FANDOM


Gral and Shran call a truce

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

Blu-ray Edit

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

Images have been released online. See http://reboot.trekcaps.net/. – Throwback 11:06, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Closed Caps Edit

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

Article namesEdit

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

Auction Edit

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

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

Recent work Edit

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

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

(1.)[Image 1]

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

(2.) [Image 2]

    • Sausalito
    • Tiburon
    • Angel Island

(3.) [Image 3]

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

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

Shuttles Edit

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, there are two shuttles 05 - Clarke (2366) and Feynman (2367). Both are named. However, we have a page that is for Enterprise-D Shuttlecraft 05, and on the Feynman page, in the background section, the contributor writes, "The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion identifies the shuttle used in the episode TNG: "The Nth Degree" as the Feynman." This is shuttle 05, so why this is not stated in the main body of the page is perplexing. Since the information provided is the same as in the Feynman page, maybe we should delete Enterprise-D Shuttlecraft 05's page.76.21.53.118 19:29, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Affiliation Edit

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

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

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

Mass Effect Wiki Edit

Hi.

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

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

Pages Edit

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

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

Arctic ExplorationEdit

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

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

Sidebars Edit

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

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

Star system articles Edit

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

Alpha or Beta Quadrant Edit

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

Latest edits to Vulcan (planet) Edit

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

new ships Edit

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

Shipname templatesEdit

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

Sort keys Edit

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

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

The date of the map Edit

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

minor thing Edit

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

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

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

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

LinksEdit

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

Recent chart edits Edit

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

Link removalsEdit

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

StarTrek.com linksEdit

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

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

Pages for deletion Edit

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

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

Earth Starfleet Edit

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

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

Affiliation - Non-aligned Edit

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

Category Edit

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

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

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

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

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

PfD pages Edit

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

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

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

'Conspiracy' images Edit

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

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

Unwritten star system articles Edit

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

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

Unsaid system articles Edit

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

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

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

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

located in alpha quadrant Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part II Edit

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

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

Map of the Galaxy

This map is from the episode "Conspiracy".

[1]

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

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

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

The PADD image you linked to shows Romulan and Klingon space on the far side of the Alpha/Beta quadrant border, though. How can you pick one information from that graphic (Romulan and Klingon space "to the east") while ignoring that other bit of information? -- 62.158.250.140 17:09, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
While I haven"t reviewed the entire problem here, it seems to me that there is valid background information here in the info Throwback has added/removed from pages, mostly without an edit summary. I suggest that this info be regulated to the appendices unless we all are sure about what quadrant something is in, since a lot of our "known" Beta quadrant locations have at one point been referred to as part of an "Alpha quadrant" power in the most unhelpful way on DS9, and there's nothing wrong with giving the readers all the info we have and letting them draw their own conclusions. - Archduk3 18:26, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
These presumptions are mostly invalid, since space is three-dimensional and we have no idea how the territories and borders stretch in the sideways point of view, the often seen tactical map from DS9 even suggests cardassian/dominion territory was either above or below the Federation. While Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country; "The Sound of Her Voice" suggest long missions are taken in the beta quadrant, we also know from "The Chase" that ships travel in the quadrant all over the place. We know from TOS and TAS that Kirk and his crew already had a vast range to travel from the center of the galaxy to the edge of it. There are just so many canonical facts that place doudt to your theory which you are ignoring completely when you are speculating this stuff. We shouldn't be filling in the blanks. If something is canonically known then it is known, if it is not known then leave it blank. Let the readers make their own conclusions from the inconclusive facts. --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:04, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
I walked into a minefield and BOOM!Throwback (talk) 03:48, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

Sigma Iotia system Edit

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

Progress Report Edit

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

Progress Report 2 Edit

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

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

StarTrek.com linksEdit

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

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

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

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

Disambig pagesEdit

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

USS Saratoga Edit

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

Escape pods destination Edit

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

mergesEdit

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

Very short sentences Edit

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

Manual of Style Edit

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

Unreferenced materials cat Edit

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

Homage/references Edit

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

Indents Edit

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

Wikia visit and coming stuffEdit

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

Disambig lksEdit

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

La Forge. Not LaForgeEdit

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

Remasterd has another "e"Edit

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

San Francisco landmarksEdit

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

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

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

Sources questionEdit

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

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

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

Articletype template Edit

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

San Francisco SectorsEdit

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

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

LinksEdit

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

Creation of "part" articles Edit

San Francisco buildings Edit

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

Multiple delete pagesEdit

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

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

...what?Edit

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

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

Stop Edit

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

Spacecraft components Edit

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

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

search tipEdit

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

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

[search term] site:http://en.memory-alpha.org

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

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

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

Links and category sortsEdit

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

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

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

Edit summariesEdit

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

Andoria edit Edit

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

USS EnterpriseEdit

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

Denkir Edit

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

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

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

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

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

Talk pages are not a forumEdit

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

Talk page questionEdit

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

Continued links to disambiguation pagesEdit

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

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

You fragmented almost the entire MA-wiki Edit

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

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

Please stop with the pronunciations Edit

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

Power wallEdit

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

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

The Motion Picture yearEdit

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

Remastered info Edit

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

Regarding the Daystrom Institute rant Edit

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

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

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

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

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

Lauritson Edit

I'm creating a disambiguation page and attempting to sort out all the Lauritsons just FYI. 31dot (talk) 20:59, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Throwback (talk) 21:08, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

DisambiguationsEdit

Please do not use abbreviations when creating disambiguation text. Spell the word out. "Capt." is not acceptable, use "Captain". For example. -- sulfur (talk) 01:57, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for some of the entries for the characters named after production staff, the full title was used in the past. When the pages were merged, it meant that if a character had the full title, the reader would then be sent to that page. For example, Throwback (Captain) is created as a page. Then, there is another page named Throwback (Admiral). Some point in the past, these pages were merged. So, now if I attempt to write a page for Throwback (Captain), I am sent automatically to Throwback (Admiral). If you know a way that I can bypass this, and use the full title, I am listening.76.21.54.57 03:10, August 4, 2014 (UTC)
When you are redirected to a different page, the page you originally wanted is linked to at the top of the destination page; click on that to be taken to the original page. 31dot (talk) 09:01, August 4, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.Throwback (talk) 12:19, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Great red spot questionEdit

Did the poster explicitly mention the great red spot forming in the 16th century? Because if it did both adding that info to 16th century and adding a background note pointing out the problem with that statement might be useful. (But as a general rule, I don't like spreading info which I can't verify, bad experiences with that) Sorry for posting here rather then on the article talk page. I figured that since you sometimes don't see those talk pages, while at the same time you're probably be the only one in a position to answer, it would be more efficient to just post here. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:49, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Also while I'm at it, in "Habitable zone" the statement about which solar system planets are in the habitable zone is uncited as of now. I suspect it's from also from the poster, which is cited at the end, but bringing that citation to the relevant paragraph would be useful. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:53, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Moving pagesEdit

When moving pages, please ensure that you use "What links here" (in the "My tools" at the bottom) and clean up all incoming links to pages. -- sulfur (talk) 13:00, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Throwback (talk) 13:02, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Also, note that "Starfleet" as a disambiguation meets MA standards. It's a good fallback if there's no obvious rank involved. -- sulfur (talk) 14:49, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Throwback (talk) 14:51, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

When moving a page like "V'Ger" to "V'ger", please do not change all of the incoming links. Fix the redirects, then ask for a bot run to be done to change the 100s of links. There is no need to spam the recentChanges page. And please do not ever change user pages belonging to other users. -- sulfur (talk) 13:20, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to insist you follow the guideline for moving pages from now on, in that you suggest the page be moved before actually doing it. A number of the "(Starfleet)" disambiguations you have changed to ranks were like that because their rank was never explicitly stated. Commanding officer is not always synonymous with the rank of Captain for instance. - Archduk3 17:17, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Archduk3:
I interpret what you wrote on my talk page as that I was abusing the moving of pages function. Am I right in my interpretation?
If so, I meant no abuse of the function. I acted in what I thought were good intentions. I recognize that on some articles that I used "fan interpretation-speculation" (a phrase that I credit Pseudohuman for) when changing the title. I should have left the title alone. For that, I apologize.
I would like to apologize for not asking about what were my limitations were in moving pages. I interpretated the comments left on my talk page as a permission for me to move pages and to fix links.
My communication skills are probably not as developed as yours. I have Asperger's Syndrome and I have been rated as having a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) of 45. 41 - 50 Serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) or any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job, cannot work). My interpretation skills are at a most basic level. This has created conflict at home and now here on the wiki.
I acknowledge your request and will refrain from what I was doing.Throwback (talk) 00:01, August 10, 2014 (UTC)
I've moved this here to keep the conversation in one place.
Abuse is too strong a term, since you did these in good faith; over-eagerness or "jumping the gun" is what I would call it. It's always best to explain first why you think a page should be moved, if only to allow time for someone to either explain why the page is currently where it is or agree that it should be moved. Even if no one says anything, it's important to remember that silence is a community agreement with your rational, at least until someone disagrees with it, and we generally want page moves to have some form of community agreement before they are done. - Archduk3 19:15, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages Edit

Just want to let you know that you don't have to create a talk page everytime you're putting the background note into a link. I've just deleted some of the talk pages. You're not removing the information just linking them. Tom (talk) 13:25, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip.Throwback (talk) 13:28, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

CustodyEdit

Why on Earth are you now editing these "this ship was in the custody" things to the ship pages? That makes it ambiguously sound like Starfleet confiscated the ship. Its a Starfleet starship. Its that simple. Stop, please. --Pseudohuman (talk) 16:22, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek starships are not real-world boats, they are spacecraft. Please cite a reference from the series where "custody of starfleet" is commonly used regarding a starship. We try to use the terminology used in the series in MA. Starfleet ship, Starfleet vessel, Federation ship are the terms used in the series. Let's try to keep the terminology canon, okay. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:48, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed... see my previous comments on 31dot's talk page. At a minimum, please don't change any more until there's a consensus. -- Renegade54 (talk) 21:51, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
For years, this site has been identifying the owner of these ships as the Federation and the operator as Starfleet. Before that, there was a sidebar that identified the affiliation and the agency. I don't know when this sidebar was first introduced; however, it signified that the Federation "owns the assets" and that Starfleet "operated these assets". Then, comes the movie Star Trek: Into Darkness, where there is a graphic that mirrors what has been said in the sidebar. [2] So, the relationship is there in the Star Trek universe.Throwback (talk) 01:47, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacksEdit

Please keep comments about other people to a minimum. Your comment on the talk page for the USS Sherlock Holmes is very close to being a personal attack. -- sulfur (talk) 23:14, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Moved from 31dot's talk pageEdit

Language Edit

I am having an on-going discussion with Pseudohuman about the location of Romulus. In his last post, he used a swear word (s--t). I would like to know the policy on the use on swear words.Throwback (talk) 18:21, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

There are no rules about swear words unless they are used in a personal attack; the example you cite was not. 31dot (talk) 20:43, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't feel that Pseudohuman was attacking me. I was asking for what the rules were on swearing. I had attempted to do a search using Google and was failing. (When it comes to finding something in the policies and guidelines, I have discovered that the wiki search engine less than helpful.) Thanks for the info.Throwback (talk) 23:55, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

I am becoming more frustrated with this wiki and I am feeling less enjoyment from being here. For me, this was an escape from the psychological and physiological pain I experience from my anxiety. I am having to deal with (I hate that word, by the way) a person named Pseudohuman who I feel constantly bashes me over the head over what he perceives as speculation. I feel a definite language barrier. I feel he doesn't want me here. Then, when I write a paragraph, instead of getting helpful hints, I am told by an administrator that it is against the policies and guidelines of this site. What happened to helping the editor improve what they write? Not all of us are gifted with a silver tongue.

I read on Wikipedia this article about American Ship Hull numbers. I attempted to write a similar paragraph for NCC.

In the era of the United Federation of Planets, the number following the prefix was an indicator of both the age and the century in which the ship was built. Bear in mind, that this wasn't an ironclad rule. For example, some early ships of the Oberth-class had three numbers in their registries; however, their hull configuration indicated that they were built in the 23rd century. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock) In the 22nd century, the single, double, and triple number registries were introduced. (TNG: "Power Play") In the 23rd century, the quadruple number registries were introduced. There were brief experiments with adding a 0 to the beginning of a triple number combination or a letter to before the numbers. These proved unsuccessful as they weren't used widely. Another experiment, adding a letter after the number, indicating that this ship was the second, third, fourth, etc ship to bear this number, would prove more successful and would be adopted for other prefixes, like NCV. (TOS: "The Cage"; Star Trek; TAS: "More Tribbles, More Troubles"; Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home; VOY: "Relativity") In the 24th century, the quintuple number combination was first introduced. (TNG: "The Naked Now")

Admittedly, it's a first draft. I had read an article about how one works with evidence.

Evidence Explained:

  • As historical researchers, we might draw the following distinctions between speculation, hypothesis, interpretation, and proof:
  • Speculation is typically presented as an end-point to a disappointing research process, at which point the researcher has run out of ideas. Often, its presentation is prefaced by an assertion such as, “No evidence exists to prove this, but … .” Typically, the assertion will carry no documentation or, as a smoke screen, will cite material that—when examined—does not support the assertion at all.
  • Hypotheses represent an interim state—one in which we recognize that our research and analyses are still seriously incomplete. We accept our hypotheses only as possibilities to be further tested and soundly proved before we can validly assert an opinion.
  • Interpretation is an impermanent conclusion we reach after we feel we have adequately applied all the building blocks of proof. The strength of our interpretation will depend heavily upon the investment we have made in our study of context. We consider our interpretation to be impermanent because we recognize that the discovery of new evidence or the application of new insights or other research methodology might require altering that interpretation.
  • Proof is the body of evidence and reasoning that we offer to support our interpretation. The quality of the work that creates this body of evidence usually determines the sustainability of our conclusion. [3]

I noted a pattern in the quantity of numbers, that they began with three in the 22nd century, then went up to four in the 23rd century, then went up to five in the next century.

Another administrator wrote,

Removed per What Memory Alpha is Not, in particular "Original research." This reads as a "subjective essay which ... draws conclusions" instead of an encyclopedia reporting what is known, amongst other issues. - Archduk3 10:56, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Instead of helping me with improving it, so that meets the standards of this website, he removes it.

And, I am uncomfortable with a sentence that says, This [starship]] was a 24th century Federation [class] starship. I feel that the sentence is saying the ship was built, launched, and commissioned in that century. I feel this is speculation. I was thinking of saying, This starship was a Federation [class] starship. The ship was on active duty in [century]. I am concerned that some will object.

I just don't know what to do.Throwback (talk) 11:25, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with the removal. While all of what you wrote might make sense, it is still only what you think and not something specifically stated in the show. It's an interesting theory, but that's all it is. I don't know it offhand, but I think there is Background information stating that the producers did gradually increase registry numbers over time to indicate the passage of time and the building of more ships, but it was never stated in the show and certainly not given the explanation you are attempting to provide here. If you can find Background information about how registry numbers were written, that would be valid BG info.
As for the last part of your above comment about what you feel is speculation, we deal with only the information that we know about. In most cases, we don't know when ships were built, launched, and commissioned- but we do know when we saw them in existence, which is all that statement is saying.
Seeing what has been going on here recently I have to wonder if you are currently too much invested in what is going on here. I think you should dial back your involvement here, if not just take a break period. I don't mean that from a punishment standpoint in any way, simply that some time off or reducing what you do here might be beneficial. 31dot (talk) 11:40, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for not taking a 48 hour rest period on the Romulus talk page. I felt that I couldn't let Pseudohuman get away with a personal attack on me. There is a type of communication where a person expresses themselves with the word I. When a person writes a comment like, You are not interpreting, you are just cherry picking and speculating., this is considered as an attack on another person.

I agree with you. I don't know how to contribute to this website in a beneficial way anymore. I have read that guide more times than I would like, and it's apparent that I am no closer to an understanding of how this website works. The Evidence Explained link made speculation all that more clearer, but its seems to me that this wiki uses a different meaning of speculation. So, I am completely and utterly lost.

In the middle of the road of my life I awoke in the dark wood where the true way was wholly lost (Dante, Inferno)Throwback (talk) 12:06, August 17, 2014 (UTC)


Describing actions that you might have taken is not a personal attack; a personal attack is name calling or negative remarks towards you personally. 31dot (talk) 12:09, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Capricorn said about the same thing, expressing concern for my mental health. It's worrying to me that I can't tell the difference between one and the other. I am having the most difficulty in understanding so many things. I mentioned speculation above, an issue that I still have problems with and I am no closer to an understanding, and now I am unable to differentiate between what is an attack on me and what is an attack on my behavior. I asked you before for a ban on my username; do you think that it would be beneficial to this site if I was banned again?Throwback (talk) 12:28, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial for you to take a break; if you feel you are unable to do that without the assistance of being blocked, I would be willing to do so, but only if you intended it to be more than a short period of time. 31dot (talk) 12:36, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

It won't be a short period of time. My mental health is getting worse as I get older. I am now on three medications for anxiety and depression. My grandmother had demntia when she died. I run to this site to get away from my psychological and physiological pain, and I feel that I have lost the ability to differentiate between a criiicsim of me personnally and a criticism of my behavior, and most importantly, I am unable to differentiate between what is speculation and what is non-speculation. It seemed so clear in the Evidence Explained article; here, however, I am completely lost. And, having someone like Pseudohuman, who criticizes my behavior and my thinking abilities on a regular occurrence is not helping me in the slightest. In a section from the Romulus page, I write,

I feel you will be waiting a long time indeed. For now, there is "The Explored Galaxy" map and the map from "Insurrections". Generally, they are in consensus where Romulus/Remus and the Romulan Star Empire are located. Then there is the written material for the series and for the fans written by members of the crew, that back up the canonical evidence. I feel that you are loath to introduce real world material into the Star Trek universe. For me, for a fictional universe to work, it has to be based in reality. What does the real world inform me about empires? It informs me that empires begin at a center and expand outwards. Hattusa was at the center of her empire, Rome was the center of the Roman Empire, Persepolis was the center of the Persian Empire, Athens was the center of her empire, Cnstantinople was at the center of the Eastern Roman Empire, Britain was at the center of her empire, and America was at the center of her empire. (My knowledge of Far East Asia is limited, so I am not able to draw on examples.) Empires don't have to be aggressive for them to expand. America is an empire through diplomatic and economic means, through international prestige. She has nearly 700 military bases scattered around the world, which she uses as forward operating bases in times of crisis. Which brings up another point - America is identified as a Western Hemisphere country, yet she has tremendous influence on the Eastern Hemisphere. This ties into how is the Romulan Star Empire a Beta Quadrant intragalactic power, and yet be called an Alpha Quadrant power. Personally, I am not someone who can compartmentalize things or people or anything for that matter into neat little boxes. The world is far too complex, animals, inluding people, are far too complex for that, and history is far too complex for that. I feel that you compartmentalize the world and I feel that you want to be told explictly that this is what it is. Remember, I said that one of the conditions of being a member of this wiki is that the editor is a role player. I am playing the role of an archivist on the Memory Alpha planet centuries removed from the events depicted. As in the real world, there is discussion about what the evidence tells us. I have read of these discussions and I have read of how one person or another had dominated the conversation, to the detriment of learning about an ancient people. For the decipherment of the Mayan language, one man's intrepretation of the language was considered for verbatim the truth, until someone else came with another interpretation, which led to the translation of the language and to a greater understanding of the Mayans. I am content to leave Romulus and Remus and the Romulan Star Empire in the Beta Quadrant for that it is depicted in the canonical evidence. Now, if we get new canonical evidence that says that these planets are in the Alpha Quadrant, I would be the first to back the change. One has to work with what they have, until a new piece of knowledge is discovered. This is how interpretating the past works.Throwback (talk) 13:16, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

You are providing excellent examples of how fanon "facts" are created by some fans. They just don't belong in Memory Alpha. --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:49, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

Later, he tells me that,

Memory Alpha is not about filling in the blanks with speculations and this is not a support group for the mentally disabled. Most fan-speculation is supported by some random canonical bits of information or some production member statements. It still does not make the speculation itself canon. You seem to have an extremely hard time understanding this. --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:31, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

I already have doubts on whether I can function fully; I don't need to be reminded of this on the wiki by another editor. I am feeling insecure on this site, doubting whether or not I know how to function in this community. I will leave the decision to you.Throwback (talk) 12:57, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I am interpreting your above comments as a request to be blocked, which I will grant given your statements about yourself. I will leave your talk page open to posting should you see an improvement in your situation, though any changes in your status here going forward should be on a trial basis. I will be implementing this shortly. 31dot (talk) 13:01, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I was a former member of Memory Alpha. When my Asperger's Syndrome became progressively worse, I became a recluse in my mother's house. I came to this site in a futile effort at relieving the psychological and physiological pain. Instead of finding relief, I discovered that my own internal demons, my inability to communicate with others, and my incomprehension of the guidelines and policies created tension within the community. I requested that I be permanently blocked. 31dot left open the talk page for me to use, and this talk page is where I will place my final words on this site. Goodbye and good wishes to everyone on this wiki.Throwback (talk) 22:21, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

ThomasHL or whatever administrator is reading this, being here is increasing my anxiety. I was here gathering materials for my psychologist for us to talk over what happened. I wouldn't know how to archive this page, and, if I did, I wouldn't do it. I did what I know how to do, and that is to delete.Throwback (talk) 08:24, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

Farewell Edit

I was a former member of Memory Alpha. When my Asperger's Syndrome became progressively worse, I became a recluse in my mother's house. I came to this site in a futile effort at relieving the psychological and physiological pain. Instead of finding relief, I discovered that my own internal demons, my inability to communicate with others, and my incomprehension of the guidelines and policies created tension within the community. I requested that I be permanently blocked. 31dot left open the talk page for me to use, and this talk page is where I will place my final words on this site. Goodbye and good wishes to everyone on this wiki.Throwback (talk) 22:21, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome & Permanent Ban Edit

I am requesting a permanent ban.

I have Asperger Syndrome's. In the real world, when I am working with neurotypicals (the term given to those who aren't on the autistic spectrum), I can work out the communication difficulties that naturally arose. In the world of the Internet, there is no possibility of this happening. Most neurotypicals don't understand why people like me can't seem to follow the rules and why we have difficulty in understanding the motives and intentions of others. The issues I had with others on this site will exist in the future. My experience with other users over the past month has shown for me, at the least, they don't understand my condition and either become frustrated or impatient with me. My mother told me that when I was a child that psychologists were frustrated and impatient with me because they didn't understand what was wrong. A user had said on this website that, Its more about how you course correct (or don't). (User talk:Capricorn) For me, this is like saying become more like a neurotypical, or become more white if you are black. Like blacks, I was born with this condition. Like them, I can no more change who I am even I wanted to. I have lived this way since I was born. Like them, there is ignorance about what it means to be me and what it is like to live in a society where you are a minority. It's an insurmountable challenge, which only a few have the openness and courage to attempt. I believe that it is not the function of Memory Alpha to become an experiment in changing social attitudes to the non-neurotypicals.

A lack of demonstrated empathy has a significant impact on aspects of communal living for persons with Asperger syndrome.[2] Individuals with AS experience difficulties in basic elements of social interaction, which may include a failure to develop friendships or to seek shared enjoyments or achievements with others (for example, showing others objects of interest), a lack of social or emotional reciprocity (social "games" give-and-take mechanic), and impaired nonverbal behaviors in areas such as eye contact, facial expression, posture, and gesture.[1] Individuals with Aspergers also have an impaired theory of mind which makes it difficult to understand the thoughts, feelings, and intentions of other people and how that relates to oneself. They have a hard time picking up on unwritten social rules involuntarily that neurotypicals would perceive as obvious. [28]

People with AS may not be as withdrawn around others compared to those with other, more debilitating forms of autism; they approach others, even if awkwardly. For example, a person with AS may engage in a one-sided, long-winded speech about a favorite topic, while misunderstanding or not recognizing the listener's feelings or reactions, such as a wish to change the topic of talk or end the interaction.[9] This social awkwardness has been called "active but odd".[1] This failure to react appropriately to social interaction may appear as disregard for other people's feelings, and may come across as insensitive.[9] However, not all individuals with AS will approach others. Some of them may even display selective mutism, speaking not at all to most people and excessively to specific people. Some may choose only to talk to people they like.[29]

The cognitive ability of children with AS often allows them to articulate social norms in a laboratory context,[1] where they may be able to show a theoretical understanding of other people's emotions; however, they typically have difficulty acting on this knowledge in fluid, real-life situations.[9] People with AS may analyze and distill their observations of social interaction into rigid behavioral guidelines, and apply these rules in awkward ways, such as forced eye contact, resulting in a demeanor that appears rigid or socially naive. Childhood desire for companionship can become numbed through a history of failed social encounters.[1]

The hypothesis that individuals with AS are predisposed to violent or criminal behavior has been investigated, but is not supported by data.[1][30] More evidence suggests children with AS are victims rather than victimizers.[31] A 2008 review found that an overwhelming number of reported violent criminals with AS had coexisting psychiatric disorders such as schizoaffective disorder.[32] [4]

Throwback (talk) 01:47, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

You are permanently blocked on MA, per your request, though we're leaving your talk page editable to you just in case you change your mind and want to request that the block be lifted on a trial basis. You've done good work here, and could again as far as I'm concerned. That said, you can choose to "deactivated" your account on the entire wikia network using these steps. After 30 days though, that can never be reversed. - Archduk3 04:35, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Jorg said the same thing. I appreciate that both you and he recognize that I have done some good on this site. I have read Asperger Syndrome was not easily defined and was, by consequence, a difficult and complicated subject of study for psychological and neuro-psychnological specialists. For the layperson, I have experienced both ignorance and/or misunderstanding. My communication issues with other users in the past month had I think demonstrated this very clearly, time and again. One user went so far as to declare that Memory Alpha was not a 'mental disability support group". (See Romulus talk page.) This was after I had informed the individual of my condition. This was not the first time where I have been in a community or a group and communication has been an overriding issue. In such instances, I had voluntarity withdrawn from the community. In one extreme instance, I was told that I was persona non gratis. If there was to be a going-forward, I would need more guidance on the written and unwritten rules. For you, what was obvious, was not obvious to me. So, instead of responding to me as you would to a neurotypical person (a person who was not on the autistic spectrum), I would had to ask that you and the other administrators take on the role of a teacher. That was a lot to be asked of anyone; being a teacher was not an easy job - it's doubly so with an autistic person.

Since the last time I requested a block, way back in 2012, there had been tremendous advancement in the study of autistic people. That was why I am able now to identify what has been happening. I can see clearly, to when I was four years old, that I been this way for almost my entire life. I will be speaking with my psychologist next week. I have been sending copies of the discussions I had with the other users and the administrators to his e-mail account. I respect his opinion greatly. He was and is both my therapist and my friend. I have known him since I was a teenanger, when the first major symptoms of this condition began appearing, and I returned to him this year because I believed that he knew and cared for me. He has demonstrated this time and again. We will be discussing what happened here.Throwback (talk) 10:41, August 20, 2014 (UTC) edited again by Throwback (talk) 11:09, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

I'm speaking for myself here, not for all of MA or even all of the admins. While MA is not a "mental disability support group" (extremely poor choice of words, btw), we do (or at least should) practice tolerance for those different than us. We strive to be inclusive, not exclusive. None of us are without fault; we all occasionally exhibit behaviors at various times that that are found in the DSM, such as OCD, ADHD, and many others. It's just a matter of degree in many cases. My stepdaughter has AS, and so I understand first hand the difficulties that NTs experience in dealing with those with AS (and vice versa). There are times when we need to separate ourselves and just... cool down. And she is one that was undiagnosed until her teens... everyone just thought she was "quirky" (or in less charitable terms, odd, or weird). But I believe you're incorrect in saying you can't change. Many of the social traits lacking in individuals with AS can be learned, even if they don't come naturally. My stepdaughter, working with both us (her parents) and social workers assigned to help her, has learned to recognize verbal and non-verbal cues in real-life situations. She's learned how to hold a conversation without monopolizing it. She's learned to not take everything literally, and to be much more flexible in her day to day life and her dealings with others. She's learned to drive, got her license, rented an apartment and lives on her own, has a job and earns her own money, pays her own bills, and has a social life. She still struggles with her AS, some days more than others, but she's made real progress over the years (sometimes we need to remind her of this). My point here is, don't assume you can't learn to fit into a NT society; it's just a lot more work for you to do so than for most of the rest of us. And to address one other point you made: part of our job, as admins, *is* to act as teachers of sorts. We often guide newcomers in the proper way of doing things on MA, and correct mistakes made by those unfamiliar with the rules and regulations here (and not just newcomers... Sulfur and others have corrected one or two [read many] of my mistakes over the years as well). You just have the disadvantage of having difficulty seeing or understanding some of the subtleties in the rules - most things aren't black or white, but AS individuals have difficulty in seeing the shades of grey. Anyway, please don't feel your contributions haven't been noticed or appreciated... they have. -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:33, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

I think seeing a psychologist and a psychiatrist and being open with others is a sign that I want to change. I would like very much to change. Change is coming harder for me, because of my age. I am 42 years old, and I wasn't diangosed with Asperger Syndrome until I was 40. I think what I was attempting to communicate, which didn't come off as I would liked, is that I was born as an autistic person and I can't change this fact. I know that people with Asperger Syndrome can become better with behavior modificaiton. I think that some of the people on this website - Archduk3, Capricorn, 31dot, and you - have been accepting of who I am. Honestly, I didn't expect this much attention and I have appreciated the comments left on my talkpage. Throwback (talk) 21:10, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of social workers as a resource. Thank you Renegade54 for illustrating how they helped your stepdaughter. Maybe they can me, too? Any help would be welcomed.Throwback (talk) 21:29, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly be a bit more difficult at an older age... the "old dog" cliche. :) We live in Pennsylvania, and we were fortunate to be able to enroll my stepdaughter in a pilot program here called ACAP (Adult Community Autism Program); it's run by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. It was set up to assist people just like you... check around to see if there's anything like ACAP available in your area. You can use the links here to get started; there are a bunch of nation-wide autism resources listed on the ACAP page, with links to their web sites. -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:27, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

Updates & E-Mails Edit

I spoke with my therapist today. He thinks its healthy that I closed my account, as I was having trouble communicating with Pseudohuman. (I am still smarting from the remark that Capricorn said about attempting to teach me Humanese communication. When my therapist heard this, he said that comment made it sound like I was an extraterrestrial.) I don't think it's possible to communicate with Pseudohuman, as they don't engage in a conversation. So, when I don't understand something, they don't attempt to educate me and give me guidance. And, I don't like the idea of having to request an administrator or bureaucrat's assistance when there is a disagreement. I should be able to work with this individual, which, frankly, I don't see happening. I am not asking for this wiki to be a mental disability support group; I do have an expectation that this site lives up to its mission statement, which is to accept anyone, no matter their issues. I haven't felt that Pseudohuman, while he is observing the rules of the community, isn't living up to the spirit of that statement As they are one of the main contributors on this site, there will be inevitable conflict. I have conflict at home with my mother who is abusive towards me. I don't need to be waging a two-front war while I am attempting to get healthy.

I am receiving e-mails about changes to this wiki. I don't want these e-mails. How do I stop these e-mails? Once this issue is resolved, I will be deactivating my account permanently. Throwback (talk) 21:40, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Go into your settings/preferences, and look for the "email" page. -- sulfur (talk) 01:41, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Moving these pages to Archive Edit

I don't know how to move these pages to archive, and I don't care to learn. I want this page cleared and what was written on it placed in the archives. I had to deactivate-reactive my account twice; I am not interested in doing another reactivation. So, I am asking for an administrator or bureaucrat to make the move.Throwback (talk) 02:12, August 28, 2014 (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+