Since you're new to Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:
- Our policies and guidelines are the best place to start. Particular items of note are the content and resource policies, the editing guidelines, our point of view, copyrights, and guidelines for proper etiquette.
- We strongly encourage you to use the "source editor" in your editing preferences, so you can use our standard formatting templates. We also recommend you click this link and save the page.
- The Manual of Style and how to write a great article can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday.
- Want to help build the category tree? Check out Category suggestions.
- You can look up your past changes in the contributions log and keep track of your favorite articles through your very own watchlist.
- Create your own user page and be contacted here, on your talk page. Please make sure to sign any comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) to add your user name and the date and time.
Talk pages and forums
Please back off with the snide comments and veiled attacks. If you are unwilling to actually help people, and only are here to be hurtful to others, we don't need you. Remember that part of the point of Memory Alpha is to have fun, not be a bully. I would also suggest reading Memory Alpha:No personal attacks. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like good advice to me! I was trying to help out by adding to the instructions for Template:Wikipedia and I neglected to change something (very minor) that I had cut and pasted before I saved the page - it was not obvious from the preview. Then I got called away, intending to fix it when I returned.
- You beat me to it. Thanks for the help, but you can keep the attitude. — Greg (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- When Cobra called me snide, he was right: I was being mean, and right in someone's face too. And I took his advice. I don't appreciate YOU calling me snide. Excuse me for providing an edit summary and for not knowing your intentions. If I want to address something, snide or otherwise, to you personally, I'll do it on a Talk: or User Talk: page. --TribbleFurSuit 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, this is apparently what passes for "not snide" in your assessment:
- "well, if you're going to demonstrate it, demonstrate it for real!"
- I never said it was mean, but it is definitely a snide comment... and unnecessary. Lighten up... we're all on the same side here! — Greg (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Removing uncited notes
Hi! Please put the removed/ uncited notes on the talk page for the article when you'll remove them from the article page. Thanks. – Tom 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, right, my mistake. Thanks --TribbleFurSuit 01:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Supporting for a change!
Sorry if my last few notes have seemed to be a bit harsh, but you do seem to be appearing on most pages that I've been working on for the purpose of disagreeing. Here's a chance to voice support for one of my projects: Memory_Alpha:Images_for_deletion#Five_Star_Insignia. Very clearly non-canon. As you've shown zeal the past few articles, then show zeal for this one as well. We haven't had that many votes. -FC 02:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify your statement- I don't understand what you mean. Even if the pictures somehow explain that statement, there's no reason there shouldn't be a citation by the actual statement, in case people scrolled by the pictures.--31dot 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Clarification: the pictures show the veracity of the statement in the background item, therefore, the page itself doesn't require any external source of evidence. What kind of citation do you want? I don't think there's any episode where anyone said that she used to have more ridges. And I don't think, even if such can be found, that any real-life quote from some production person on this subject is necessary, to cite what you can see onscreen. Do you just want the item to say something like "see pictures in infobox" so that people know it's not some made-up falsehood? Here's what I think: since it is no mystery to you that the item is true, and since you know where to find evidence, you shouldn't expect somebody else to fill in the incite blank for you. Regardless of whether or not you actually doubt the information, use the incite tag when you don't know where the information comes from, and you need somebody else's help to provide an actual citation in the case that you don't doubt it. Just sticking the tag on there and running away leaves the impression that it's dubious information. --TribbleFurSuit 00:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- First, there does seem to be doubt as to whether or not the claim is true, as the comment was removed by someone else.
- As for the citation that I think is appropriate, I think the episode where there was a difference from all the others would be appropriate, or where the change was made, or whatever.
- Second, I don't think you understood the purpose of my question. I only asked you to clarify because I didn't understand which pictures you meant, not because I thought you were wrong or I wanted you to find the information for me. I knew quite well you were referring to the pictures that are there, I just couldn't figure out which ones. That's part of the reason why I put up the incite- having the episode next to the statement would make it clearer. I wasn't proposing a "look at picture" statement. --31dot 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Th first picture in the infobox is from "Renaissance Man", 2378, 3 pairs of ridges. The second picture in the infobox is from "Prime Factors", 2371, 4 sets of ridges. --TribbleFurSuit 01:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- According to the person who removed the comment, her hairline was different, not her ridges(though this can be discussed there).--31dot 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Removing text from articles
It's best, when removing text, to move it to the talk page with a reason as to its removal. That way, future generations can simply point to the talk page when noting a re-removal. :) -- Sulfur 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, good point. I do it when removing material that's been there a while but it didn't occur to me on that item when the shelf life was only a few minutes. --TribbleFurSuit 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Vortex Entry
Hello there! I'll admit, I'm not yet quite as well-versed as I'd like to be on Mem Alpha's policies regarding warp factor relationships. But in the article on the NX-01 Enterprise, there's quite a bit of speculation (not in the main part of the article, but in italicized asides) on how fast the ship likely is, based on quotes taken from the show relating to, for example, how long it takes Enterprise to travel from Earth to Neptune. The author translates that into a speed value in terms of kilometers per second, and then gives the equivilant value in the TOS scale of warp speeds. I know that purelu speculative statements aren't permitted in the article's main body, but don't we allow reasonable conclusions to be drawn from separate pieces of information which appear in canon sources? I drew my calculations from the equations found in MA's article on Warp Speed, as well as a number of citable backstage sources (okuda et al) on the equations behind the different warp scales of TOS and TNG. Thanks very much for the help. I hope you'll bear with me a bit while I learn the ins and outs of contributing. :) 09:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello again! Since it's been a week, I'm guessing that you're okay with the counterpoints I've made, so I've reinserted the text. If I'm wrong, please feel free to drop me a line and let me know. I'd just ask that if you still don't agree, we get in touch with each other and figure out wording that works to avoid ping-pong edits to the page. I'd also forgotten to mention in my last response that these vorticies aren't naturally occuring. They're generated by Xindi vessels (Degra sats so in ENT: Azati Prime). Thanks again for your help, and I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving! Best, SwordandScales 12:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I had thought that we weren't going to revert back and fourth until we received opinions from other community members? If no one else has any objections to the text, I'm not sure how this is different than any other calculation regarding time and distance made in any article on Warp Drive, Quantum Slipstream, or any other faster than light means of travel within the Star Trek universe. I'd ask that you reinsert the text as we'd agreed, at least until we can get one more opinion on it. I'd also ask that when you have a moment, you review the MA articles on other faster than light drives. I think you'll find that the text added is no different than the calculations and conclusions performed therein. Best, SwordandScales 03:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No edit wars please
Lets not have an edit war please. That edit made absolutely no sense. There has never been an "Able Seaman" Star trek rank pin in any way shape or form. Saying one was sold from a movie is simply untrue. I am not totally against saying a Captain rank pin was sold at an auction but the line was listed in the regular text of the article (when it should have been in the background section) and begs the question "which Captain pin....worn by whom?". The person who made the initial edit didnt show up challenging the revert so I see no reason why you should. And please dont use anti-vandal tool against my edits. But, in fairness, maybe you didnt do that on purpose, I'm not sure how the "revert edit 123456" works only that it is mostly used as an anti-vandalism tool. Lets take it to the talk page of the article if you have further issues. I'm not just some a-hole making bogus edits to Memory Alpha on a Saturday night. I'm a major contributor and have worked quite a bit on that Starfleet ranks article. No edit wars here, please. -FC 03:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly did do it on purpose. "Undo" is not an anti-vandal tool, not any more than radar is an anti-speeding tool. That is to say, its use is far from limited to reverting acts of vandalism. Nobody's treating you like "some a-hole". One reversion is not grounds for pleading for armistice, so your own reversion, not mine, was the start of hostilities. Congratulations for not starting a Talk: but repeating the same contribution instead. --TribbleFurSuit 06:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention in all seriousness, thank you for the explanation of the revert tool. I thought it was an anti-vandal tool but I guess its just a feature for any revert action on the site. I have never used it myself. -FC 19:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- If I sound huffy, it's because you have baited me into breaking my promise to you:
- "any comment I ever make from now on in such a discussion will be addressed to the community and will concern the matter under discussion, and will most carefully not be directed at, nor concerning as a subject, you, personally, at all"
- and you have ignored my request to you:
- "I'll appreciate it if you take the same attitude. If I don't agree with some future idea, opinion, position or action of yours, deal with the argument, don't freak out at the arguer."
- Well, look, as long as we're talking, I always wondered about your
- "much larger issue which I am handlng off of Memory Alpha"
- How did this   turn out, anyway? I have no idea what it was about, but I do hope you were able to find some relief. I thought you were going to come to my house or something :-). Happy Thanksgiving! --TribbleFurSuit 07:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I restored the material and simply added a line that Fletcher's notes from STII state that this pin is actually Able Creman, not Able Seaman (which they do). I think the website linked as a source simply misquoted the proper name of the pin. As far as stuff that happened on this site in July...well, between now and then I've participated in two military deployments with the reserves, had a major project at my normal job, looked into buying a house, and almost had my tonsils taken out. :-) I honestly didnt think that much about what was said on this website eight months ago. The current revision should meet with everyone's approval I think. If it doesnt, we can talk more on the article talk page. -FC 14:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- From Talk:Starfleet ranks - "there are no hard feelings from last summer" - yes, FleetCaptain, there damn well are. You accused me of stalking and bullying then, and you're pretty much doing it again now. Look, my point isn't that I expect you to remember my wordforword from four (not eight!) months ago, my point is just this: You demonstrate a thin-skinnedness and a quickness to assume bad faith which makes you frankly antisocial toward me. It's a pattern that hasn't gotten any better with time. I forgive, but I don't forget. I'm done with this, and let's go back to the status quo I already asked you for, which was "any comment I ever make from now on in such a discussion will be addressed to the community and will concern the matter under discussion, and will most carefully not be directed at, nor concerning as a subject, you, personally, at all. I'll appreciate it if you take the same attitude. If I don't agree with some future idea, opinion, position or action of yours, deal with the argument, don't freak out at the arguer." If you MUST bitch at me, do it in mainspace talk where you can show everybody your behavior, don't hide it in my usertalk. --TribbleFurSuit 17:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
That probably wasnt the best thing to post publically that you are holding grudges on the internet from four months ago. Its also slightly scary that you went back through four months of edit histories to find a totally unrelated comment that has nothing to do with the current article we are talking about. This website is not that serious. I would recommend moving on. I most certainly have and actually had forgotten who you were when I was posted to that article. Move on and remember we're all on the same side here. Out. -FC 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a grudge, it's a continuing reaction to continuing asinine behavior. --TribbleFurSuit 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Calling all hands
Hey, as said above, I dont hold grudges on this site and with that said, I would really like to invite your input on what to do about the Able Seaman situation. Fletcher's notes DO list the rank by that title which contradicts several other Star Trek productions which call that pin simply as Crewman. Please chime in over at Talk:Starfleet ranks. Thanks. -FC 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Saw your question about that. Airmen is a term for an E-3 with training in an aviation field of the Navy. Airmen in the Navy are typically attached to squadrons of planes where they work as maintenance personnel and Airmen are also assigned to helo landing ships and aircraft carriers. They do pretty much the same kind of work as an Airman in the USAF which is probably why they have the same name. The other titles for the E-3 are Seaman (the most common one people know), Constructionman (SeaBees), Fireman (Engineering personnel), and Hospitalman (Medical). One thing the Navy does which makes absolutely no sense is start all sailors with no insignia and then upon promotion wear 2 stripes. There is no 1 stripe rank (used to be though)...you just kind of begin with 2 stripes. Makes no sense to me and I've been in the outfit 13 years. -FC 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Now let me get this straight, Captain -- you are looking at an institution (the military) which combines some three thousand years of tradition and machismo, on the one hand, with direction by a political bureaucracy, on the other, and you still expect it to somehow make logical sense? Even a teenage Vulcan would be more realistic about humans. It is, after all, Semper fi, not Semper π. – CraigG 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was a rhetorical question, FC. The points were: A) Never mind what they're called, why have air at all in a Navy? It's a Navy! B) Now, the real-life Navy really does something that doesn't make sense to you? Then why choke so hard over Starfleet having an anachronism like a "seaman"? It's fiction. And it never even became canonical at that, so, it's not even real fiction, it's hypothetical fiction. --TribbleFurSuit 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me why you reversed the changes I made to that page? Thanks! Fleurdelista 20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was the one who did that, actually, and I explained in the edit summary. As far as I know, the Cardassian camps were not called "internment camps." Take your example of the camp on Cardassia IV, it was specifically called a "labor camp." --OuroborosCobra talk 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, guess so, you're probably right, there's nothing we can say to her if she don't want to hear it. violated dang, that's awesome though, i LOVE IT :^P i mean, i think thats gonna be my new .sig --TribbleFurSuit 07:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Either stay with the subject matter or personal attacks such as "what are you gonna spontaneously combust over some red color" will be removed.– Distantlycharmed 07:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't me, lady. In fact if Cobra and I remember right, those were your own words... hurts, don't it? --TribbleFurSuit 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- No I mean this whole leaving comments without saying anything related to the subject and dragging this on and on.– Distantlycharmed 08:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
No that is not what you meant, as you said something specifically different, and referenced one of my comments and accused TFS of saying it. As for "dragging this on," you've been dragging it just as much as everyone else. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your behavior is obviously directed at being spiteful. There is no need for you to a) remove my own comment on my page while you recite me policies about NOT doing so and keep re-adding your so called "comments" that do not say anything related to what we were discussing. – Distantlycharmed 08:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Or we'll look at the more likely and actual truthful explanation, that I didn't realize you had added a comment and assumed that you had done the same thing you've been doing for many hours, removing comments rather than archiving them. So I simply did a revert. I have since corrected that. I'm sorry for removing your comment, and unlike you I am willing to apologize and fix the problem. Obvious spite indeed! --OuroborosCobra talk 08:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope I wasn't the one you were going to Flame
. :( — Vince47 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, V47, certainly not. Your admonishment, while not strictly about the article's content, wasn't "chitchat". I guess you had to be there for the private little joke on the very subject though. I got accused by another user of liking to write something in big red letters so I went ahead and actually did it to that person. I'm accused anyway, right? Might as well enjoy it if I'm already on the hook... anyway sorry for making you frowny my man. i just realized clamato is red too. think i'll have some red-eye... or a clammy mary... --TribbleFurSuit 04:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah thanks. You know I do have something of an inferiority complex when it comes to this site, I think I'll just have some clamato. It's delicious. — Vince47 04:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
When creating redirects... list what it is. Don't give us the magic assumption that it is "valid" :) The best way to do this is to simply leave off an edit summary on redirects as the system will generate a magically delicious one on its own. -- sulfur 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- (A) I don't understand what you're saying, but I'm interested. (B) I followed Alan's example. --TribbleFurSuit 02:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
(a) On an RD, just don't put in an edit summary.
(b) Alan's way is not always right, but is peculiar to him, so we roll with it, since it works for him. :) -- sulfur 02:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- You provide an edit summary when creating redirects. The edit summary you write when creating redirects is frequently "valid redirect". So I did it, and this is what I got. I hope these fellows will excuse me for thinking that you of all people did something right. --TribbleFurSuit 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just going to say, first and foremost, that "frequently" is one hell of an exaggeration. Libel, in fact. I just backtracked 20,000 edits (to like last April or May) and found one time that I said "valid redirect" in the edit summary and that was for a valid alternate spelling of a word. --Alan 02:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- My mistake. No scurrilous intention. OK, there's a good explanation for why that stuck in my mind. Turns out it was your highly abbreviated response on a certain Talk: page when I asked you why a particular reference and a particular redirect were created, not having known nor expected that the term was used in an episode. --TribbleFurSuit 02:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)