOMO!! is the page he moved crap too. If you can fix that too... :) -- Sulfur 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue Devil

You scared me to death with that summary of yours in VfD. I'm sure that was your intention, evil Andorian. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Mwa-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! (grins as antennae twist to form devil's horns) >:-D --From Andoria with Love 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Filmstrip icon

Might it not be an idea to protect that image? I think that it's been vandalized a couple of times now, and it's on close to 1/3 of the pages on MA... just a thought. -- Sulfur 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be a good precaution seeing as it's on so many pages. I'll see to it. --From Andoria with Love 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Series Finale and Finale

The second's a redirect to the first, which was deleted as a copyvio about 10 minutes ago. Logically, the second should now be turfed as an immediate deletion, no? Or do I misunderstand the logic here. -- Sulfur 03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right, it needed to be deleted, I just forgot all about it. Anyways, it's gone now. Thanks for catching that. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Identify "looking right"

Given that Kirk was "arguably" the most Human of all the characters, that proverbial ideal between Spock and McCoy, I would argue that the page has always just not looked right without a quote to sum up his standing at the pinnicle of the Star Trek universe. -- 09:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; it logged me out while I was writing that. --ChrisK 09:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Basically, the quote made the beginning of the article look like a crowded mess, which is why it was removed. It was a stylistic decision. If you wish it to be re-added, please bring your argument up in the article's talk page, and we'll see how other's feel about it. :) --From Andoria with Love 09:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

References section on Episodes

I've notice lately that you've been removing some references from the reference section on episodes. Now, I know that the episodal template does note that the section is for 'references not previously linked in the page' (or some words similar to that), but I've noticed (and found) that most of the episode pages try to make the reference section as complete as possible with respect to things referenced in the episode, even if previously linked. In some ways, it does improve the ability of the average joe reader (or josephine) to simply go to the references section and be able to see "all" of the references from an episode. Might this be something that we (meaning all of MA) should discuss in the relevant place (wherever that is in this case...)? That way, we can at least have some consistency between episodes :) -- Sulfur 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just following the norm of things. Feel free to bring it up for discussion on a relevant page, though (Ten Forward, most likely). I'm not sure there's a need to re-link references which were already linked in the episode's summary, but we'll see if anyone else feels there needs to be a change. :) --From Andoria with Love 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not neccessarily thinking a change is in order... just some consistency :) Although, on a wiki that really is shooting for the moon and all. -- Sulfur 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment again when this is brought up in Ten Forward, but I agree with Sulfur's original comment here. The thing is, those episode summaries can get very long, and I find it useful to have a complete list of references at the end of the article in addition to the summary. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, consistency is a pretty huge feat on a wiki. :P I was going to say we could just remove the repeated references as we come across the relevant episodes, but let's see what a Ten Forward discussion brings up. --From Andoria with Love 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing at Forum:Reference Lists on Episode Summaries -- Sulfur 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Plot Holes vs. Nitpick

I noticed you rv'ed my entry on "A Matter of Perspective". I read through Ten Forward's nitpick page, and I fail to see where this applies here.

1) The central premise of the episode was Riker getting off the hook by having the crew deduce what happened on the station by simulating it on the holodeck. This isn't a nitpick that should be added onto holodeck since we have no way of knowing whether the holodeck was in operation at the time the two radiation incident occured. It is a plot hole that was particular to this episode. 2) We also do not know what effect Krieger wave has or does not have on holodeck material. The only thing left standing were the chairs and desk where the crew was sitting, everything else (incl. floor, everything related to the station, etc.) was "destroyed" when the wave hit the simulated station. Since Krieger wave was a plot device that was used only on this episode, and in particular the interaction between Kriger wave and holodeck material will probably never be known, it would not be appropriate to add it to holodeck either. 3) You left Riker's "firing the phaser" plot hole intact. The episode would've been cut very short if that hole was filled, though.^^

See Talk:A Matter of Perspective (episode). --From Andoria with Love 04:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jefferies vs Jeffries

I confirmed the spelling via the NY Times obituary articvle...I don't know how much more official you can get than that...granted I may be nitpicking here...Capt Christopher Donovan 07:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Right...shows what I know, huh? I thought Id picked the best source, but oh well...not the first time I've been wrong... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 10:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


It's just that OroborousCobra has a very weird insistance on being "spoon fed" information, IMO...He tried to insist that, despite common sense, the rules of syntax and grammar, AND common military parlance that the orders Sisko issued to "Destroyer Units 2 and 6" in "Sacrifice of Angels" meant he was issuing orders to FOUR units (long story).

In this specific case ("Cetecean Ops"), I just don't see why, without explicit dialogue to CONTRADICT it, we can't use a common room identifier like that to describe similar facilities on ships in alternate realities. That is, unless specifically said otherwise, a Bridge is a Bridge, phasers are phasers, etc...common sense...Capt Christopher Donovan 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the Destroyer thing. I find it funny that you would, since after doing what we are supposed to do on wikis, DISCUSSING IT ON TALK PAGES, I decided to go along with YOUR opinion. What, in order for you to accept me, I have to follow EVERYTHING you do? Guess what, not going to happen. Also, funny thing on the Destroyer thing, once I decided to go along with what you said, I even helped you, by making the necessary changes to articles like Centaur type to reflect that they are destroyers. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, hang on there, OC, pull in the fangs. I didn't mean anything personal by it, it's just an observation about your editing theory...Capt Christopher Donovan 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well blueskin, since this is the most edited page in the univ- I mean wiki, I want to contribute something since it seems to popular. Turns out it was Orange juice after all. [2] - AJ Halliwell 01:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On the two edits in a row you'll doubtless have seen by now on certain page

Yes, I did use the Show Preview option, several times before posting the final current version. The single typo corrected in the second is something I apologize for missing. -- ChrisK 10:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Um... alright then. Make sure it doesn't happen again. :P Seriously, though, it's okay if it takes one or two more edits to fix everything, just so long as you tried to get everything right the first go-round and don't just save one edit after another... like I did for Christopher Lloyd. ;) That said, there's really no need to bring something like this to our attention unless you make frequent edits to one page – we're not gonna ban you for making more than one edit per article. ;) --From Andoria with Love 14:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cloaking device

Re line 16: I don't see how the article can talk directly above about 22nd centry Starfleet's experiences with cloaking devices, and then go straight into it being considered by 23rd century Starfleet to be virtually impossible. Better I think just to omit that, as my understanding of canon precedence is "newest" information is determinative. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.)

Re: the "alliance" theory...commonly accepted but never proven that they TRADED the cloak. The Klingons could have stolen it for all we know. The article reads just fine without that reference, and avoids the controversy, IMO.

I'll grant you the part about Klothos being "one of the first", given Kor's remark about it being new tech at the time (which I'd forgotten about when I did that edit). But what is your thinking to justify that it quickly becomes standard for nearly all Klingon ships?

Re your last paragraph: That one I can go with. It's better than the one it replaces.Capt Christopher Donovan 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

New categories

We seem to have a bunch of new, unapproved categories appearing all of a sudden... -- Renegade54 14:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know, I'm on 'em. Thanks. :) --From Andoria with Love 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm being bold and cleaning up the categorization system. I see no reason to go all Picard and discuss every little thing before it happens, otherwise wikis would never grow at the rate they do. Adamwankenobi 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Be bold in editing, not in categorizing. We appreciate the thought, but we'd prefer if you follow policy on this. ;) --From Andoria with Love 14:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a very good way to welcome a person in to your community I don't think (by immediately reverting my edits). By requiring categories to be voted on, you are going against the very concept of a wiki. Just when I was starting to like this place... Goodbye. On all other wikis you are allowed to be bold, but not here apparently. Adamwankenobi 14:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't make the rules. If you wish to propose a policy change, please do so at Ten Forward. --From Andoria with Love 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to not like this place because I can't make even the slightest edit without someone criticising or reverting it. See my edit history for previous instances of this. Adamwankenobi 14:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That's understandable – you're new to MA, unfamiliar with our policies, so clashes with those who have been here longer are to be expected. Heck, there are "old-timers" here who still make many mistakes (myself included), so there really isn't anything to be upset about. Once you've familiarized yourself with the policies (should you choose to stay), then the better you'll understand how to edit and how not to edit (if that makes sense). Anyways, if you choose to leave, I'm sorry to hear it, but like I said, we have a policy and if you wish it changed, merely bring it up on the appropriate discussion page. :) --From Andoria with Love 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

40 Eridani system

Confused by your reversion. Is this an expression of official MA policy? Please see talk page there.

Stano Riga

How is he not the funniest comedian? Data asks who the funniest comedian ever is. The answer: Stano Riga.

More "Brightened and enhanced" images

Here are some images that need to be reverted back (in some cases again). I know Bfgreen means well, but these just aren't better. Can someone (not me) ask him to sop, or something?

File:Benjamin Sisko, 2375.jpg (he says it still needed brightening, but I think it was just fine the way it was)

Thanks. Just one right now. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin List

I noted your note about it to BfGreen/Sheliakcorp/whatever and took a peek at the admin list (out of curiosity) and noticed that at least one person's missing in the English one... Jorg. I think that there's another too, more recent, but I can't think of who it was offhand. -- Sulfur 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tough Little Ship is still missing. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the one. :) -- Sulfur 13:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back to his old tricks. I believe him to be the same as "Tholian Commander", and you had a temp block on him yesterday. It is lifted, and he has already nominated D'Kora-class for deletion (well, put the template on at least). --OuroborosCobra talk 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

He also did the same to Unnamed D'Kora class starships. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Red alert

Hey. :) Regarding this "red alert", I really don't think it's a good idea to post things like that as a "sitenotice". It only gives vandals the attention they are seeking, and eventually makes all contributors aware of that vandalism, even if they never might have seen it otherwise. -- Cid Highwind 09:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm not understanding what you mean by "scrunched" you mean "cropped"? I DID crop the extraneous parts on the left and right of the screen cap (earth and empty space) to focus on the ship and drydock, which also allowed me to make the image bigger for the same filesize.Capt Christopher Donovan 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you say so...I'm looking at the image I uploaded right now and I'm not seeing it that way. I suppose it could be monitor settings or something...Capt Christopher Donovan 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


I was under the impression that if an article was in a subcategory that it shouldn't also be in the parent category. Apparently I was... misinformed? -- Renegade54 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


I guess that you have to be special to add information to topics so others have a better idea of what is being discussed.

Um, no... you just have to follow policy. Copying dictionary terms and information from other sites is a copyright infringement. --From Andoria with Love 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: In Memoriam

I'm boggled by your cataloging of dates & departed -- let me take a moment to offer a couple words of encouragement for your efforts: Good job! -- and, I'm curious: Just how do you manage to track down and keep up with all of that information? Seems like the logistics would split one's brain... --Sasoriza 05:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for the compliment. I do try hard to update the memoriam info. I'm glad to say there doesn't seem to have been any Trek-related deaths recently. Anyways, to answer your question, alt.obituaries at Google Groups is a great place to go for death notices & obituaries. If someone dies, it's pretty much guaranteed to be posted on there – whether it's a celebrity or a regular joe. Other places I check include the obituary pages at EInsiders and the recent deaths page at Wikipedia. I also receive death notices via e-mail from CNN, although I am usually already aware of those deaths before I see the notices. But, yeah, that's where I get my info. Now you know my secrets. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool--thanks for sharing the info! Keep up the good work! (Although I wish there didn't have to be any more deaths to catalog...) --Sasoriza 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Beckett

The reversion of the Beckett post restores incorrect information. Beckett was not an artist; he was a playwright and novelist. And nobody in their right mind would consider him "similarly natured" to Van Gogh, who mutilated himself and committed suicide, whereas Beckett lived well into his eighties. I don't see what the problem was with a fuller citation, which gave more and more accurate information for anybody who might be wondering what Sisko's allusion meant.

Most Wanted Template

I noticed that you made some changes to it last night (via the CSS file) and notice that it looks like this now:

Agriculture,, Pablo Marcos, Ranger spacecraft, Mortal Gods, Blood bank, John Costanza, Agustin Mas, Tom McCraw, * more...

Note the double comma at the start there, and the odd formatting at the end? It just doesn't look quite right at the moment. -- Sulfur 15:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied content

No, it is not a copyright infringement as Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, and therefore can be freely copied and distributed. There is therefore nothing wrong with copying Wikipedia content here. Adamwankenobi 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Supply ship

Thanks for the cleanup work...I still don't have the hang of all the little tricks and stuff.

While you're at it, could you amend the "starship classifications" LIST to include supply ships? I dont know how to edit the lists at all...Capt Christopher Donovan 11:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure, I can take care of it. And you're welcome. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Acutally, now that I look at the list, I don't think it's supposed to include names of specific ships. If I'm misunderstanding you, though, please let me know. I'm assuming you want me to add specific ships to the list, but that isn't what that list is for. However, if I can find a list of specific supply ships, I will add those to the supply vessel page, where they are better suited. --From Andoria with Love 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I'm asking you to add the generic classification "supply ship" to the ship types list. The Lantree may be the only time we hear this designation used, but the term itself is generic, not ship specific.Capt Christopher Donovan 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • PS, when you moved the article to "Federation Supply Ship", you broke all the links I'd established to my article, and I'm not sure how to fix that...Capt Christopher Donovan 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


I finally posted some thoughts in response to your inquiry at Nominations for administratorship, in case you hadn't seen them. If you had, then never mind. :) -- Renegade54 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

my new article

If you've read it ("Supply ship") I'd be interested in what you's the first real article I've done 'ground up'...I usually just tinker with existing mateial.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(to Shran) "What is it with you, anyway?" ;) - AJ Halliwell 09:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was a little disappointed at how much the article shrank after your edits, but you're the 'expert'... :) I can see how the article looked 'padded', I was just trying to be thorough with my cross linking and referencing. Oh, and AJ, your thoughts would be appreciated too, though to see the article as I wrote it you'll have to look in the history... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First Contact script

Hi Shran, did'nt thought about any copyright issues before I placed it, sorry. Can you direct me to the disscusions about posting scripts, was'nt aware of that either. It's a shame that scripts cannot be placed, I like the way movies and episodes evolve before the writers are finished with them. -- Q 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A discussion regarding a script's place on MA can be found here. It's rather brief, and if you wish, you can resurrect the discussion in Ten Forward, but MA can't post other people's works in their entirety (including scripts), so I'm not sure where it will get you. But you are most certainly welcome to bring it up. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I probeably will not bring it up, it was just curiosity from my side. If it's a copyright violation the article should be delete, as far as I am concerned this can be done right now. No need for VfD. -- Q 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you on some kind of jihad against my signature logo pic or something? I hope you have better things to do with your time than this. This is just one step above tampering with with a personal user page. Please stop this nonsense...--Sheliakcorp talk 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)--Sheliakcorp talk 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


So, you gonna be having that baby any time soon? :P -- Renegade54 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Technical Manual stuff

I would get a copy and double check the info User:Capt Christopher Donovan says is from the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. He has a tendency to take pieces of information and build upon them with assumption (what I have come to call "1+1+Z=3" where "Z" is an undefined variable). --OuroborosCobra talk 19:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me what you want looked up and I'll do it...if we're talking about the non-recoverability of the a Galaxy-class saucer after emergency planetfall, it's Page 29, right hand column.
And to answer Shran's edit question, the Tech Manuals (according to what I've been told of policy are not "canon" but are a "permitted resource" which means the data is canon unless/until contradicted.Capt Christopher Donovan 11:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and OC, REASONED INFERENCE (NOT "assumption") is a much more useful policy than "I need a screen cap to tell me space is black", IMO...and that's the last time I'm bringing it up...Capt Christopher Donovan 11:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What the hell was that all about... and why is my talk page being used as a battleground? Anyway, a permitted resource doesn't necessarily mean its information can be used in the article, it means (the way I understand it) that its info can be used only to supplement on-screen info or otherwise be used in background information. In the case of the emergency saucer landing, it seems to supplment canon info (without contadicting anything), so that should be fine. Whether it should simply be limited to background information is another argument altogether, one I'm not willing to start up, so for now I'll just say "everything's fine as is". --From Andoria with Love 17:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't my intention to make your talk page a battleground. OC has what I consider to be an EXTEMELY overly picky stance on when a statement can or cannot be made about the Trek universe, and he and I have been around this particular bush too many times recently. I'll try to keep our disagreements off your page from now on...Capt Christopher Donovan 20:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be much appreciated, thank you. :) --From Andoria with Love 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ST Reborn

I noticed that that "reborn" fan fiction got merged into "fan films" .. is it even a film? their site is down and i doubt they've signed Gary Sinise to play McCoy -- seems more like they mightr have a photoshop collage project than a film... -- Captain M.K.B. 16:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i even skipped over your vfd cmments about this. however, the thing has a new home at fan fiction websites -- and i shortened it from the ridiculous desription given original -- "Roddenberry's vision finally made successful by successful creator Jeremy in a new successful series" seemed kind of pedantic.. anyway, all's well that ends.. um, well, it ends. :) -- Captain M.K.B. 17:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Good enough for me! Thanks! :) --From Andoria with Love 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My edits

Excuse me? Why did you revert my edits? I'm recategorizing articles in case you hadn't noticed. I'm getting sick of this fucking shit. Every damn time I make a move, someone reverts it. Oh and another thing, please actually leave edit summaries. Don't just blindly revert without an explanation. That's abuse of admin powers. Adamwankenobi 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I categorized the television shows under the episodes cateegories because they are the main articles for the categories. The intention is not that they are episodes, but are instead the main articles for the category. Adamwankenobi 00:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mirror Universe reversion

Thanks! I hadn't noticed that part...I just saw the inaccuracy of the text portion and didn't think to check the rest...Capt Christopher Donovan 03:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. As I said, he probably meant to revert to the version before Adamwankenobi changed the category, but didn't realize it had been edited since then. But all's good now. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep... That's what I get for editing at 4am after returning from a party... Thanks for correcting that, Shran ;) -- Cid Highwind 16:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No worries, mate. :) --From Andoria with Love 18:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Get a spell checker

I noticed you reverted my USS Defiant (2370) edit. I don't understand why as the edits you reverted were spelling corrections. Anyway, please make sure you know what you are reverteing before you revert--Illwill 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio articles

In a fit of boredom, I rewrote both the Tom McCraw and Trial and Error! articles into what they should actually be. As in, an article on a comic book colorist and a comic book. In other words, you're more than welcome to turf the copyvio versions whenever.  :) -- Sulfur 00:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Pictures

Actually, I'll probably be able to identify all of the aircraft. At the list, I am willing to give it a go. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've found the Stuka... at least, it has the same markings as the "Storm Front" one. Uploading the image now. --From Andoria with Love 04:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you could still upload the others, or put them on imageshack and sind me links to them, so that I can identify them and we can crank out articles for them. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll get on those. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is what I am able to identify most easily (and without research):

  • [3] is a B-1 Lancer, we already have a picture of this uploaded. I will probably be proposing that we move this article to the correct name of "B-1B Lancer"
  • [4] is an F-5 Tiger (often called the "Freedom Fighter"). We do not have that article or that picture. Wikipedia: F-5 Freedom Fighter for my proof, but trust me, it is. I can even tell you why there is most likely a shot like this.
  • [5] is an F-15 Eagle, and we have that picture uploaded.
  • [6] is one I have some ideas on, but will need little more research on my part before I am will to stake my reputation on it.
  • [7] is too blurry for me to make out.
  • [8] looks like it is one of a large number of British biplane fighters from between the wars. I'll do some more work on this, and get you the exact one.

Hope some of that was helpful. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)



While i think Star Trek parodies (literature) is a great idea, i think the qualifier might prove problematic in respect to "Star Wreck" which is both a novel series and a movie series.. that being said, i don't really care what you do with it. enjoy! -- Captain M.K.B. 00:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you get a chance...

Not to pick on him, but if you get a chance, check out Special:Contributions/Revenge. Should we say something to him... diplomatically, of course? :) -- Renegade54 20:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably should... if he's not gonna help out the community, there's no real reason to be a part of it. --From Andoria with Love 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


--Bp 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


When you've got a chance, can you turf this spam article? -- Sulfur 12:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. :) --From Andoria with Love 12:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing boy?

Just curious, what is with all of these edits as --OuroborosCobra talk 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So even at a friend's house you spend all of your time editting MA? Poor friend :P --OuroborosCobra talk 05:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No, just when he's in bed or when he's busy doing something else. Smart ass. :P From Andoria with Love 05:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I am earning so many nicknames today. Got to be a personal record. G'night. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image vote for Deletion: Kzinti vessel c2150s

I'd appreciate it if you swung by and read this debate and chimed in...your opinion carries weight, and I'd like to know if you agree with my reasoning,as much as anything else... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 06:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

hey, n00b... :P

If and when you get a chance, could you take a stab at a few of the merges that are hanging around on the site? You can get a list of them with pages to be merged. Thanks! -- Renegade54 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that as soon as I get back home. Gotta go to class now, though. Later! :) --From Andoria with Love 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not deleted?

Just curious, why was File:Fanfilm harriman.JPG not deleted? You archived the discussion, and also left on my deletion template, and I am trying to figure out if you meant to do this. By my count, the vote to delete passed:

  • Delete:
    • OuroborosCobra (by nomination)
    • AJHalliwell
    • Shran
  • Keep:
    • Bp
    • Sulfur

That would seem to be 3 votes to delete, 2 to keep. Am I missing something, or some policy I do not yet know? --OuroborosCobra talk 01:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The man in blue answered me on IRC. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Logic change

I almost changed the content you changed when I deleted the second paragraph as well.

But I didn't want to come across as simply "my way or the highway" on the matter.

Thanks for taking the initiative and finishing off the revert.

I agree that the article was fine before the 30 Aug edit.

Dracorat 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You LOVED Enterprise?!?!!!!

You are unbeliveable! I thought everyone hated it. I sure didn't. In fact, I really don't see why people got somthing stuck in thir craw over it. Psudo trekkers...--CaptainCaca 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess what, I loved Enterprise. A lot of people did. Live with it. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Same here. That was kind of rude, especially on someone's specific user page.
-- Dracorat 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait, now I am confused, was this guy saying he liked it or hated it? If he liked it, I apologize to him, if not, I stick to my original statement. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No, Ouro, you and me are saying the same thing. Apparently, so was Capn, but he didn't do a good job of it. Heh.
-- Dracorat 07:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I sound like a crap salesman with a mouthful of samples. I loved it. Sorry, the words don't come out right anymore...--CaptainCaca 19:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

also also also not a stub.

The reason I marked each of those four pages ( Don Pulford, Steven Lambert, Allan Graf and David Anthony Marshall ) as stubs is because none of them contained even the most basic information on birthdate, birthplace, etc. I guess I saw them as needing more research. Is there a better way to mark them? Perhaps a simple [{pna}] would be better? -Dave --TheBluesMan 03:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish, you can mark them as incomplete (with a {{pna-incomplete}} template). Just explain how they are incomplete either in each article's talk page or in the edit summary. --From Andoria with Love 03:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


I very much enjoyed your user talk pages, especially the second one. Thanks for all the work you've put into this. Astrochicken 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you pop on IRC?

See subject. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See subject again. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

I don't care what you've been working on.

The point that you fail to understand is that the image was used from a non-canon source.

By the way, I feel you're the one having the temper tantrum over my "cocky attitude". Aren't you?

Don't take it personal.

Harry Kim

Why did you revert my edit of Harry Kim? I removed the actor's name in the opening text because isn't that how it's supposed to look like? If not, you could just say so, because I've edited other actors' articles in the same manner. Besides, Garret Wang's credit is already in the wiki-sidebar, why mention it twice? It looks messy. --Patito 19:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I love contributing to this wonderful site and would never do or type anything offencitve or hurtful. I am deeply sorry for anything I have done wrong.


Re: Deletion vote eligibility

...There was no bitterness to my skepticism, just an understanding that as the author of the page, my vote might not be eligible. In any case, it the articles seemed like a good idea at the time. Persist1 06:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I said, the author's vote is always eligable. Anyways, I don't think anyone has problems with the article's content, it's just a question of whether to give it its own article or use the info to expand another related article. At least, that's how I understand the issue... I could be completely wrong. --From Andoria with Love 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like I'm repeating myself, I'm all for the possibility of a merge or a rewrite of an existing article, as long as there's a comprehensive cross-species life cycle overview at the end of the process. I'm just a fan of shorter articles as opposed to longer ones, which is why I figured I'd start the article under discussion. However, it does strike me as being a stretch without context. Persist1 11:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha 2

You stated:

Re:Memory Alpha

Huh? Was I having a temper tantrum? Nah, I was too busy laughing at the whole scenario. ;) Basically, here on MA, what's on-screen is canon, regardless if what was seen on-screen originated from what is considered to be a non-canon source. So, yeah, I did get the point you were trying to make. Again, however, even though the item in question originated from a non-canon source, the item was seen in a canon source, therefore making that perticular item canon in regards to the Trek universe... if that makes any sense. Annd... that's pretty much it. Btw, sorry for the delayed response (had to mow/rake the bloody lawn), and enjoy the 40th! :) --From Andoria with Love 03:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, what is seen on the screen is canon. Therefore, if that is what you claim to be true I suggest you and your friend OurobourousCobra listen take your own advice. See this discussion on Galaxy Class:

22:38, 7 September 2006 OuroborosCobra (Talk | contribs) (the entire point of Conundrum was that they were being given false information, like that they were at war. reverting)

Ouroboros Cobra believes that Riker's statement about the ship being a Galaxy Class is because the crew's memory was affected by the alien weapon. That is pure speculation. No matter what happened, the ship was cited as a battleship, pure, simple, and it happened on the screen. Therefore, it's canon.

The rules are here for a reason, not for you to bend them to suit your needs. --<unsigned>

Hello JeanLucPicard1. Might I suggest that you log in, it makes it easier to tell what edits you are making, although I have memorized your IP. Also, it helps if you send complaints about my edits to me, and not someone else. With that, I leave it to you to deal with this Shran. Have fun. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! :)

I've been removing the state and city links from actor and other "real world" articles when I run across them because those links mix POVs: all the states articles are from an in-universe POV. I was under the impression that we shouldn't mix POVs... not so? -- Renegade54 01:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that's why you were doing it... I don't know; I guess we do the same for years, so maybe we should do the same for places. But then, nothing except names would be linked. Obviously, 1993 in the Trek universe differs from the 1993 in our universe... but I think we can safely say New Jersey is basically one and the same. Er... maybe. I dunno. 'Tis a good question... you should bring it up at Ten Forward. ;) --From Andoria with Love 01:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right were done

Yeah, you can do whatever you want here to please your selfish petty ego. You've got a lot to learn. I don't give two shits about what you think, or the bogus material you post on this website. I simply want readers to get the right facts.

Now, I'm also aware of my right of privacy, so I suggest that you stop leaving talk messages on my talk page. Got it?

No bullshit merry salutations. Get lost.

Enable User ID

Look, I know you guys are geeks judging by your profiles. You are probably very technical and wordy as I can see from your writing, but I bet you can't cook your own dinner or teach a girl how to dance. It's not your fault you've got nothing better to do than sit around monitoring your precious Memory Alpha. You were just born that way.

Anyway, I think you're the one who should "chill". I think disabling my id is the only way you know how to deal with me. You are just afraid to face the facts that I edit into the articles. You can not escape fact.

I need my id enabled.

Oh yeah, maybe you should consider a job in customer service with your quaint, flowery, "have a nice day" attitude.

HAVE A NICE DAY!!!  :) --<JeanLucPicard1>

You were only given a 2 hour block, which ended about 10 minutes before you made this post. Continue with your nice day. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


I don't have any futher quarrels with you. However, I will still continue to make contributions to Memory Alpha. If the article is in question I will discuss it through the proper channels.

--JeanLucPicard1 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)JeanLucPicard1


What? You really have a GF? Is she an Andorian? Hey, be careful. Might break one of those antenna off if you're too rough.

There is one other thing I find amusing. You stated I have a war-like behavior. Ironically, your Andorian alter ego is based on a race that is war-like in nature. In that case, you should appreciate my combative attitude.

I would also like to know how you and Ouroboros were influenced by Star Trek. You guys are a generation apart from me, and you probably weren't able to understand the concept of Trek until age 10. Around the time that TNG aired its final episode.

RE: Starfleet Technical Manual

The constant edit sign is still up, and I assumed it was aimed at me. So, my question is twofold: When is the sign coming down, and what the heck did I do wrong in the first place?

Replied on User talk: -- Cid Highwind 11:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


:P --OuroborosCobra talk 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, besides the edit conflict, I think the user did revise the the summary to where it wasn't a copyvio. I hadn't read the whole thing, though, just the first few paragraphs... is there something I'm missing? --From Andoria with Love 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first two paragraphs looked exactly like's version to me... --OuroborosCobra talk 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Just double checked, looks like the first sentence was only copied and pasted. I didn't bother looking past it the first time. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I laugh at you. ;) --From Andoria with Love 16:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

10101001 vs 11001001

You removed my edit. 10101001 is the original planned title for the episode, "11001001". If we are going to give people specifics on the current title, we should provide the same information on what would have been the episode title.

-- Dracorat 03:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Terellian vs. Tarellian plague

Ahoy matey. I must disagree with your making of Terellian plague as a redirect to Tarellien plague. The first refers to the sickness of those yellow bellied Romulans in "All Good Things...", and is not the same cursed sickness as that from the Tarellian scallywags of "Haven". See Talk:Terellian plague, or ye will be walking the plank. --OuroborosCobra talk Pirates! 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I just figured since the article's author meant the article to reflect the plague from "Haven" that it should redirect to that plague. But I guess since it's closer in spelling to that other plague, I guess it can redirect there. I haven't had a chance to read the entirety of that talk page (I just glanced through it), so I'll hafta look at it more closely later. --From Andoria with Love 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Scurvy dog! -- Renegade54 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise image

Why did you restore that dark, murky Enterprise in drydock image? The version I reverted to was brighter and showed more detail.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding u warning me 4 trying to add the unsigned template I'd suggest u review this. hope it helps and although is about wiskipedia is appliable here 2.

I've already apologized, so it appears you should follow your own advice, young grasshopper. ;) --From Andoria with Love 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

maybe you could clarify the grasshoper thing 4 me.

/me slaps ThylekShran around a bit with a large trout!

--Bp 18:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! --OuroborosCobra talk 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

/me slaps bp0 and OuroborosCobra with a blue whale. --From Andoria with Love 22:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image delete?

Hey, what's going on here? Was this a delete or no delete? What you said and what you did seem to contradict each other, and as well, the image is still orphaned. --Alan del Beccio 03:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed that if you (Shran) thought it was a copyvio, you would put it up for that. Why were you thinking we would? --OuroborosCobra talk 11:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning edits on the episode list templates

Hi, I am doing some minor adjusting on the episode list templates. May I ask, why you reverted my edit? You did not include a comprehensible edit summary. I realize that neither did I, but all I did was slightly alter the column widths in order to eliminate all line breaks, which, frankly, make the list look unclean.

I look forward to contributing helpfully, yours 12:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone here?

I am here on IRC. I was just helping with spraying wasp killer, then flushing my eyes with water. I'm back. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Power packs deletion

Did I manage to stuff it again? I thought I'd merged the information properly and nominated the right one for deletion...Capt Christopher Donovan 07:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Enterprises Reference in Trials and Tribble-ations


Thanks for the clarification. I guess they were referencing the E-E, Earth Starfleet vs. Federation Starfleet and all.

Admin question

What's the purpose of deleting versions of an article from its revision history (other than a version being obscene, or some such)? -- Renegade54 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, besides clearing out obscene and vandelous revisions as you pointed out, when new versions of an article are saved, that's a new version of the article saved to MA's database. So some admins (very few, actually) tend to "clean up" the histories by removing some repetitive revisions to make more space on the database. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary now, but some do it anyway, myself included (although I delete mostly to get rid of obscenities). --From Andoria with Love 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the specific instance that prompted the question is Special:Undelete/Template:Nationstates... while I agree with the reason "Ukraine" was removed from the template (and the other places where it was referenced), I'm not clear on why the history of the three edits were deleted. None were in any way offensive, and they provided what I feel is a useful history (if someone wanted to add Ukraine again down the road, they could see it was already removed once). In additon, I'm not sure why Mike's edit was removed, especially since there was a discussion on the talk page supporting that particular edit. Any thoughts? -- Renegade54 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


WTF, mate? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bug with images

I've been talking with JasonR on IRC, and the bug seems to have been fixed. I have confirmed this by looking at images that we did not try to revert during the bug, and they have indeed been fixed. Those images that we were reverting during the bug got messed up by us doing that, but I have fixed all of them. I have gone through recent changes just to see if there is anything that I missed, but I have gotten all of them that we messed with. I think we can remove the notice now. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed the CCL somerights.gif on the bottom of the page ;)
(or, of course, it's a different problem) ~ Trent Easton ~ talk 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
EDIT ok, strange, now it's there > >' never mind ^^' ~ Trent Easton ~ talk 21:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

weird images

shran, noticing that it says in recent changes that you corrected the citation on the B'Elanna Torres image, but when i checked the image, i see it's still wrong. also the image is condensed. is this a problem on my end or a result of the bug and do this and similarly problematic images need to be reuploaded? Deevolution 03:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

good job. File:Kes.jpg is another one that seems weird... Deevolution 04:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It is possible that is one that I missed. I did not notice us having touched it in Recent Changes during the bug (I manually re-uploaded all of the images I could find that we messed with during the bug). I know this was an early one that was caught as a problem, and I could only go back 500 edits. It is possible it was just too far. Oh well. I'll fix Kes. Send me any more, I know how to fix them. The problem is not the file, but how MA has decided that the dimensions are different. I just need to download the file and re-upload it. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Why did you re-upload Kes.jpg again? I'd already done it. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Because the image was still distorted. It's fixed now. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't still distorted. Need to try purging your cache more often. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I did, man; I hit F5 and did the purge. It still didn't fix anything, so I reverted the image, and voila! I'm not sure why it was fixed for you, though... very odd... --From Andoria with Love 05:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting ready to light those figurative fires I was talking about. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL! /me smacks OuroborosCobra around a bit with a large trout. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

hello, i am new here and i've been thinking to vandalize a bit 'round here for the start. Give me 3 good reasons for which i shouldn't do that. --<unsigned, IP>

I don't think anyone is going to indulge you with good reasons, other than that if you start, you will be banned. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Borg History

One quick question. I looked through the "Scorpion" transcript today, and I was not able to find where it said that Borg space extended over 40 light years. There was a lot of traveling over that distance, but I'm not surethat counts. Any help? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The episode states that Voyager traversed forty light years, and that forty light years covered the Borg territory the ship was trying to get through. (If I remember correctly, they did get throught that region of space – didn't they?) Anyways, do a word search for "forty light years". :) --From Andoria with Love 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Here are the only "forty light years" mentions:

SEVEN: "Insufficient. Our latest tactical projections indicate that the war will be lost by then. The nearest Borg vessel is forty light years away. You will reverse course and take us to it."


CHAKOTAY: "The Collective ordered me to reverse course. Travel forty light years back the way we came. What would you have done?"

Nothing there says that forty light years was at all related to the size of Borg territory, only the distance to the nearest ship. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

come online

Hey Shran, come online, won't be long till the big E is sold. :-) --Jörg 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

come on, once more, unto the breach (whatever that means) ;-) --Jörg 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

you still around? if yes, come online, please. --Jörg 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

you now, not related, change it, it's only about trucks, cars, u know, ceasul de kilometraj, mileage that's it - not driven long enough

ok, i retract my above statement.

Um... what? --From Andoria with Love 21:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to guess this is about Talk:Slang#Low-Mileage pit woofie. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your MA Rank

Shran, how do I find out my Memory-Alpha rank? --Tuvok^Talk|Contribs 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is made up. Basically, you decide based on how you feel your experience level and such on MA compares with other people. Shran is an admin, so that puts his experience level pretty high. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm a big fan of Voyager, but not so knowledgeable on other series. And I'm pretty new to MA. Perhaps a rank of Ensign or Lieutenant (JG) would work? I've posted the former on my userpage. --Tuvok^Talk|Contribs 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ECH image issue

hey shran. i made the mistake of uploading a new image of the ECH without noticing that the file name's titled ECHinengineering, however the new image - in my opinion superior to the old one - places him on the bridge. is there a way to rename the file? if not, i guess it should be reverted...there are no generic ECH images on here. Deevolution 06:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There you go, all fixed. You can now find your image at File:ECH.jpg. G'night! :) --From Andoria with Love 06:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
awesome, thanks! Deevolution 06:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Just so that you know, there is someone impersonating you on IRC. Have a nice day. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not...

There may not have been a need, but it sure seemed to annoy the snot out of him. ;) -- Renegade54 22:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Indeed, indeed. ;) --From Andoria with Love 22:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete image version

There is an older version of the following image that needs deleting: File:USS Enterprise-D, TNG Season 3-7.jpg. You'll be able to find it. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a doof...

lol... thanks for adding that template. I actually did add it before I edited VfD, but I must have previewed it and forgotten to save it, and then used the link in the template to go to the VfD page. Short attention sp– ooooh, look at the pretty butterfly! -- Renegade54 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, mate. But you need to pay more atten... wow, that is a pretty butterfly! (looks around for some butterfly-eating women :P) --From Andoria with Love 20:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Janice Lester Background

Howdy Shran, it's been awhile. Your last edit to the Janice Lester Background included a Roddenberry comment that I don't understand, or know how to correct. I think a word or two is missing. Could you take a second look? Thanks. --Aurelius Kirk 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There ya go, Aurelius. I added the missing words; sorry about that. Welcome back, though! :) --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


so ok. i seriously hate to continue the constant revision of this image, but now he totally looks like he's posing for a polaroid. the lighting is very bad and washed out and he looks sort of dopey. your original, angry-looking, archer's-going-to-punch-somebody-out image was much better. just my 2 cents. Deevolution 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Got to agree with Deevolution on this... --OuroborosCobra talk 02:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've reverted the image back to the previous revision, although it may take a while to load properly due to server glitches. I just thought I'd upload that and see what you guys think. You said you didn't like the "angry" Archer, so I thought I'd try out another one. I have him a different angle of him from the same scene with his head tilted to the right, although it looks a bit like he's posing for a sculpture or something. I also have an image of him in his chair; the image is labeled as 2155 but I forgot to label the episode, so I gotta look through "Demons" and "Terra Prime" and see which one it is. However, I won't be uploading either one of them until this damn server glitch is fixed. --From Andoria with Love 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: Should be up now, so just clear your cache if you don't see it. --From Andoria with Love 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
admittedly pickings are slim for images set in 2155. another suggestion of mine (though by no means great) is below. Deevolution 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good image, too, but I would just leave it alone for now until the glitches are cleared up. For the record, though, I did find out that the image of Archer in his command chair I was talking about is indeed from Terra Prime, and I have supplied it below. Lemme know what you think (I would upload a brighter version, of course). --From Andoria with Love 03:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i have an unnatural hatred of that chair, i always thought his original was much cooler looking. that said it's not bad, and i wouldn't futz with the brightness. (i might bring the contrast up so the computers look a bit brighter and i would crop it to my preferred 325X396 proportion. but those are just my compulsions...) Deevolution 04:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


You fucking coward. you deleted your revisions on my talk page in which you pretended to know me. Actually, I know you, Trotter, and there are only two weeks till november. believe, motherfucker, your time draws near. don't bother to scare me off with authorities crap. you know as well as i do they won't do shit. just because you're a moron that doesn't mean everyone's as moronic as you

Dude, give it up. First, you have made your point quite clear. There is no need to keep returning to MA and making the same threat over and over again. I understood you the first time. Second, you keep using Trotter as if that's my real last name. Hate to disappoint you, boyo, but it ain't. I never have nor will I ever use my real full name on the internet. Third, regarding the removal of information, yes, I did, because when I traced your first IP, I was tired and stupid enough to think that that might be your real service provider or whatever. It wasn't, so I removed it rather than further instigate anything (which I can now see, was probably redundant). And lastly, since the damned police are suggesting they have me fucking tailed for the entire damn month (a bit much, I think), you have obviously been misinformed regarding American police officers. Now, if you will please end this insanity, we can both get on with our lives. Thank you, and have a wonderful day! --From Andoria with Love 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, YOU are misinformed about american police. They won't do shit, believe me, I know. Secondly, just wanted to make sure you will not be too surprised to see me IN PERSON two weeks from now. Thirdly, I will get on with my life only after I see mountains rising and continets drifting in the geography of your face. Hast du verstanden, Arschlocher?

Funny, wonder how he claims to "know" so much about American police, not living in America. Also, funny that he thinks he "knows" how police throughout the country act. It differs greatly from town to town, after all. Lastly, what an idiot. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First, an observation: it appears to be a common misconception among Europeans that the US is a much more homogeneous place than it really is. A few years ago, we hosted an exchange student from Hungary for a year, and she suffered from the same inaccurate viewpoint that laws and ordinances, school requirements, taxes, etc. are the same all across the country. Many people fail to realize that there is a fairly wide variance from state to state, and even from town to town in a given state.

It is good to know, though, that we have access to such an authority on the American legal system. We must be sure to contact him if and when we have any questions regarding the police, courts, laws, or penalties resulting in the violation of said laws. What a valuable resource... I, for one, feel blessed!

Second, a point to our coprolaliac friend: Shran, by blocking and otherwise thwarting your disruptive efforts, was only doing what any of us would have done, except he just happened to beat the rest of us to the punch (the bastard!) It's rather puzzling as to why you would choose to vent your frustrations at one admin for doing his job, when we all had some hand in sending you to the corner wearing the cute pointy hat. I guess, if I was a psych major, I'd make an analysis and conclude something to the effect that you're only acting out due to some inadequacy in your personal life, such as minuscule, misshapen, or completely missing genitalia. I'm not a psych major, though, and making such an observation might be construed as a personal attack, which we tend to frown on here. Thus, I'll refrain from making any comment to that end and just file the whole episode under "Things That Make You Go Hmmmmm..." -- Renegade54 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

January 2006: Harassing someone while hiding behind a screen name is now a criminal offense

A new federal law was signed on January 5, 2006 by President Bush. Section 113 of the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" states that when you harass someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language:

"Whoever ... utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person ... who receives the communications ... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Unfortunetly, the offender is not located in the United States, and is probably not a US citizen. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a usage tip

Hey there Shran!

I noticed you fixed my boo-boo on the Jane Wyatt page. Just a tip though, in such a case, you shouldn't revert my edit. The proper action is simply to edit both the year of birth and re-change my edit back to '96'.

By doing so, you save yourself some clicks of the mouse and I actually get to keep my (very minor) contribution to the article. Clearly, it was not mal-intended I was just counting her age based on information already present in the article. Just a heads up!


--Batai 18:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Administrator - Marvel Database Project.

I know, and I apologize for that. I was under the impression that the years of her birth/death were already corrected, hence why I reverted your edit. Had I seen that it said 1911 instead of 1910, I would have just corrected it rather than reverting your edit. Sorry again, and welcome to Memory Alpha! :) --From Andoria with Love 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No worries! Glad to be here!
--Batai 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ST original motion picture soundtracks

shran: i have recently become interested in creating pages for the orignal scores from the trek motion pictures. i would first like to get your input before i you think it's appropriate? i think with pages on the DVDs, books and other media, there is a precedent. second, i am not entirely sure how to title the page(s). i was going to begin out of order with star trek: first contact. perhaps i should title it...Star Trek: First Contact (OST), or would Star Trek: First Contact (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack be more appropriate? Deevolution 02:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Star Trek: First Contact Soundtrack? I do think that it's a good idea though. -- Sulfur 02:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea! Soundtracks are a huge part of Star Trek merchandising, and they should get their own articles. However, I would suggest simply calling the pages "Star Trek: First Contact (Soundtrack)". Enjoy! :) --From Andoria with Love 02:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
awesome. thanks for the feedback gentlemen. Deevolution 02:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


This may be the wrong place to ask, but I'm asking anyway :P Where (or why) do the rabid Enterprise haters get their intense dislike of the series from? Why do they claim the series is against every Roddenberry envisioned, and contradicts established Star Trek canon? I'm asking you because 1. you're a fan of the series and 2. I haven't watched much of it at all, other than an episode or two (I'm planning on rectifying that as soon as I finish watching all seven years of Voyager - I'm on season 4 right now :) Anyway, if this isn't the place for this, so be it, but I would appreciate any insight you might have. Thanks! -- Renegade54 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not really the place to ask, but since this affects some part of MA, I guess it's okay. :) For starters, although there are quite a few Enterprise-haters who visit this site or complain on other blogs and message boards, don't let them deceive you; there are actually many more fans of the series than there are, well... non-fans. ;) All the same, I will attempt to explain why these people feel so much hatred towards Enterprise.
One of the main reasons why Enterprise haters believe that the show goes against Gene Roddenberry's original vision is because it goes backwards instead of forwards, taking place before the original series. Some people believe Roddenberry's vision should always be about going forward. This is a pretty half-assed way of looking at things, since the series is still set in the future for us, and it still offers a promising future for Humanity, which was Roddenberry's major focus for Trek: his themes of overcoming adversity and our own demons are still very present in Enterprise. Like the original series (and thus, Roddenberry's vision), Enterprise focuses on Human achievement, but people seem to forget this (or denying it altogether) when criticizing it.
As for it contradicting Star Trek canon, that's just complete crap. For one thing, the original series itself contradicted its own canon in almost every other episode. TNG, DS9, and VOY, and even the movies contradicted themselves and each other at some point or another. How Enterprise became the guilty party, I have no clue, although it probably has something to do with the perceived violation of Roddenberry's visions as stated above. (Some apparent blatant contradictions such as meeting the Ferengi and Romulans possessive cloaking devices are other likely reasons.) For another thing, when there is an apparent contradiction in canon, people refuse to use their own imaginations to try and straighten things out; instead, they want everything spoon-fed to them like an infant. Star Trek is smart television for smart people; if you can't think about things, you shouldn't watch the show.
Lastly, one other reason why there might seem to be quite a few people who dislike Enterprise as compared to the other shows is because – let's face it – a good part of the first season and the majority of the second season were not among the most memorable of Star Trek history. This is part of the reason why ratings began to dwindle; other reasons include reusing old Trek plots for new stories ("Oasis" comes to mind) as well as the rise in popularity of Tivo and similar devices. However, just because Enterprise had quite a few bad moments is no reason to dismiss a show entirely, especially since every TV series ever made has their good points and their horrible ones.
And, that's pretty much my take on the whole thing. I hope that answered your question. :) See you... out there! --From Andoria with Love 03:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks... good explanation! I agree, all the series have continuity and canon errors, some more egregious than others (at least, all the series that I've watched thoroughly). I guess that's bound to happen with as many episodes (and writers, producers, directors, etc.), even if an extraordinary effort is made to keep it from happening. And I know some folks feel that DS9 violated Roddenberry's vision, too, because there was no "boldly go"ing occurring since it was set on a space station versus a starship like TOS and TNG, with more focus on character and storyline development (which I happen to enjoy). Who knows what Roddenberry would've done or not done had he still been alive for DS9, VOY, and ENT (and the movies)? Who's to say that he wouldn't have done something similar, or even more different? And then the "purists" would've claimed that Roddenberry "sold out" to the studio management, or some such. You just can't win... heh. -- Renegade54 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


See User talk:Bp#IMDb-link... -- Renegade54 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

IFD: Front3qtrs-s.jpg

Could you stop in, review these posts, and chime in? We need another opinion to break the deadlockCapt Christopher Donovan 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Sorry bout that. Fartboy79 21:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My TemplateLab

I'm honestly sorry if I caused inconvenience for anyone, I simply wasn't aware that changes to userpages were tracked in the RC. I'm attempting to create a set of templates that translates a range of episode numbers into a list of links to episode pages, i.e. something that could potentially become very useful. This is pushing MediaWiki's template coding options to the limit, so I need to frequently conduct tests by calling the template to check the effect of modifiacations. I also need the redirect pages, these being the only way to facilitate recursion (see e.g. here). Could you please restore those as well? If there is any way to keep doing what I'm doing without clogging up the RC, please let me know how. If there isn't, I can either stop or try and reduce the number of saves somewhat... whichever. TeraBlight 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response :) For the time being, I'll try to work with noincludes/includeonlys on the template pages themselves, that way I can use preview rather than saving all the time and testing from another page. TeraBlight 01:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) --From Andoria with Love 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are non-human novels, you realize...

And is not Memory-Alpha constructed so as to present matters outside the ST continuity solely in Background Information? Vulcans, for one, would call it a Human novel, would they not? --ChrisK 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... what? --From Andoria with Love 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A question about TAS

I just got the TAS dvd set, and I'm already noticing a LOT of things that could be added into articles. My question is: we HAVE articles with TAS information in them, but how much and how exensive it is I'm not sure. Has there been a rule of thumb developed on how to handle TAS information?Capt Christopher Donovan 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. TAS is as canon here as the other series, so the same policies that apply to those apply to TAS. Enjoy! :) --From Andoria with Love 09:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example, here's a problem I have: I want to talk about the second turbolift and the Automated Bridge Defense system (both shown onboard the Enterprise). Should that be limited to the Enterprise, or would mentioning it in the Connie article be appropriate?Capt Christopher Donovan 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, I would place it in the Enterprise article, because there might be some differences in other Constitution class shipd. Alternatively, however, it can be added to both; I don't think there would be a problem with that, but I would just add it to Enterprise. --From Andoria with Love 09:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice...I had already considered that, but the way the Enterprise article is laid out made for a tricky bit of rewriting. I WAS able to work a general reference into the Connie article though fairly easily.

On another note, I'm amazed that some of this material isn't ALREDY in the articles...but then again, only now do we (at least some of us) have copies of the eps to use as reference... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 09:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Gvsualan's talk page

I'm sorry for what happened. I was just trying to edit in a comment but I got an edit conflict message and it edited out a huge chunk of the page. 13:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


--Bp 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAAAAA. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick, IRC!

Contact me! ;) -- Cid Highwind 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


You'll regret it if you don't ;-) --OuroborosCobra talk 02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, does your IRC work? I can't get on. --Alan del Beccio 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert on "Sleep"

Sorry to revert your edit on sleep, but I think there is a very good case for having an article on beds. I have made it on Talk:Sleep. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i cant create the accound Locutus of Borg cuz it says its already in use. but its not.

"Locutus" too. The same situation :((

Ahaha, they missed one. :)))--Locutus Of Borg 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting admin action is continuing in his request to use the name "Locutus of Borg". While there is nothing wrong with that, he has started spamming other talk pages with his request (see Talk:Razorcat), and has engaged in personal attacks on me, and has started blanking comments on MA policy from his talk page. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

nu crezi că începi să încalci măsura, dobitocule?

eu personal cred că ăsta e căpiat şi măsurile luate nu sunt corespunzătoare.

The personal attacks from this anon have started up again, despite warnings that he has been given in the past. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, these new attacks can be found at Talk:Synthale. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it. --From Andoria with Love 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like Renegade already warned him. If he misbehaves again, then we can block him. --From Andoria with Love 09:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your views on Enterprise

I just want to say I rather enjoy reading about your views on enterprise. I also liked your attempts at explaining some of the 'violations'. For the cloak problem, could it be worth mentioning with the Suliban, that they did not use a selective bending of light, like it was mentioned in the TOS episode, Balance of Terror? Just a thought... --Terran Officer 09:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you made sense ;). I appreciate the response. With the Cloak, that might be it, they didnt consdar a cloak because they had penetraited a cloak, and to hide like that, the enormus power cost makse even more sense? Anyhoo, its nice to see someone rantng that other series also made mistakes.--Terran Officer 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hippocrates Noah

I made this correction after viewing the episode on DVD. I have also corrected Tibetan plateau. 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter Boyle

Greetings! Glad to see that you put up a message in regards to Peter Boyle's death on your user page. I just heard about his death, sad that he had to go :( - Enzo Aquarius 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Sisco uniform variant.jpg

hey shran, i really effed up and misspelled sisko's name in the title of an image i uploaded (File:Sisco uniform variant.jpg). was hoping you could help me fix my error. thanks! Deevolution 08:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft pictures

Continuing my work with the aircraft pictures, I have an ID on this one. It is a late model Ju 87 Stuka. I'm pretty sure it is a Ju 87G, based on what the engine section looks like. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Got another one for you. I think this one is a de Havilland DH.4, but I'm not 100% certain. World War I aircraft are not my strong point, and even if they were, this shot is not exactly a great one to be identifying anything with. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like it might be... dunno, though, I'm not the plane expert. ;) I'll work on getting some better shots for you, though, but I offer no promises. :/ --From Andoria with Love 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Onlies Credits

Shran, I noticed that you changed the credits for "Jahn's Friend" and "Fat Little Boy," or whatever the latter is called. Though this jives with the credits on the episode, in reality, the credits were wrong. John Megna did indeed play the character called "Jahn's Friend" in the script, while the heavy-set Keith Taylor played "Fat Little Boy." They were simply miscredited on air. So they are technically correct the way they were before you edited them. I made the changes a while back (the ones you "corrected") and left a note on the discussion page. I guess the question is: What do we do when the on air credits were clearly in error? Best to you. Sir Rhosis 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IP Address Block Question

When i was at work today i went to make a quick edit to my user page but was unable to. when i clicked edit this page i was informed that i had been blocked at the IP address level for vandalism. As this is the first time i have tried to edit MA from work i don't think it is me that the block is meant for. to clear up a few things i work in the IT department and am able to see that aside from my views no one has been to the site in months. What can i do to clear the block on IP Address --User with a probe

News error

On the news section on the main page, it says Spike will start airing Voyager on January 9, however their commercial states it will be January 2. Hitaka 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The information has been corrected. Cheers! :) --From Andoria with Love 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise dates

This is something I've been meaning to ask you for a while now... I don't know if you know the answer to this, but since you seem to be well-versed in Enterprise, I'll ask. Many of the Enterprise episodes have specific dates on them. Are these dates all canon? Where to they come from? The reason I ask is that I've been slowly fleshing out the month articles with events that happened in specific months, and I've noticed inconsistencies in the Enterprise dates... which in turn, makes me question their veracity. Comments? -- Renegade54 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My changes to Main page

Are you ok with the changes I made to the main page? I thought I'd try something after thinking about the discussions and concerns of previous days... I personally don't think it looks bad, and perhaps the top of the news panel is the best place for memorials. They're still pretty prominent there anyway, since the news panel is near the top. -- Renegade54 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine right now. I'm not sure about future memorial messages, though. I still think those should be place just under the intro. I dunno... we'll see when the time comes (hopefully not too soon). --From Andoria with Love 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Glitch with images

I didn't know who else to turn to, but I knew I had to contact an admin about the problem. On the Cardassian page, almost all images which are aligned to the left are cut off, and you cannot see the caption underneath them in their thumbnail format. I just wanted to report the problem so that it could be corrected. Thanks for your time. - Thot Prad 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that I do not have this problem. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting article protection

Curzon Dax. See talk page for details, or hit me up on IRC. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it and protect it if it's changed again. --From Andoria with Love 05:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Aww, man, I was going to keep an eye on it and protect it if it's changed again. Oh well.--Tim Thomason 05:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please, by all means. I'm trying to finish going through the recent changes anyway to see what I've been missing. So by all means, eye & protect away. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Klingon weapons

I don't know about you, but I'm not at all comfortable about using the photos that User with a probe recently uploaded. First off they're not screen caps, and second they're take from other web sites, and without a clear permission to use the images, I don't think we should have them. I posted a note on his talk page about attribution, but we probably need to delete the images. Comments? -- Renegade54 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those images had been uploaded and in use for quite some time; User with a probe just changed the copyright tag to state that they belong to Paramount, which may not be true in all or any of those cases. I agree, though, that the copyright is in question... deletion may be in order (I would not be opposed to it), but if so, we'd need to find some actual episode images to replace them. --From Andoria with Love 04:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The bottom of the page these images are taken from has a copyright notice. That would seem to answer that in my mind. Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, i didn't upload the images i just found the only other occurrence of them on the web. the site most of them come from is that of a person that makes their own replicas. --User with a probe 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Uwap, my mistake. Now that you and Shran mention it, I have seen those images on the respective article pages before now. -- Renegade54 05:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I also support their deletion since the copyright notice on the page clearly states "All knife images and articles are the property of K'Daq (Richard Robin), K'Beck (Tim Coy) and the KIWG (unless otherwise indicated)

and may not be used without permission."--User with a probe 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, most of the weapons' names are completely non-canon. While they were seen on screen, they were not named in dialogue or the scripts. --Jörg 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Vulkon copyvio

The text you removed is not the copyvio. The copyvio text was already removed, and then DaveDorn re-wrote it. The new version doesn't appear to be a copyvio, although it is written like a marketing blurb. --Bp 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, I just realized that and have reverted my changes. I'm sick of your bad attitude, bp! :-P --From Andoria with Love 19:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
No! I was sick of your bad attitude first! You're a damn dirty punk. --Bp 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise date questions

Ok, an Enterprise date question. The 2151 page lists "Fortunate Son" as taking place in August of that year, yet the "Fortunate Son" article lists the date as "unknown 2151", and your list on my talk page doesn't even have an entry for that episode. Is the 2151 page wrong then? If so, how about the chronological placement of the other episodes on that page? -- Renegade54 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And another one: the 2152 page lists "Vanishing Point" as taking place in August of that year, yet the "Vanishing Point" article lists the date as "unknown 2152" and your list doesn't have an entry for that episode. -- Renegade54 18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

I would like to report a personal attack made against me (this makes the second committed by that user, at least). All I did was inquire as to what the purpose of the forum was, as there was no explanation and I did not know. I'm getting sick and tired of this. Something needs to be done by you guys. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Splarka already gave him a Wikia wide ban. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. :) --From Andoria with Love 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+