User talk:Captainmike/archive 2

(User talk:Captainmike/archive)

Part of the warp drive system
I started a list of system parts at Warp drive. This information is not compiled well here and certainly lacks interconnectedness. I thought you might like to help, it seems up your alley based on your user page. Jaf 13:53, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf

"List of..."
I think there might be some value to all of our list of articles shortening their title -- since there is very rarely an article with a plural title, every single "List of" article could have those two words removed and become its root subject, making it easier to conversationally link to ( "numerous military conflicts..." over "numerous military conflicts...," for example ), and also easier to tabulate alphabetically (The Cardassian article would list links to Cardassian ranks, Cardassian history, Cardassian starships, etc -- a standard form for associating subarticles -- the lists will fit fine into the shorter and preferably simpler termed article name), and evolve to correspond or redirect to a list category. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll buy that. Just say 'when' and I'll help with the move. --Gvsualan 20:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to append this to Memory Alpha:Ten Forward for a day or so before we start to make sure no one will overreact if we make this change :p. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the message on User:DataMA (sorry for the delay). I assume, sort order should be "Blahblah, List of" or article "List of Blahblah"? Otherwise, all Lists will be sorted for "L" like "List of". -- Florian -  &#9997;  talk 09:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

For comparisson, I started an example categorize-thread of a few articles, as you can see in Category:Lists and here. If this is o.k. I can go categorize all 260 articles (less redirects). -- Florian -  &#9997;  talk 09:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "List of..." articles are going to be moved after categorization ("List of Andorians" -> "Andorians", for example), so a sort key as suggested isn't really necessary in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 10:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"list format"
You changed a listing I fiddled with at Elizabeth Cutler, removing from alongside the ENT: to a carriage return below it. You referred to conformation to "list format"; but it has been my observation that that listing format with the indention after the series is relatively new and unimplemented elsewhere. I rode the SNW listing next to the series listing to shorten the list and hopefully without exacting any cost to clarity and understanding.

Just wondering if you changed it to conform to a Manual of Style reference (or something akin to it), or because the change made it better (easier to understand, clarity, etc). I'm not being accusatory as it may seem easy to misinterpret this question as (especially impersonally as it is online), I just want understanding and clarity to ensure I don't make any more superfluously unnecessary or incorrect changes. — THOR 03:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just find it preferable to separate that link onto a separate level than the "series" link (ENT) -- it makes it clearer that all the episodes belong to the series they are sub-listed to. Just explained it in the summary field that i was adjusting the list format -- the Manual of Style doesn't recommend anything for this, but i started formatting lists like that to solve a problem we had a lengthy discussion about a year ago -- whether to continuously link ENT over and over again in a list, which we decided in a discussion to continue, but then you started removing the style, correctly because styles conflict with each other, since arent supposed to link anything repeatedly -- i decided it would prevent repetition by only listing the series name once.


 * I just wrote that summary field note to say i was setting it to my personal preference for how a list like that should look -- it's fine that you felt it as an invitation to discuss it with me. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article Tense

 * I've been looking through are various policies but cannot seem to find any established rules on article tense (past, present, future). The examples I've seen used in the guidelines show both past and present, and I've noticed most articles around here are in past tense - as are the ones I typically write. I noticed that User:Mark 2000 had a concern about this, and I thought I would ask you about the scenario. --Gvsualan 07:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe a general consensus for past-tense was reached in discussion -- however, policy pages are slow to follow discussion sometime, so I'm not sure where this ended up getting added. If you and I discuss this with a few other administrators and archivists, I'm sure we can find a way to disseminate this style policy. I think Ten Forward might be the best place to do this. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images?
Why were new versions of my images  and  uploaded? They seemed fine to me... -- Dmsdbo 15:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * A lot of users have been asking for a general initiative to fix images that are so dark they can hardly be seen.


 * I had trouble making out what the pictures were supposed to show on a couple monitors, so I brightened them up a little. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Weird! They looked perfect on my laptop -- straight off the DVD. The quality hopefully didn't drop -- that's why I changed the Operation Return pic. -- Dmsdbo 15:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Check out Special:Newimages for a gallery of how different pictures line up in reference to contrast and brightness -- you'll see the problematic ones standing out. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As of yet, your new uploads have not appeared, and my versions still look perfectly fine. Hmm...I guess I'll have to wait until later. -- Dmsdbo 15:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Try hitting f5 or CTRL f5 -- you're often looking at an old cached page when you load images. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked. The Admiral Coburn is definately an improvement. Alas, I can't say I love the new Operation Returm, but it's the way to go in interests of visibility. -- Dmsdbo 15:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to get a higher resolution cap, peraps we could increase the visibility without washing it out so much -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How so? -- Dmsdbo 15:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Voyager VI Image
Hi, thanks for trying to load the Voyager VI image to replace the Voyager 2 image that is already there. The image may have not been loaded properly though, since the original Voyager 2 image (slightly distorted) is still there. May you check it out? Thanks again! --Egan Loo 05:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The image uploaded fine -- you just have the old image in your cache. Try reloading. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 06:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet ranks
I'm sorry. I was in a bad mood following the end of Enterprise. I'm a wikipedia editor, and as such, I knew better than to do that. It won't happen again. T'Play(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Related Changes Page Problem
Captain Mike, having interacted with you once or twice before (I think), and seeing that we should contact administrators about possible bugs, I wanted to mention that I've noticed errors lately (for the past several weeks, actually) when you click on the "Related changes" link on the left of the pages... the page comes up, but there's the black text across the background listing a bunch of errors or warnings (I can't make them out very well due to the black on dark background issue, plus the fact that the rest of the page overlays them).

Sorry if you're the wrong person to report this to, but hopefully you can pass it on to whoever needs to get it.

Thanks --umrguy42 18:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverting pages
Hi, sorry to waste your time but can only administrators revert pages or can anyone do it? Excelsior 20:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure -- i think it is an administrator function, however. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk


 * Hi. Anyone can revert pages by using the history function to edit and save an older version of an article. It's easier for admins, though. If you want to revert an article, please state in the edit summary that you are reverting and why. -- Cid Highwind 23:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mallory Artlicle
Hey there. Sorry about citing the wrong episode for Mallory (Senior); I think I got Lieutenant Mallory confused with Ensign Garrovick, since both of their fathers were friends of Kirk. (Of course, Garrovick doesn't die, but...yeah). Anyways, sorry again, and thanks for catching and correcting that. :) --Shran 13:11, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Krypton
I was meaning to put them back tonight, actually. I edited the pages hastily, thinking this was yet another attempt to add Superman related info to MA. Alex Peckover 18:52, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

MACO rank insignia licences
Hi, a new user in MA/en has just uploaded your rank insignias to our database. I hope you don't mind. I now noticed that you don't have a copyright notice left on those images created by you. Is there any licence you have in mind, now I have just added a simple credit line to the images, but a licence template would be more appropriate I assume. -- Kobi - (   ) 16:35, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Any artwork i personally rendered and uploaded here (this covers all the rank insignia i did here) is free for reuse on wikis, or other websites, as long as attribution for the illustration is credited to http://captainmike.org -- feel free to add that on anything that's from my site. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:21, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

re:Surplus depot
Don't ask me, I was the one who created all those uppercase "Sector" articles two years ago... Seriously, we've got the Naming conventions policy stating that lowercase is preferred for second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun, and if my understanding of "proper noun" is correct, Surplus D/depot Z15 is not more or less a proper noun than, for example Sol sector. -- Cid Highwind 23:47, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Gratuitous Reverts
Mike, I'm just following the examples set by the distinguished members of this community that revert without reason or justification. If there are rules, shouldn't the "elites" be following them as well? -- User:WehrWolf 12:00, 9 Aug 2005

re:Image description
Sorry about that one, Mike. I was rushing out the door and didn't have time! I would have put an image description with File:Patricia F OMalley upon my return, though, but you've already done it, so...

And don't worry, I usually try to remember to add image descriptions. This was just one of the more unusual circumstances. --Defiant | Talk 08:43, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

"conformation"
I'm bringing this up per your edit comment of "(plz dont remove relevant links because they don't fit your idea of "conformation" with some format i'm not familiar with)" on File:Davies.jpg.

When I caught notice of that change and note on the recent changes page (I hadn't watched the image), I went through my recent contributions and found several other changes which I had recently made had been reverted as well. Examples include and.

I poked around the recent changes page and found you had posted the following on the Image Use Policy discussion page:


 * Wouldn't it make sense to link to the name of the actor pictured in the image. I did this for some images, such as File:Davies.jpg, but some archivists have a habit of removing useful links from the image descriptions.


 * Is there some way we could convince archivists to stop doing this, or is it wrong to credit actors for the reproduction of their image?

As this specifically refers to me, I'll respond to the indirect jab made. I removed the actoral link from the image page from a lack of precedence. I didn't note who had made the upload, nor who had included the information included and therefore didn't assume it to be somebody who knew what they were doing. I have no paticular disinclination for including the reference (although I might move it, as Cid Highwind suggested), I just thought it to be a mistake.

As for "[...] my idea of 'conformation' with some format [you're] not familiar with", my edit summary of "+ episode reference conformation" refers to changing the episode citation from whatever it may have been to begin with ( TNG: "Pen Pals") ,  Screen capture, VOY: "Repentance". , and  Screen capture, ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II".  respectively) to the episode citation policy at Memory Alpha:Cite your sources. While that policy does not explicitly refer to episode citations on Image Description pages, no other policy does'', and as such that is how I interpreted and further implemented it.

I take great pains not to step on toes, ittitate people, make baseless edits and/or reverts, or get into arguments with other archivists here on MA. Please don't take this as an affront, simply my trying to make myself and my actions understood and not misinterpreted. Thank you. — THOR 19:18, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy i'm concerned with is removing material from articles without leaving a record on a talk page or adequately explaining it -- I don't think that making the article "conform" by removing a link, and not noting why the link was removed in some talk pages, is right in any case, image or not.


 * Basically, if you're looking to make sure every article fits a rigid pattern or structure, and removing all other original additions, you're severely hampering that article's ability to grow. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:29, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Question regaring non-canon
Hello Sir - you left me a comment tonight regarding the use of non-canon reference material in the Elim Garek article - one question I have is: I can certainly understand the policy of not wanting to fuss up Memory Alpha with unofficial information, however is there any leeway in Trek Novels written by the actors/actresses themselves? As in the Elim Garek article previously mentioned, the source of my edit was Andrew Robinson himself. It would seem that the actor would have quite a bit of firsthand, possibly un-aired background information regarding his character. Obviously, the actor/writer could be pulling things out of thin air, but I would imagine their "canon" would carry at least some weight....

Anywho, since I'm new to this wiki, thought I'd ask for clarification.

Thanks.

AKGhetto 07:22, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Again,
 * and policies
 * Canon notes. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Request& TATV question
Greetings, Captain! :) I notice from your user page that you know something about some of the technological aspects of Trek, notably in regards to plasma. I was wondering: when you get the time, could you please start the article for plasma relay? I would do it, but I would have no idea what I would be talking about. :P Also, have you seen  and, if you have, could you tell me whether or not the two plugs which Trip connects to blow himself up are plasma relays, or were they something else? I know they had something to do with plasma, since Phlox said that it was this matter that ignited and thermalized Trip's lungs. Anyways, thanks in advance! :) ''See you... out there!'' --From Andoria with Love 02:21, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

A few questions
I've been away for a week, and I came back to the whole "What you can and can't have on your userpage" argument. I've read the discussion about it, but has anything actually been decided yet, or is it still being discussed? Can you have a look at my userpage and see if what I've done is within the policy for how userpages should be used? I've been compiling a list of actors who've played more than two characters, and I hope one day to integrate this into MA somehow, perhaps by creating categories. For the time being, I've just left them on my userpage, for safe keeping. Thanks for your time. Zsingaya 16:42, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Memory Alpha talk:Your user page is where its being discussed -- and i set up the framework their by putting some policy reminders there, but Cid Highwind has added new commentary and is awaiting discussion points. I'm waiting to see what the community thinks too -- this is a community decision, so i'm not really sure there's any policy you might be breaking yet -- i don't think we're really going to bve strict about it, just trying to cut down on the number of extraneous discussions generated by the really "out there" user pages, that don't seem to have basis in anything we're trying to do here -- i don't see much on mine needing changing, i just use it to link to articles i've worked on, articles i want to check on, and article names i'm not sure should be created. The Memory Alpha:Your user page policy is linked to from the Memory Alpha:Policies and guidelines, also from Category:Memory Alpha policies and guidelines, and updates are being listed on "Memory Alpha:Policy changes" to read for yourself -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:36, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, the issue of non-canon has re-emerged from the icy depths of the community, once again. I think its about time we put a lid on this whole issue.  From what I've understood, article content should only contain information that has come directly from televised episodes.  Therefore, shouldn't the book articles be deleted completely?  If we're going to enforce the canon rule, it shouldn't be waived whenever we feel it would be good.  In my opinion, we should concentrate on canon Trek, and nothing else.  What do you think?  Zsingaya  16:47, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused what book articles you mean to recommed deleting -- current precedent is that if someone added non-canon data that is from invalid resources, but is approved by Paramount Pictures, then we move the information to whatever approved topic it should be listed under -- collectibles, novels, reference works or games. But any "book" information not derived from something used onscreen should be removed immediately from any article or episode page, and placed instead in one of the above lists i just linked to.


 * When did it become an "issue" again exactly ?? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk


 * People are always talking about what's canon or not, I just wanted your opinion. I know that the Encyclopedia doesn't count as a canon source, but what about the novels and other fiction books that have been published?  In the "on-screen" Star Trek time-line, there's no reference to Kirk coming back as a Borg, or whatever events that happen in various William Shatner novels, for example.  I guess what I'm questioning in the validity of any of the articles about subjects other than based on actual on-screen evidence.  If they're to stay, whats to say that articles about the various fan-fiction sites should be cast aside?  Zsingaya  20:31, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * The pages about novels were here long before i joined, and i think they are a vital part of the site. At no point should any information from a novel ever be added to the body of the article James Kirk (except for a link to a novel) -- but theres always a place for the non-canon info at The Return. I think it is very clear cut and well enforced, so there's no reason to change.
 * We deleted a fan fiction movie article. Nothing that was made illegally, or without Paramounts approval, is going to be put on memory alpha. This is clear cut and well enforced, so i dont see any reason to change.

User pages
They are listed on the most wanted pages page. -- unsigned


 * There have been several relevant policy pages that we have been trying to get you to read.


 * Click. Read. Learn. Memory Alpha:Your user page. Memory Alpha:Introduction. Memory Alpha:Policies and guidelines. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:55, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Bad start
i want to apologize for the bad start, you were right of course, it's just the part about banning made it seem like i was a vandal. from change history you have reason to suspect this. hopefully no hard feeling. Makon 02:53, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

:File:Pulse Rifle 1com.jpg
I thought it could perhaps add to the web, to give the main source where an image came from, then users could go to that site, and look at the information given there. On another point, this image File:Pulse Rifle 1com.jpg is probably a copyvio, from phasers.net. zsingaya 09:45, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Your pic
I just had to say I think it looks really cool. From Andoria with Love 07:17, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Episode article edits (canon policy???)
Do you have any idea what's going on with these articles? It says you're the last person to edit them, but it comes up with an unregistered user on the recent changes. Are you doing something admin ish, or what? Zsingaya Talk 07:58, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * i have no idea which articles you mean? or what is happening with them. if the history says an unregistered user edited them last, that means an unregistered user edited them last. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Hey, no big, it was a whole great pile of misunderstanding on my part! The vandal earlier this morning got me mentally confused, perhaps it was too early in the morning! Zsingaya Talk 16:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

User pic
I just wanted you to know that, for the record, I think your user image is cool, too. :) --From Andoria with Love - for real, this time 19:38, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re: User pic
I'm in a bit of a rush, so all I can say is thank, I agree with you, and you're welcome, lol! ;) --From Andoria with Love 23:32, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I was gonna say something about the pic, but looks like someone beat me to the punch on that one. It's hilarious how you got all those "wrong uniform" pics in one spot, too... Really makes you look twice and go WTF? -- Ben Sisqo 01:07, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you just don't feel like showing up for a landing party wearing a redshirt -- i guess that one of the things about the command division, operations division and sciences division is that you can pick which shirt you want to waer if you are certified in more than one (for the record, Hikaru Sulu is the only guy to wear red, yellow and blue -- but the redshirt version was Hikaru Sulu (mirror). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:31, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)