User talk:Captainmike/archive 3

<< User talk:Captainmike/archive

signiatures
Then how do i get a custom one like you? Ben Sisqo 22:50, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Special:Preferences -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:17, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * Thanks. --Your friendly neighbourhood Emissary 22:55, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Balok image
I wasn't aware that a concensus had been reached on the two images of Balok. I said that File:Balok.jpg was not as good as File:Balok actual.jpg on Images for deletion. So, apparently, you deleted the first one, but you really just overwrote the second one with it. Last time I checked, you were supposed to discuss things before you do that. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:31, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you reasoned that Balok.jpg was to be deleted for the reason of its coloration and that it was the one with no links to it. I fixed the color, and replaced the other (which was the one i intended to delete, as i didn't like the expression on his face). The image i uploaded was a different version of the original shot, but not the same picture. I used a different start image and corrected the color to a point superior to the original two.


 * The reason I didn't wait the full Ifd time period is that the original uploader left permission to delete it -- i just noticed that the one we were keeping was substandard, so i replaced it. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:45, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

POV input
(I'm sending the same text to all the admins that are currently active, so I apologize for cut and paste):

I've been having a conversation with a new user on (my talk page regarding how to write an article on M/A in the proper point of view, that is from within the Trek universe (in the case of objects, people, places, ships, etc) rather than from the outside looking in.

My understanding of this website, from day one, has been that it is the internet version of the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and have never had any difficulty understanding it any other way. This user thinks otherwise. I'm to the point in the conversation, and I'm surprised no other admins have thrown their hats into the ring yet, that I would like to ask for a little assistance, as I believe we shouldn't have to have any "policy" (per se) on such a straight forward and frankly "common sense" issue, either by starting a separate talk page or to Ten Forward. Whichever the case, and no matter how many articles we have written in the point of view which I am defending (that being roughly 10000) this user does not seem to understand, and we do not seem to have any page (aside from a subpage Cid had in his archive that I found) that I could use as an example (btw, the user in question more or less snubbed off Cids page anyway). So please, anyone else willing to assist would be much appreciated. I can't seem to better defend a point, a method and a style that is so "ingrained" into my brain/our brains as "normal" any other way than I have, as being right, without getting out a big stick -- and thus far this user has been an exception, as I have had experiences with countless other newbies and they seems to catch on to our style, well except one other, rather quickly.

Anyway, I should also note, that I am aware of this users attitude and previous conflicts with adminstrators from other message boards (from my old Starship Modding days) and am somewhat in a position of a conflict of interest -- because frankly I believe this individual would rather go out in a blaze of glory than work our well established conformity.

If you need an example of the work in question, just compare the perspectives of the original contributions of the user to the draft rewrites I made in the respective histories. Thanks so much! --Alan del Beccio 18:50, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

duplicate subjects
I was filling out the requested subjects with active links, not really creating from scratch. However, yes, I noticed some of the misspelling but wasn't sure how to correct it..besides starting over with a new page. I was going to get back to what wasn't already covered.--Mike Nobody 13:19, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Oops!
I think I messed up somebody's link. Someone had uploaded a pic of Vorok, leaving an unfilled subject. But, they added their text to the page where the pic was originally uploaded to, making finding it a little hard. So, I copied their text and was gonna put it on the page where the link went, to the subject. To make a long story short, I can't find the pic now.--Mike Nobody 13:40, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Element/temp
I created a possible replacement for the Element page, and since you were the person behind the first page, I was wondering if I could get your input. Just post any comments or suggestions on Talk:Elements or my talk page, whichever you prefer.

Wt problem
I just found it amusing when all the "atomic weights" matched up with what should have been atomic numbers. I just supposed that when Mike Okuda (or Al Smutko, or whoever) created the chart they cut up an old periodic table and used the ATM WT part instead of the ATM NUM part. The whole weight thing was pretty much the reason why I spent 7+ hours and 2 days writing these pages (plus odd misspellings, and acceptance of okudagrams), but I gave a possible solution on Talk:Element.--Tim Thomason 22:53, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nerroth contribs
I assume you realize that this entire collection is a copyvio from wikipedia? --Alan del Beccio 20:17, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * After I had unfortunately merged a few I realized it -- so I'm going to use "Star Fleet Universe/temp" as the place where information of this nature should go -- is it generally understood that further additions shouldn't be plagiarized? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:22, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Roleplaying Game
I see you are about working on RPG So I just want to say that it is written without "-" (Role-Playing) or space (Role Playing) in LUG and Decipher books => "Roleplaying". But in Fasa, it is written with a space => "Role Playing Game" Philoust123 14:12, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've found that LUG spells it both "Roleplaying" and "Role Playing" at different points in their releases


 * FASA sometimes uses the hyphen, sometimes they do not -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:17, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Re: The "Conspiracy" Chart
I'm sorry about all the trouble I caused with the "Conspiracy" chart. I get on a "kick" sometimes and I do foolish things (that time I tried to "fix" all of the disambigs, for example). I'm going to try to fix some of the info, but I do think it is relevent to include in background, as I believe that the chart's original intention was to show Federation territory. Thanks for stopping me before I got to Kling though.--Tim Thomason 14:50, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem -- i believe that you are on the right track, but i don't think the interpretations are being stated right -- we could definitely note which planets are near each other, but membership and sector location are more vague on the chart than a "one sector=one block interpretation" -- this would leave the sol sector with many more stars than we know it should have for one, not to mention the various enemy powers that probably are surrounded on many sides by federationers -- just as being in US waters doesnt make Puerto Rico (or Cuba for that matter) a state -- one is a allied protectorate and the other is a blockaded enemy power -- so the lines on the map arent as telling as we'd like. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:54, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

blocking anons
Hey, Mike. I'm new at this admin stuff, so I was wondering, when you're blocking an anon, how do you extend the range of the block to cover changes in the IP address? For example, say a vandal came in and his IP address ranged from 152.163.100.12 to 152.163.100.73. How can I block the entire "152.163.100" range? --From Andoria with Love 00:16, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Weeell, there doesn't (to my knowledge) seem to be any way to block more than one IP address with a single action, making rotators frustrating, you go one-by-one. Ive always tryed to imagine if there's a wiki feature that would allow you to block "170" or "172" at a time -- or possibly have a toggle that makes the page read-only to AOL (or another provider) users at an admin request, but I've no idea if its possible. wishful thinking.

not sure if some other admins might know, possibly the Memory Alpha:Bureaucrats? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
 * Range Blocks are listed under Memory Alpha:Bans and blocks. To block all ranges in the 152.163.100.0 range you would have to block 152.163.100.0/24.--Tim Thomason 00:32, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Sweet.. its been awhile since i've had to stay up late at night banning people. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
 * Alrighty! Thank you both! :) --From Andoria with Love 01:11, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever Captainmike has done is blocking my contributions as well. How can I get around this? Is there a way for one of you to lift the ban?--Mike Nobody 23:56, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * how did you post this if you were blocked? i only blocked individual IPs last night, not ranges. do you have the same IP as the vandal? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:54, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

getting an account
thanks for the message. dident think anyone noticed these things. I'll sign up with my wikipedia name pellaken shortly. 69.199.55.143 19:33, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Cho?
Is there a joke I'm not getting with this vandal guy, or is that just random stupidity? He's done the "Cho" thing a few times and I still don't understand it... --Broik 00:25, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * General Cho's Chicken is a Chinese dish served at fast-food places. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:52, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Content deletion on user talk pages
Hi Mike, could you please chime in here: User talk:Gvsualan? I don't think that users should be allowed to blank/delete their user talk pages in all cases, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 13:30, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Program Sisko 197
Wouldn't the note the anon added be correct? Makes sense since DS9 ended in 1999 and that was the 5th (second to last) season, and that's the kind of stuff the writers are always adding into eps. --Vedek Dukat Talk 22:38, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't cited however -- how do we know that that is why the writers added it? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:39, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * How often is information outside the Trek universe really cited? I think I've seen two total, and they were both on . :P If one of us had added that note, no one would have questioned it. --Vedek Dukat Talk 22:42, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but i also tend to question incongruous stements made by vandals -- if you think this is a valid reference, then place it in the article -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Merge info
Thanks for creating the new merge policy page. That's exactly what I need to know. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:04, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Dude
Where's my car? NerdierThanThou 23:44, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode Lists and Torrents
Hi, Mike...

I'd like your opinion on adding a torrent link on every and each Episode Lists for all the series.

I'm not sure about the implications of this, and thus, I'm asking your input.

Regards,

--MstrControl 18:52, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Jae
Thanks for your follow through and work with Jae. :) --Alan del Beccio 01:15, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

blocking
Say, you wouldn't know how to permanately block a usernamem would ya? :D The bans and blocks page doesn't exactly make it clear. --From Andoria with Love 07:22, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Re: Copyright discussion (Lawrence M. Krauss)
I'd like to ask the reversion of that page because the text is a Press Release and is not a copyright violation. Whoever put the page under such made a mistake. --MstrControl 18:13, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view -- but whoever submitted the page as a copyright violation (it wasn't me!) thinks you should rewrite it -- personally, i believe the infomation could stand to be heavily edited -- one reason we don't want to duplicate other people's websites is because it is causing this article to have a lot of extraneous information -- why copy over his site word for word if we could just link to it -- after all, most of this information has nothing to do with Star Trek.. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
 * I see your point. It's just that it took me by surprise, that's all. I did rewrite ths bio on Lawrence M. Krauss/temp, though. I hope it's ok now. --MstrControl 18:33, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

ST# redirects
Please don't create any more redirects to overly abbreviated or too-severely shortened terms like "STVI" or "STV" -- we already have very useful redirects like "Star Trek III" and "Star Trek V" -- which you made the other redirects say, anyway.

A redirect is only useful if someone can tell what it says by looking at it -- i left more reasons why these can't stay when i nominated them on -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Re:ST# redirects
Aye, aye, Skipper.

Thanks for the heads up.

MstrControl talk 03:32, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hidden vandalism?
Hey, Mike. I was looking at the recent changes page, and noticed that a few pages were reverted due to vandalism -- yet the vandalism itself didn't appear on the recent changes. How is this possible? --From Andoria with Love 02:59, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure -- i noticed this as well. Is the person doing it through a hidden username, like a bot? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
 * Just checked -- i clicked "show bots" and sure enough, all of the IP 82... vandal edits were masked because Special:Recentchanges thinks that that user is a Bot.


 * I think a bureaucrat needs to fix something about the Bot allowances, i don't know how any of that works though. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk


 * Ahh, I see it now. Well, I guess we're gonna hafta keep bots shown from now on. It would be nice if someone did fix it... unfortunately, I don't know how that stuff works, either. :/ Anyways, thanks for checking it out. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:04, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ticonderoga
Hey, Mike. You wrote on my talk page:

"fan fiction and fan films are topics that many feel don't belong on MA, so I'm just trying to keep them as businesslike as possible."
 * Granted, but I was referencing behind-the-scenes info, not fanfilm content.

"Data on what fan films Cawley appears in and who he plays is best referenced at fan films; only the data dealing with Ticonderoga directly seems fitting in that article."
 * By this logic, we shouldn't define what peripheral details come from any non-canon source, such as the Okudas' CHRONOLOGY or ENCYCLOPEDIA, but rather "One non-canon reference states xyz". I noted who he was because one might wonder why he was worthy of tribute.  Playing Kirk in The major fanfilm seemed very revealing.

"Citing news and magazines is a new field for Memory Alpha"
 * The problem with citing online sources, especially with news articles, is that they are transient by nature and subject to become broken links. My thinking was that eventually the reference link would become defunct, an editor would come along and delete the source attribution, and another editor would come along and delete the data as unverifiable.  Citing the main WIRED page may be a band-aid, but it is devoid of any substantial referential content and reads like an ad for the magazine.--StAkAr Karnak 21:14, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If this was in a printed version of the magazine, I would say that would be the more relevant citation (non-transient). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:40, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed.--StAkAr Karnak 12:27, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wikifying
Cpt. Mike, I do not agree with your assessment of when text should be a link or not. It seems to me that the point of a Wiki is that every instance of a given word or phrase should link to its relevant information. I've looked through the guides of style and content, and while they say one should not highlight text repeatedly beyond the first reference, I don't find where it says that all text cannot be Wiki-fied. If I have missed a policy page, I would appreciate you informing me of it's location. IMO, an article's text should be nearly all blue -- where relevant -- and turn darker blue in segments, as articles and their dependants are researched. I appreciate your guidance and diligence in maintaining MA, but I would hope you find my time and energy spent on this site to be a benefit for everyone.
 * -- HobbesPDX - 2235 PST, 2005.12.10
 * Actually, a community consensus has led to this wiki community adopting a policy of linking the term the first time it appears in an article, or in list articles, the first time it appears in a top level subsection of the article. If you would like the community to adopt a new consensus, it would have to be discussed by several active archivists at Memory Alpha talk:Manual of Style.


 * I was merely enforcing the style as stated in when i removed multiple linkings in articles you worked on. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Block
Please block 82.43.208.176 permanently. I think I know the vandal is. Thanks.

page move
Done. Ex-trekphiler gul garak 16:11, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Could you step in?
Mike, I'm sure you're watching Recent Changes. I could do with another admin voice coming through on the episode summary issue with User:Tholian2000 - I'm going to have to step back in a moment or two, as this is just getting silly. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:03, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The Last Christian
I am sorry about what I did, I truly am, Though if you want my motives here they are: I felt no matter what I did, people didn't like it at all, so I eliminated What I wrote, NOTHING else! Again, I say I am sorry, for inconveniancing the database and putting the administrators in an awkward position.
 * Its perfectly alright to not know the rules, that's why i tried my best to tell you, by linking to the pages -- and trying to clean up the articles in question according to the rules of deletion. When you started changing articles that i had no record of you working on, it became unclear whether you were changing your own or someone else's edits.


 * Its not that people didn't like anything your wrote, its just that you chose a topic which isn't covered by our mandate: writing about "real-life" science topics that hadn't been mentioned in Star Trek. In some cases, the producers use "imaginary" technology to explain their less realistic story ideas, so writing about something they didnt intend to be part of the Star Trek story might be distracting.


 * There are probably more than a few places where topics related to string theory could be linked to or explained, in a background sections.


 * The Archivists weren't trying to wholly reject your contributions, we were having a discussion regarding clarifying the information you were presenting, by . Citing a reference in an essay or report is a matter of course in a school paper or publication writing, we hold our writers to the same standard here -- we can't create an article on string theory if it wasn't mentioned on Star Trek, but we could add an explanation of String Theory to the novels that deal with it -- "Cohesion", "Fusion (novel)", and "Evolution (novel)" -- I was trying to leave comments to that effect, not to express that I "didn't like" anything. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

The Last Christian
Thank you for your response, I will try to improve the String Theory (Physics), by adding links and putting it in proper format, thank you.
 * I suggest you place the information in the physics article itself, rather than recreating [String Theory], or the series on novels where string theory is explained: Star Trek: Voyager - String Theory. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

The Last Christian
How do I merge articles (for String Theory)?

68.58.8.252
Hey, just thought I'd point out 68.58.8.252 to you. It is creating talk pages with advertising. It is obviously a vandal-bot. It would be great if you could block it and delete Talk:Handball and Talk:Alexana, given that you're the only admin I see on right now. Thanks. -Platypus Man | Talk 21:36, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The Last Christian
Will the article subatomic physics be deleted? If not, can we delete the "This article is a canidate for Deletion Page"? Thanks again, The Last Christian 21:45, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)]]
 * According to our policy, if an article is nominated for deletion, it must be tagged with the message for at least five days -- even if everyone votes to keep it. At the end of the five days, the message can be removed. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:44, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Copyright disclaimer for images you created
Hi Mike. I used a bot to tag pages without a proper copyright disclaimer with a pna-message, and this includes several of the files you created (especially insignia). These pages will slowly appear here in the next 1-2 hours. Can you see what disclaimer you want to use for them? If you want, I could help with actually editing the pages... For info, I created a template image pd for images I created, but perhaps image ccl or even is what you have in mind? -- Cid Highwind 21:36, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll go through to find images I edited that are public domain, all the others I'd prefer tagged as follows: "".


 * Thanks for checking on that for me -- let me know if there are any you aren't sure about. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

OK, thanks. I'll give you some time to find the public domain ones and will then tag the others as copyrighted as I control them. Might take some time, though... -- Cid Highwind 21:57, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

<< User talk:Captainmike/archive

signiatures
Then how do i get a custom one like you? Ben Sisqo 22:50, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Special:Preferences -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:17, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * Thanks. --Your friendly neighbourhood Emissary 22:55, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Balok image
I wasn't aware that a concensus had been reached on the two images of Balok. I said that File:Balok.jpg was not as good as File:Balok actual.jpg on Images for deletion. So, apparently, you deleted the first one, but you really just overwrote the second one with it. Last time I checked, you were supposed to discuss things before you do that. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:31, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you reasoned that Balok.jpg was to be deleted for the reason of its coloration and that it was the one with no links to it. I fixed the color, and replaced the other (which was the one i intended to delete, as i didn't like the expression on his face). The image i uploaded was a different version of the original shot, but not the same picture. I used a different start image and corrected the color to a point superior to the original two.


 * The reason I didn't wait the full Ifd time period is that the original uploader left permission to delete it -- i just noticed that the one we were keeping was substandard, so i replaced it. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:45, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

POV input
(I'm sending the same text to all the admins that are currently active, so I apologize for cut and paste):

I've been having a conversation with a new user on (my talk page regarding how to write an article on M/A in the proper point of view, that is from within the Trek universe (in the case of objects, people, places, ships, etc) rather than from the outside looking in.

My understanding of this website, from day one, has been that it is the internet version of the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and have never had any difficulty understanding it any other way. This user thinks otherwise. I'm to the point in the conversation, and I'm surprised no other admins have thrown their hats into the ring yet, that I would like to ask for a little assistance, as I believe we shouldn't have to have any "policy" (per se) on such a straight forward and frankly "common sense" issue, either by starting a separate talk page or to Ten Forward. Whichever the case, and no matter how many articles we have written in the point of view which I am defending (that being roughly 10000) this user does not seem to understand, and we do not seem to have any page (aside from a subpage Cid had in his archive that I found) that I could use as an example (btw, the user in question more or less snubbed off Cids page anyway). So please, anyone else willing to assist would be much appreciated. I can't seem to better defend a point, a method and a style that is so "ingrained" into my brain/our brains as "normal" any other way than I have, as being right, without getting out a big stick -- and thus far this user has been an exception, as I have had experiences with countless other newbies and they seems to catch on to our style, well except one other, rather quickly.

Anyway, I should also note, that I am aware of this users attitude and previous conflicts with adminstrators from other message boards (from my old Starship Modding days) and am somewhat in a position of a conflict of interest -- because frankly I believe this individual would rather go out in a blaze of glory than work our well established conformity.

If you need an example of the work in question, just compare the perspectives of the original contributions of the user to the draft rewrites I made in the respective histories. Thanks so much! --Alan del Beccio 18:50, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

duplicate subjects
I was filling out the requested subjects with active links, not really creating from scratch. However, yes, I noticed some of the misspelling but wasn't sure how to correct it..besides starting over with a new page. I was going to get back to what wasn't already covered.--Mike Nobody 13:19, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Oops!
I think I messed up somebody's link. Someone had uploaded a pic of Vorok, leaving an unfilled subject. But, they added their text to the page where the pic was originally uploaded to, making finding it a little hard. So, I copied their text and was gonna put it on the page where the link went, to the subject. To make a long story short, I can't find the pic now.--Mike Nobody 13:40, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Element/temp
I created a possible replacement for the Element page, and since you were the person behind the first page, I was wondering if I could get your input. Just post any comments or suggestions on Talk:Elements or my talk page, whichever you prefer.

Wt problem
I just found it amusing when all the "atomic weights" matched up with what should have been atomic numbers. I just supposed that when Mike Okuda (or Al Smutko, or whoever) created the chart they cut up an old periodic table and used the ATM WT part instead of the ATM NUM part. The whole weight thing was pretty much the reason why I spent 7+ hours and 2 days writing these pages (plus odd misspellings, and acceptance of okudagrams), but I gave a possible solution on Talk:Element.--Tim Thomason 22:53, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nerroth contribs
I assume you realize that this entire collection is a copyvio from wikipedia? --Alan del Beccio 20:17, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * After I had unfortunately merged a few I realized it -- so I'm going to use "Star Fleet Universe/temp" as the place where information of this nature should go -- is it generally understood that further additions shouldn't be plagiarized? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:22, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Roleplaying Game
I see you are about working on RPG So I just want to say that it is written without "-" (Role-Playing) or space (Role Playing) in LUG and Decipher books => "Roleplaying". But in Fasa, it is written with a space => "Role Playing Game" Philoust123 14:12, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've found that LUG spells it both "Roleplaying" and "Role Playing" at different points in their releases


 * FASA sometimes uses the hyphen, sometimes they do not -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:17, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Re: The "Conspiracy" Chart
I'm sorry about all the trouble I caused with the "Conspiracy" chart. I get on a "kick" sometimes and I do foolish things (that time I tried to "fix" all of the disambigs, for example). I'm going to try to fix some of the info, but I do think it is relevent to include in background, as I believe that the chart's original intention was to show Federation territory. Thanks for stopping me before I got to Kling though.--Tim Thomason 14:50, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem -- i believe that you are on the right track, but i don't think the interpretations are being stated right -- we could definitely note which planets are near each other, but membership and sector location are more vague on the chart than a "one sector=one block interpretation" -- this would leave the sol sector with many more stars than we know it should have for one, not to mention the various enemy powers that probably are surrounded on many sides by federationers -- just as being in US waters doesnt make Puerto Rico (or Cuba for that matter) a state -- one is a allied protectorate and the other is a blockaded enemy power -- so the lines on the map arent as telling as we'd like. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:54, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

blocking anons
Hey, Mike. I'm new at this admin stuff, so I was wondering, when you're blocking an anon, how do you extend the range of the block to cover changes in the IP address? For example, say a vandal came in and his IP address ranged from 152.163.100.12 to 152.163.100.73. How can I block the entire "152.163.100" range? --From Andoria with Love 00:16, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Weeell, there doesn't (to my knowledge) seem to be any way to block more than one IP address with a single action, making rotators frustrating, you go one-by-one. Ive always tryed to imagine if there's a wiki feature that would allow you to block "170" or "172" at a time -- or possibly have a toggle that makes the page read-only to AOL (or another provider) users at an admin request, but I've no idea if its possible. wishful thinking.

not sure if some other admins might know, possibly the Memory Alpha:Bureaucrats? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
 * Range Blocks are listed under Memory Alpha:Bans and blocks. To block all ranges in the 152.163.100.0 range you would have to block 152.163.100.0/24.--Tim Thomason 00:32, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Sweet.. its been awhile since i've had to stay up late at night banning people. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
 * Alrighty! Thank you both! :) --From Andoria with Love 01:11, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever Captainmike has done is blocking my contributions as well. How can I get around this? Is there a way for one of you to lift the ban?--Mike Nobody 23:56, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * how did you post this if you were blocked? i only blocked individual IPs last night, not ranges. do you have the same IP as the vandal? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:54, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

getting an account
thanks for the message. dident think anyone noticed these things. I'll sign up with my wikipedia name pellaken shortly. 69.199.55.143 19:33, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Cho?
Is there a joke I'm not getting with this vandal guy, or is that just random stupidity? He's done the "Cho" thing a few times and I still don't understand it... --Broik 00:25, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * General Cho's Chicken is a Chinese dish served at fast-food places. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:52, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Content deletion on user talk pages
Hi Mike, could you please chime in here: User talk:Gvsualan? I don't think that users should be allowed to blank/delete their user talk pages in all cases, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 13:30, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Program Sisko 197
Wouldn't the note the anon added be correct? Makes sense since DS9 ended in 1999 and that was the 5th (second to last) season, and that's the kind of stuff the writers are always adding into eps. --Vedek Dukat Talk 22:38, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't cited however -- how do we know that that is why the writers added it? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:39, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * How often is information outside the Trek universe really cited? I think I've seen two total, and they were both on . :P If one of us had added that note, no one would have questioned it. --Vedek Dukat Talk 22:42, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but i also tend to question incongruous stements made by vandals -- if you think this is a valid reference, then place it in the article -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Merge info
Thanks for creating the new merge policy page. That's exactly what I need to know. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:04, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Dude
Where's my car? NerdierThanThou 23:44, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode Lists and Torrents
Hi, Mike...

I'd like your opinion on adding a torrent link on every and each Episode Lists for all the series.

I'm not sure about the implications of this, and thus, I'm asking your input.

Regards,

--MstrControl 18:52, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Jae
Thanks for your follow through and work with Jae. :) --Alan del Beccio 01:15, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

blocking
Say, you wouldn't know how to permanately block a usernamem would ya? :D The bans and blocks page doesn't exactly make it clear. --From Andoria with Love 07:22, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Re: Copyright discussion (Lawrence M. Krauss)
I'd like to ask the reversion of that page because the text is a Press Release and is not a copyright violation. Whoever put the page under such made a mistake. --MstrControl 18:13, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view -- but whoever submitted the page as a copyright violation (it wasn't me!) thinks you should rewrite it -- personally, i believe the infomation could stand to be heavily edited -- one reason we don't want to duplicate other people's websites is because it is causing this article to have a lot of extraneous information -- why copy over his site word for word if we could just link to it -- after all, most of this information has nothing to do with Star Trek.. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
 * I see your point. It's just that it took me by surprise, that's all. I did rewrite ths bio on Lawrence M. Krauss/temp, though. I hope it's ok now. --MstrControl 18:33, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

ST# redirects
Please don't create any more redirects to overly abbreviated or too-severely shortened terms like "STVI" or "STV" -- we already have very useful redirects like "Star Trek III" and "Star Trek V" -- which you made the other redirects say, anyway.

A redirect is only useful if someone can tell what it says by looking at it -- i left more reasons why these can't stay when i nominated them on -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Re:ST# redirects
Aye, aye, Skipper.

Thanks for the heads up.

MstrControl talk 03:32, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hidden vandalism?
Hey, Mike. I was looking at the recent changes page, and noticed that a few pages were reverted due to vandalism -- yet the vandalism itself didn't appear on the recent changes. How is this possible? --From Andoria with Love 02:59, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure -- i noticed this as well. Is the person doing it through a hidden username, like a bot? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
 * Just checked -- i clicked "show bots" and sure enough, all of the IP 82... vandal edits were masked because Special:Recentchanges thinks that that user is a Bot.


 * I think a bureaucrat needs to fix something about the Bot allowances, i don't know how any of that works though. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk


 * Ahh, I see it now. Well, I guess we're gonna hafta keep bots shown from now on. It would be nice if someone did fix it... unfortunately, I don't know how that stuff works, either. :/ Anyways, thanks for checking it out. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:04, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ticonderoga
Hey, Mike. You wrote on my talk page:

"fan fiction and fan films are topics that many feel don't belong on MA, so I'm just trying to keep them as businesslike as possible."
 * Granted, but I was referencing behind-the-scenes info, not fanfilm content.

"Data on what fan films Cawley appears in and who he plays is best referenced at fan films; only the data dealing with Ticonderoga directly seems fitting in that article."
 * By this logic, we shouldn't define what peripheral details come from any non-canon source, such as the Okudas' CHRONOLOGY or ENCYCLOPEDIA, but rather "One non-canon reference states xyz". I noted who he was because one might wonder why he was worthy of tribute.  Playing Kirk in The major fanfilm seemed very revealing.

"Citing news and magazines is a new field for Memory Alpha"
 * The problem with citing online sources, especially with news articles, is that they are transient by nature and subject to become broken links. My thinking was that eventually the reference link would become defunct, an editor would come along and delete the source attribution, and another editor would come along and delete the data as unverifiable.  Citing the main WIRED page may be a band-aid, but it is devoid of any substantial referential content and reads like an ad for the magazine.--StAkAr Karnak 21:14, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If this was in a printed version of the magazine, I would say that would be the more relevant citation (non-transient). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:40, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed.--StAkAr Karnak 12:27, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wikifying
Cpt. Mike, I do not agree with your assessment of when text should be a link or not. It seems to me that the point of a Wiki is that every instance of a given word or phrase should link to its relevant information. I've looked through the guides of style and content, and while they say one should not highlight text repeatedly beyond the first reference, I don't find where it says that all text cannot be Wiki-fied. If I have missed a policy page, I would appreciate you informing me of it's location. IMO, an article's text should be nearly all blue -- where relevant -- and turn darker blue in segments, as articles and their dependants are researched. I appreciate your guidance and diligence in maintaining MA, but I would hope you find my time and energy spent on this site to be a benefit for everyone.
 * -- HobbesPDX - 2235 PST, 2005.12.10
 * Actually, a community consensus has led to this wiki community adopting a policy of linking the term the first time it appears in an article, or in list articles, the first time it appears in a top level subsection of the article. If you would like the community to adopt a new consensus, it would have to be discussed by several active archivists at Memory Alpha talk:Manual of Style.


 * I was merely enforcing the style as stated in when i removed multiple linkings in articles you worked on. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Block
Please block 82.43.208.176 permanently. I think I know the vandal is. Thanks.

page move
Done. Ex-trekphiler gul garak 16:11, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Could you step in?
Mike, I'm sure you're watching Recent Changes. I could do with another admin voice coming through on the episode summary issue with User:Tholian2000 - I'm going to have to step back in a moment or two, as this is just getting silly. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:03, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The Last Christian
I am sorry about what I did, I truly am, Though if you want my motives here they are: I felt no matter what I did, people didn't like it at all, so I eliminated What I wrote, NOTHING else! Again, I say I am sorry, for inconveniancing the database and putting the administrators in an awkward position.
 * Its perfectly alright to not know the rules, that's why i tried my best to tell you, by linking to the pages -- and trying to clean up the articles in question according to the rules of deletion. When you started changing articles that i had no record of you working on, it became unclear whether you were changing your own or someone else's edits.


 * Its not that people didn't like anything your wrote, its just that you chose a topic which isn't covered by our mandate: writing about "real-life" science topics that hadn't been mentioned in Star Trek. In some cases, the producers use "imaginary" technology to explain their less realistic story ideas, so writing about something they didnt intend to be part of the Star Trek story might be distracting.


 * There are probably more than a few places where topics related to string theory could be linked to or explained, in a background sections.


 * The Archivists weren't trying to wholly reject your contributions, we were having a discussion regarding clarifying the information you were presenting, by . Citing a reference in an essay or report is a matter of course in a school paper or publication writing, we hold our writers to the same standard here -- we can't create an article on string theory if it wasn't mentioned on Star Trek, but we could add an explanation of String Theory to the novels that deal with it -- "Cohesion", "Fusion (novel)", and "Evolution (novel)" -- I was trying to leave comments to that effect, not to express that I "didn't like" anything. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

The Last Christian
Thank you for your response, I will try to improve the String Theory (Physics), by adding links and putting it in proper format, thank you.
 * I suggest you place the information in the physics article itself, rather than recreating [String Theory], or the series on novels where string theory is explained: Star Trek: Voyager - String Theory. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

The Last Christian
How do I merge articles (for String Theory)?

68.58.8.252
Hey, just thought I'd point out 68.58.8.252 to you. It is creating talk pages with advertising. It is obviously a vandal-bot. It would be great if you could block it and delete Talk:Handball and Talk:Alexana, given that you're the only admin I see on right now. Thanks. -Platypus Man | Talk 21:36, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The Last Christian
Will the article subatomic physics be deleted? If not, can we delete the "This article is a canidate for Deletion Page"? Thanks again, The Last Christian 21:45, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)]]
 * According to our policy, if an article is nominated for deletion, it must be tagged with the message for at least five days -- even if everyone votes to keep it. At the end of the five days, the message can be removed. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:44, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Copyright disclaimer for images you created
Hi Mike. I used a bot to tag pages without a proper copyright disclaimer with a pna-message, and this includes several of the files you created (especially insignia). These pages will slowly appear here in the next 1-2 hours. Can you see what disclaimer you want to use for them? If you want, I could help with actually editing the pages... For info, I created a template image pd for images I created, but perhaps image ccl or even is what you have in mind? -- Cid Highwind 21:36, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll go through to find images I edited that are public domain, all the others I'd prefer tagged as follows: "".


 * Thanks for checking on that for me -- let me know if there are any you aren't sure about. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

OK, thanks. I'll give you some time to find the public domain ones and will then tag the others as copyrighted as I control them. Might take some time, though... -- Cid Highwind 21:57, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation
Actually, if you look closely, what I've been doing is removing the periods at the end of citations. :) -- Renegade54 16:41, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha -- i needed my first cup of coffee before i could start squinting at these thing. Right-o then. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:00, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

p4s3r power cells
Howdy Mike. I saw your note on power cells. Something you might want to add too it, or integrate with a power cell note on the phaser page, is the post-refit Enterprise phaser's power "channeled through the warp-drive", as Decker said. The statement doesn't make real sense (I suspect they meant "warp-drive power was channled to the phasers"), but maybe you can make it fit. --Aurelius Kirk 00:36, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The simplest explanation is that the phasers could have been previously charged from another power reactor -- for durability (and operating continuity during warp core outages) -- but they switched and charged the phasers from the warp core (or from the warp plasma stream). This explanation could have phaser power cells still being used in the same way, but "plugged into a different socket" -- that the power cells could recharge faster and (possibly) with more potency, on the same rechargable, replacable cells.


 * Another possibility is that the "powered by the warp drive" solution involving getting rid of power cells, alternatively plugging the phasers right into the ships propulsion energy. this seems less likely. this would be like preferring a wall socket plug to power a portable device -- the batteries add a certain utility to the device. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Re:Image page issues
Hi Mike, and thanks for the note you left on my talk page. I thought about starting a small project to discuss changes to the page layout; finding a common "look&feel" for message templates, various tables (I already did something in that regard) etc. Maybe you'd like to join in with your comments if I do. -- Cid Highwind 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel
I just took screencaps of some more unnamed crewmembers of the USS Enterprise from said episode (as per your image request) and just wanted to ask if you (still) have use for the images before I upload them. There's a shot of the crewmembers waiting in line in front of the transporter room, then 6 people standing on the platform (including Ron Veto), an unnamed science officer waiting next to the transporter room door and finally Ron Veto during the fight with Kelowitz. Do you need anything else? --Jörg 14:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike! I just sent you the 4 images via e-mail, let me know, if there is anything more I can do. --Jörg 12:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC Chat
Yo, Mike! I was wondering if you wanted to join us for a chat over at MA's IRC channel. We're trying to get as many people on there as possible (well, Vedek Dukat is, anyway :P). You can find the portal to the channel here. Hope to see ya there! :) --From Andoria with Love 05:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign Class
I guess I should post this in your talk page rather then mine (sheepish grin)

Traditionaly we have seen Quantum Torpedoes only fired from very specific launchers. Now the Defiant has been stated to also carry photon torpedoes, though I do not ever recall having seen them. The Sovereign herself has a very specific setup. The quantum torpedo turret is distinctive and has never been seen firing anything but quantum torpedoes. Every other launcher on the ship has been shown to only ever fire photon torpedoes. For whatever reason, the torpedoes are not interchangable unless specificaly designed as in the Defiants case. If quantum torpedoes could have been fired from other launchers, we should have seen it in either Insurrection or Nemesis. In Nemesis the Enterprise refrained from firing Quantum Torpedoes except when it had a very good shot on the Scimitar to ensure that it had hits. These only came from a single launcher. When the Enterprise faced its aft launchers on the Scimitar once the cloak was down, no quantum torpedoes were ever seen to be fired. So the evidence is purely that of deducing the visual observations. Alyeska 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard to site the material. I can create a series of screen shots, give the episodes, and then highlight the material in question. Alyeska 06:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet ranks
This is more up your alley than mine. Could you check out what is going on with with this page ? A recent contributor appears to be replacing all your images, but I'm not sure why. --15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was wondering if we could use your rank insignia images at wikipedia. at while you can use wikipedia images regardless if you agree or not, I would really like a trade. --Cool Cat 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not ready to surrender the commercial re-use copyrights of my artwork, even if it is derivative in nature, to Wikipedia or the owrld in general. as WP has no policy for disallowing free commercial re-use, i must decine to upload anything (keeping in mind that other artwork i've done has been uploaded to wikipedia as "public domain" by third parties). the whole concept stinks. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hey, Mike. I wonderingm, when you get a chance, if you could look over the images uploaded by Njr75003. Alan tells me pics are kinda your "project", so I've come to ask you: are these pics really necessary? In fact, since most are based on images in non-canon reference guides, are they even allowed here at all? Anyways, he has added more since you and Alan posted some for deletion, but before I posted all the others up as well, I wanted to know if reference images were really okay here. At least, I think that's what I wanted to know. Somewhere in-between going to your talk page and clicking to add a new comment, I kinda forgot what exactly I was going to say. Oh, well. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply to your reply : Oh, okay. That's fine, then. It was the whole fair use/copyright issue that I was really wondering about, I think, not necessarily the canon issue – although that, too, was a concern. As I said above, though, whatever I was thinking just kinda vanished from my head, so... yeah. Anyways, thanks for replying. I had a feeling you were on top of this already, though. Keep up the good work, and I'll see you... 'out there. :D --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

crewman third class rank pin
I uploaded a pic of a crewman third class rank pin, so it is no longer conjectural but also canon. :-) Daniels is seen wearing the pin in and Cunningham wears it in  and.

Btw: did you get the screencaps from I sent you?--Jörg 12:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

re:TOS planet
I think we should rename it to have all images that are checked for redundancy and eventually replaced starting with the same prefix. This could be changed later and/or with the help of a bot, though, it isn't the most important thing. Also, having some sort of descriptive text, as "your" filenames have, might be a good idea. Perhaps it might be best to have all filenames start with "TOS generic planet #" followed either by a letter or description... -- Cid Highwind 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
I know it's just minor, but thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated! - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Enteprise-D Cloaking device
Re:Treaty of Algeron "(again rv illwill with 80.xx.xx -- statement illwill reverted is untrue -- the E-D was, in fact, "seen" (pun?) using the device. the statement didnt say it whether it was permanently or not)"

which time are you refering to? Do you have a reference episode? --Illwill 04:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

that’s the episode I thought you were referring to. That’s like saying that Voyager has transwarp engines. Having or using something once is hardly the same thing as being equipped with that thing. Are all vessels equipped with cloaking devices and ablative armor? Is the USS Voyager permanently equipped with the polaron modulator Torres fitted it with to escape the.

I was thinking about appending this to an article:
 * It should be noted that all Federation ships were subject to extensive field modification. Montgomery Scott once commented that technical manuals should be used as more of a "guideline" and not taken as being completely rigid. Though some modifications were eventually communicated back to Starfleet Operations(and presumably integrated into current and new ship designs), due to the sheer size of the Federation many modifications were known only to chief engineers and other high ranking ship personnel.(  On occasion ships could be noted operating everything from improved weapons and targeting systems to different power distribution configurations. Some of the system modifications were permanent while others used only to solve specific temporary problems with the system subsequently returned to official spec

That being said, you didn't revert the edit you clarified:

...only Federation ship to be permanently equipped

Its sound better now. --Illwill 03:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unclear Comment
I'm honestly not sure I understand your comment of "Yes, it is a good example of puppetry, isn't it. ;)" from Memory Alpha talk:Research policy You may not have meant it that way, but it can be seen as potentially a little insulting to me and/or Cid.  But I figured I'd just ask about it here since it's a little off-topic for the other page.  If I'm being too sensitive a soul, please forgive me.  Thanks!  Aholland 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes... Are you accusing me of using User:Aholland as a sock puppet? Are you accusing Aholland of using User:Cid Highwind as a sock puppet, which would be even more ludicrous? Are you trying to tell us that your whole "research policy" was just meant as a big straw man argument (in which case that didn't work too well, I think)? Should I even care after you seem to have completely lost it during the discussion "Question on Patent Drawings" on User talk:Aholland? In the 2.5 years that I'm here, I haven't seen a talk page section that was as far from a serious discussion as that one - and I have seen a lot around here. -- Cid Highwind 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right.. i have been taking Memory Alpha a lot less seriously lately. -- Captain M.K.B.

Patents
(moved from User talk:Aholland)

Is uploading a "patent" image allowable under current policies? i'm not sure .. if only someone had been willing to support some sort of "research policy", clarifying how we could establish and use data from sources not contained in episodes or movies -- i know you wouldn't hear of such a thing, however... it might have been a change for good in concern of the mandate of the site and push for legitimizing the data. whatev. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * United States patents are, once issued, in the public domain. Therefore people can do anything they want to with them. Also, given that the patent article will be a Trek Franchise article rather than a Trek Universe article, the canon policy restrictions we've recently discussed don't even apply. I am uncertain how much more legitimate a full citation to a publically available document can be, but let me know if you have any concerns about the images. Aholland 05:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do i know they are from a US patent? anyone can make a black-and-white line drawing, Mr. Holland. Is there any policy on research through which you can verify these are the patents as numbered? -- Captain M.K.B. 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but one does not need a policy to know how and whether to independently verify data. Or determine originally if the data is authentic. The former is everyone's choice; the latter the responsibility of the author. If you have any questions about the patent images, though, please input the patent number into the website that will be at the bottom of the article once finished. (It is still in draft, but I think a link is there now.) You'll be able to validate each one if you wish. Or you could alternatively contact the U.S. Patent Office if you don't believe the website. Again, please let me know if you need help doing this validation; I'll be happy to show you how. Aholland 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/User_talk:Aholland"

Just show me how? why not write a policy on it in case someone besides you or me wants to know about the data. or should we personally explain to everyone how to find the info? -- Captain M.K.B. 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you actually proposing that a policy exist that informs everyone how to validate, for themselves, every fact that can be claimed in any article on any subject? That is neither feasible nor practical. If you achieve it, though, you should probably copyright it immediately as libaries will want to use it. As before, there will be a citation for each patent. There will be a link at the end of the article so people can get copies of the patents - for free - if they want. If they don't want to that's fine too. I put the link there not so much to validate the data as to allow people to get something rather cool for free. But it will be very self-evident how to look one up - and if someone can get to MA at all, they can use that patent site. If you still think this too difficult for a reader, please explain how a policy will help. Aholland 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/User_talk:Aholland"

Are you actually proposing that a policy exist that informs everyone how to validate, for themselves, every fact that can be claimed in any article on any subject? -- you yourself have suggested removal of data on these grounds (i.e. not everyone can read the registry number). I just think it would be nice to regulate how this data gets verified. You've shown yourself to be in opposition to the research policy, and you've repeatedly stated few reasons except that (you feel) it threatens your pet canon policy.


 * I, respectfully, disagree. I have never proposed a single way to verify data. I am incapable of describing all ways to verify data. I can only say when, under certain identified circumstances, I am personally unable to verify data. In such a case I'm happy to be told how I can personally verify it.
 * And I apologize if my opposition to the proposed research policy has been less than clear. Let me restate. There are no circumstances I can envision where the existence of a general policy on how to validate something would help me actually do so. And if it is not telling me how, then it is telling me what, which conflicts with existing policy. So unneeded and conflicting. Those are my reasons for objecting to it. But please feel free to ask again if that isn't clear enough. And my offer to help you validate the patents is still open, should you see the need. Aholland 06:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/User_talk:Aholland"

Vandal on Wheels
Hey, Mike. Just wanted to let you know that, if today proves to be the same as the past week or so, our "...on Wheels" page move vandal will return to wreck havoc sometime in the next hour and a half. You may wanna keep an eye out. --From Andoria with Love 06:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stubage vs. Deletion
I strongly disagree with your removal of the delete template on that game page. According to article 5 of Memory Alpha:Pages for immediate deletion pages with little or no content are candidates for speedy deletion. Having never heard of the topic, I was unable to expand it, so I marked it for deletion, per our policy, rather than let an orphaned unformatted stub remain in the main space. By deleting it, it goes back to a red link, so readers will not click on it expecting information (none of which they will recieve) and to encourage actual growth. Jaz talk |undefined 01:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article had/has enough information to survive as a stub and i'm willing to at least partially flesh it out. didn't mean to question your judgment. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about Wiki content
I ran into this on a page I wrote for standard wikipedia for a non-scifi show: If a magazine copies, almost word for word, or paraphrased, the content of a Wikipedia article, are they free to do this? Or is there some sort of creative properties rule that they have violated? If so, can any actual claim be made against them?--Ricimer 05:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek
Hi Mike. I don't want to interrupt your editing of Template:Greek by adding my own suggestions directly, but I commented on the talk page. Doing it the way I suggested might solve some of the formatting problems now on the template page... Otherwise, a nice idea! :) -- Cid Highwind 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Its been fun to implement. i'll be at the talk page posthaste

Star Trek: Borg
In the deleting/merge/etc, we seem to have lost the actual Star Trek: Borb page. If you could bring back the last version of that (rather than the two Qaylan articles) and its history, that would prolly be best. I think. -- Sulfur 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem being is that all that copy pasting took me about three minutes. Sorry for the wait, its all done now ! -- Captain M.K.B. 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that now. Sorry that I was so impatient.  :) -- Sulfur 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Old-timer Admirals
I like what you did to Rick Berman (Admiral), and wouldn't mind it being done to others, although we should probably limit it to 150 years at most. Something strikes me odd about a 22nd century Gene Roddenberry and a 29th century Gene Roddenberry being the same (nixing any fannish time-traveller idea). And by the way, I am well aware of Tim Tommerson the alter ego of Captain Hero on Drawn Together (per my DCAU Wiki user page) as I saw the episode first one, and you're not the first to tell me. Sorry I haven't been around lately, but it's through no fault of my own.--Tim Thomason 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tommerson -- that makes it better. :)


 * Actually, i cant find any mention of the 29th century Roddenberry. his name doesnt seem to be on anything from that time.


 * since there are virtually no "dedication people" between 2150s and 2293, i propose that the ENT versions and the Generations-onward versions are definitively separate, and that most of the Generations people can be reconciled with their TNG era counterparts (uinless there is a large gap inbetween -- Captain M.K.B. 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that their was a Gene Roddenberry on the USS Relativity dedication plaque, but I'm not sure if it's true or not. Plus, I was kind of joking. It does seem odd to me, but not impossible, for a character to refer to as "Cmdr." after being referred to as "Admiral," but then again their is Commander, Starfleet.--Tim Thomason 03:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * the ones i hadnt thought of an explanation for are the "lieutenant commanders" who used to be admirals, these might be a special case, requiring separation of the identities. but making all the admiral/commanders into unified people seems to be effective at getting all the references together in one place.


 * yeah, if you look at a relativity screencap, you can see there aren't any ranks, but probably all "Prof." or "Dr." followed by "PhD"s, and not many long last names. there's a fan art version with roddenberry's name, and some stellar core yard, but its obviously different from the one used onsscreen -- Captain M.K.B. 03:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect page
Hey, Mike, could you unprotect Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (Special Edition)? Thanks! -- Renegade54 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for unprotecting it. :) -- Sulfur 15:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Naprem redirect/deletion
This was resolved, and is on "Talk:Naprem" (which should redirect you to Talk:Dukat's Bird-of-Prey). -- Sulfur 15:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Star vs. Star system
I'm not at all clear as to when we use one designation over the other. Can you shed some light on this? Thanks! -- Renegade54 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A "star" is simply when one star is referred to by itself. A "star system" is when there is more than one body asociated with a single star mentioned (or if a star's presence is inferred by the presence of a bound body, like a planet). For example
 * a double star forms a star system, whether there are planets or not, since the two stars have been associated with each other.
 * Any star with at least one planet forms a star system.
 * In the case of "real" stars, I think its best to create articles about all of their systems, and combine it with the article about the real star in question. In this way, we don't have to create a separate article for a star that we know of in real life but hasnt been defined fully in Star Trek. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case of Alnitak, when viewed based on its catalog name (Zeta Orionis or Alnitak), the fact that it is "one star" in Orion's belt belies the fact that scientists now know that that star is actually a star system, three stars, probably called Alnitak A, Alnitak B and Alnitak C, or Zeta Orionis A, B, C, etc. Since the names "Alnitak" and "Zeta Orionis" actually refer to all three at the one time, and also the name of the system with at least one planet around them, there is no single star "Alnitak" and the clearest way to present this is saying that it is a system. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for the purpose of the constellation (i.e. what we see with the naked eye), Alnitak or Zeta Orionis is one star, because that's what it appears to be. From an astronomer's viewpoint, though, it's a trinary, with a binary pair (Zeta Orionis Aa and Zeta Orionis Ab) and a third member (Zeta Orionis B). The Aa dominates, because it's a blue supergiant. All that was confusing me, though... at least from the standpoint of the article and how much/little to include. :) -- Renegade54 18:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ranks
Hi Mike. Could you check the last edit to Template:Ranks? See also: My comment on Template talk:Ranks. -- Cid Highwind 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dedication plaque personnel and Voyager personnel

 * D. Overdiek (a detail we shouldn't speculate on : he / she)

You were right with this (in french "he" can be used as a neutral genre in these cases but I must assume in english not). To make sure I don't speculate, I always put the same sidebar for each characters on MA-fr, even the small characters : Name, genre, Species, rank,... because even "unknown" is an information. I realized this when I was making an expanded table for Voyager personnel (see Personnel de l'USS Voyager) and was lacking several time this information : Is this character a women or a man, a human or an alien ? More than 50 characters are lacking such information (see fr:Discuter:Personnel de l'USS Voyager or empty squares on the table) About this Voyager personnel table, I asked if it could be adapted on MA-en (see Talk:USS Voyager personnel) but no one ever responded.

Another great speculation that can be find many times in the database is the "Human category" for people only seen on dedication plaques or listing. I didn't use this cat in MA-fr for these characters but there are too many for me to eliminate on the MA-en. Even if they have a human-like name, we can't be sure they are : for example, Leonard James Akaar is the Teer of the Ten Tribes of Capella IV. Also, seeing the lifespan of some of these characters (Adm. Gene Roddenberry...), it is possible that they're not human. - Philoust123 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had noticed someone contesting the "humans" category on dedication plaque personnel -- i'd be fine with removing the speculation in many cases and de-categorizing all of the people, but i'd like some discussion with other archivists on whether to enact some sort of separate categorization for people who have human-sounding names, but haven't been positively IDed as humans.. (possibly with some variation of "humanoid" in the terminology, etc)


 * one thing i dont like is sidebars with no information -- its unnecessary. if you have a sidebar that says
 * Name:Joe Schmoe
 * Gender: Unknown
 * Birthdate: Unknown
 * Rank: Unknown
 * Then, you shouldn't have the sidebar at all. its a very bad style in my opinion. -- Captain M.K.B. 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Xi
Mike, why wouldn't Xi be a disambig? All the other Greek characters are... -- Renegade54 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By definition a disambiguation must refer to more than one item referenced on Star Trek with the same name. Nothing named "Xi" is referenced in Star Trek, therefore thereis no ambiguity to disambiguate. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Brooks (disambig page)
You recently removed all of the brief descriptions on the Brooks disambig page. I've found that when I'm looking for a particular person, just seeing a stack of links like "Brooks (Admiral)", "Brooks (Ensign)", "Mark Brooks", "Avery Brooks", etc doesn't really help me find what I'm looking for. Yes, perhaps the line with Avery Brooks wasn't the best possible, but it was (to my mind) a good deal better than having just a hanging name there. Yes, if I know that Avery Brooks is the dude that played Sisko, I'd click on that one, but maybe I've got him confused with Stephen Brooks (or Mark Brooks for that matter).

Point being, I believe that having some brief descriptions on those items is significantly better than a plain page of just links, and am wondering if it's a "policy" that disambig pages be just a list of links, and if so, where that policy is so that I can start to dispute it. :)

Thanks -- Sulfur 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say suggest it at 's talk page. I'm not sure if its an actual policy, but I really do dislike the wierd things people to to "spruce up" these pages -- as Cid and probably Alan have said, they should remain, basically, lists of -very basic- links. the only real policy on the matter is that we follow wikipedia's, but theirs has chagned since that suggestion came around. go fig... -- Captain M.K.B. 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got no major desire to spruce them up with lots of other stuff, just a brief sentence (or portion thereof) so that you can get a vague idea which "Brooks" is which (in this case). To my mind, those sentences still keep it a basic list of links, just give you some vague sense of context as to what they are. I'll bring it up there (and I'll likely copy this conversation there as a starter, just to give some context if you don't mind) -- Sulfur 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okudas
I just wanted to let you know that I don't think its a good idea to combine "D. Okuda" with "Denise Okuda (Starfleet)". Because of the difference in names, combined with the time difference, I don't think the ENT plaque personae are compatible. We need them to be separate, albeit short, article for the basis of a categorization effort I'm working on.

I explained myself at Talk:D. Okuda, but you must've missed it. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that one page for the D. Okudas (3) and one page for the M. Okudas (2) is more informative than many seperate tiny articles. They are clearly related by context, name, and source (even if not by family) and having them together is no different than haveing all five Enterprise Dedication Plaques on the same page (as opposed to five seperate pages. —MJBurrage &bull;  talk  &bull; 19:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to hold off until we get more archivists opinion on this. I believe that keeping the articles separate is much more useful for categorizing the different people as individuals -- which is a standard operating procedure on MA.


 * I'm not sure if we have a policy governing this, but I think that what you've done is going to mess up a project I'm in the middle of -- categorizing M. Okuda and D. Okuda separately from Starfleet's Michael and Denise. I had left a note that you could stop, but you seem to have ignored it and started making these major changes. I think the since my categorization project was already underway, you might give me a chance to finish my work -- your edits completely disrupt the categorization i was working on, and thats a little frustrating. -- Captain M.K.B. 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the intro lines to make it clear that I was not trying to claim that they were the same person, simply very similarly named people doing similar things. I was not trying to interfere with what you were doing (and did not realize I was) and had not seen your comment yet when I reverted the Denise article. With respect to your categorization project, couldn't you put the redirect page itself into the category? So for example you could still put the Denise Okuda (UESPA) redirect page in a category (say UESPA personnel), but if somebody clicks on the listing they will be redirected to the one page that lists all three D. Okudas. P.S. Can I help in some way with your project? —MJBurrage &bull; talk  &bull; 21:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorizing redirects is not standard operating procedure. Using to separate similarly named articles is standard operating procedure. I'd like the chance to continue on the articles, separated  as they were, so i could categrorize them as planned. -- Captain M.K.B. 11:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Spam
Just wanted to bring to your attention some possible spam: Verdens gang Nothing links to it (well, now your talk page does, but nothing else does at the time of writing this). It is not cited, and it seems to be real word and not Star Trek related. I found this on Verdens Gang.

At the least, this would seem to be someone who does not realize we are not wikipedia. At worst, possible spam. --OuroborosCobra 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Calendar Dates
I'm working through the templates for the entire month of may right now. If you could avoid creating any day entries for it until the templates are all done, I'd appreciate it. Elsewise, they'll fill up the most wanted page list. I'm trying to put in all of the information available (birthdays/deaths lists, and episodes) on them at once, so that we don't have to make multiple edits on them :) -- Sulfur 16:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet uniform pages
CAPTAIN! ;) I would like to ask you why you decided to seperate the Starfleet uniform pages. I know that the original page was rather lengthy, but IMO it would be more practical to have all the info on one page. It avoids confusion on where to look for certain information and it keeps all the relevant background information in one place, rather than being copied on several... Please let me know what you think of this. Ottens 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Born Template
did you notice something odd with the template not working precisely right on pre-64 dates? Is that why you tweaked Katherine Woodville? I noticed it on Barbara Anderson earlier, but it seems to have fixed itself in the last 20 minutes or so. Regardless, I'm not convinced that you should change the 'born' template to use the datelink one instead. My bet is that they'd both have exactly the same issues in the long run. -- Sulfur 02:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * no matter how i edit kate woodville i cant get it to function right. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Check also the realworld template. It's busted. Something's screwy with the templates in general right now. I'm not entirely certain what it is, but it's doing something odd. I also can't see the recent changes page at all right now. It just times out consistently. -- Sulfur 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comic Reprints
As an aside, note sure if you spotted it (and haven't looked at the template too closely as yet), but the Enterprise Log 4 and Key Collection 4 books are not quite the same. And if you're doing those reprint lists, you should do one for the Key Collection 5 book too. FYI. -- Sulfur 17:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, 4 and 5 both could use an extra roster.. good point..

Forum:Canon explanation for color corrected planets
Hey, so that you know, I have reason to believe that the person asking this question is is not really interested in an answer, but is actually using it as a platform to bellittle someone else's question (Forum:Star Trek:TOS "Balance of Terror" photon torpedoes). He seems to be an AOL user, with a dynamic IP. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on your definition of "dynamic" ;) -- i've been noticing the various 205.# addresses stirring the pot and have been waiting for ample cause to perform a range ban for a period of time, should it escalate. You know what he'll do if we slide him a little more rope... -- Captain M.K.B. 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, fixing typos is especially offensive, you should keep a close eye on me before I either fix another typo, or use sarcasm again--205.188.116.7 04:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * neither action would deserve a ban. i welcomed you, please, make the best of it here. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-Canon Redirects
Putting stuff on there, good. Putting stuff without any word of what they are or into the wrong section, not quite as good. :) -- Sulfur 13:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess i might only get a C+ on my wiki report card ;) if you thought they could use rearranging, you know where the edit button is.


 * I was just staring at the screen trying to think how to rearrange the list, myself, but if the article's under your attention now, i'll bow to your judgment. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Majel Barrett edit history
Someone has made some, shall we say, questionableedits to the Majel Barrett article. These edits have been there in the past, and whenever they are reverted, they are also removed from the edit history. I think they need to be again. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  17:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

President articles
There seems to be an edit war starting over all of the President articles. I would like to request that they be nreverted, and locked, so that an actual discussion can take place. I have sent messages to the anon making these changes that he start a talk page, or even a forum thread since this effects so many articles, but the anon has ignored these requests, and continued on the war path. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you certianly come on a bit strong--152.163.100.10 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you even willing to exxplain yourself on a talk page, 152.163.100.10? That's all we're asking. If you think us expecting you to participate in a discussion is "coming on a bit strong", then I'm not sure what can be done -- but it would help if you used a talk page like we've suggested. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He actually has now. On the talk page for Clinton, he has started a discussion. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

want to add info--help?
Re: STAR TREK MAPS article:

I don't feel up to actually editing the page, but will contribute some behind the scene info here. I can substantiate any and all of this via my letters back and forth w Geoff from 1978-80 ... didn't know how much you had to have on that account. But do with this as you like. I would like to be among the first of the uncredited contributors listed, since that is the way things are now, finally, and these tales are no longer backroom discussions.

-- Maynard turned to Mandel to finish this project in 1979, based on their common New York City connection and Mandel's work on his Starfleet Manual all-background zine, after McMaster's untimely death in a car accident. I had a major SM fanzine article going which would have used my star charts and background info developed for it but all based on the "exsiting official" ST Technical Manual format; we decided that McMaster's Star Charts were better scaled and would now be the "official" canon version anyway (this was 1979!), but they needed ALL the data sketched in over the empty scale grids. Basically, everything prepared for my abortive zine project that didn't depend on scale Mandel switched to the "official" one (the now-unuseable layout boards were done for the zine already, plus addenda concept material and a star "gazetteer"). My surviving contribs specifically included: -- the list of members (and my conceit to use the Dreadnought ship names from the TM as logical formal member names) and date of admission based on the original chart location and a logical unfolding pattern of contact. --the list of primaries for previously known planets without a star given (based on all available fna and astronmic fact, but editorial aesthetics)--hey, it was the late '70s. --in the booklet, I named a city on New France as Cleante and ... and one other point that escapes me. (The booklet's Appendix list of system entries was all Mandel's, not Upton's.)

--I and several other contributors were not on contract but were to receive credit and at least comp copies, which never materialized due to the project only making its initial run (due to the delivery delay and the new Pocket Books license taking over from Bantam). Several uncredited people, especially artists, wrote letters to Starlog over the next few months to make that fact known (not I).The negatives were not due to Mandel's fault, and we worked togther 20 years later on the new Star Charts from Pocket. --I did receive one "patronage star" named for me on the Maps (although at the time I was not in favor of the "joke names" when I saw them.)

Larry Nemecek Author, Archivist, Editor, Consultant, Fan

Non-Canon Comic Characters
I noticed you putting the new template on various comics, and noted that you've been adding it to the Gold Key comics. In those comics, there aren't (as far as I've gotten thus far) any non-canon recurring characters at all, so it strikes me as a bit of a useless template in that case. :) -- Sulfur 00:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, i think it will be interesting to track how many non-canon appearances Scotty, Sulu, Uhura Chekov and McCoy have -- after all, the Enterprise senior staff were not completely represented throughout the run. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Time's Arrow - Colt handgun information
Hi Captainmike - You said you "moved" the handgun information to a different place in the Time's Arrow article. It looks to me like you just deleted it. Am I missing something? Thanks, -Dave TheBluesMan 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He moved it to the Colt .45 article, I think. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct. He left me a message on my talk page to explain it. Many thanks, Mike! -Dave TheBluesMan 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:ST Reborn
Hiya, Mike! To answer your Reborn question, as I stated at the vfd, after all the chaos I caused accidently starting to merge the article with fan fiction and then merging it with "fan films", it turns out that "fan fiction" may have been the best place to merge it to. Even that might be pushing it, though... however, after all the crap that occured while trying to merge the histories, I decided just to leave things alone and let someone else handle it. As for the site being down, I don't know why that is, it worked fine for me last night/early this morning. But yeah, if you wanna un-merge the histories (if that's possible) or just move the info to fan fiction, or even just delete it, feel free to do so.last night, I think it's best that I just leave it alone. ;) --From Andoria with Love 17:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Parodies
Hmmm... that's a good point. Yeah, I guess that would cause a problem if it was at "literature". Okay, I think we should leave "Star Wreck" where it is and just link it to the "literature" and "fan film" parody pages when those are created. --From Andoria with Love 01:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rank graphics are PNA
I noticed that the rank pin graphics you uploaded some time ago are all PNA. Could you please add a license template to them? The posibilities are and. Although the Image copyright may not be a real option considering that the articles are CC. By the way, the graphics are really nice. --Bp 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already discussed using "image copyright" with Cid, in fact i thought all of them had been cited. if there are further questions about the rights to the illustrations, i'll remove them.


 * thanks for noticing -- i've spent a lot of time trying to get these straight. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Condescension
Well, I'm not the first to find your remarks insulting. Maybe it's the age-old impersonal nature of the typed word which masks tone, but I think that's all the more reason to take an extra step to be sure you're coming across the way you intend. In any case, I made a substantive point in the USA talk page, and I think it bears discussion. -- unsigned
 * Seeing as you haven't said anything specific or substantial about which phrases in my first paragraph added to that discussion, I guess I won't ever know what you took as "insulting". -- Captain M.K.B. 16:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Protesting too much
Tells me everything I need to know. (As does "A fun answer." Quite an idea of "fun.")  What an 8 year-old you are. --DNJimerson 18:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed bridge crew woman 2254
Captain-- look at the talk page for unnamed crew persons. I think it might be helpful. Keep up the good work. --GNDN 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I really like what you've done with the page, and anything I've written is not meant as a criticism. My only point is that in the first pilot much of what we came to know as Star Trek was necessarily in flux.  This entire discussion (as well as others on Navigators and Helmsmen), has made me reevaluate how the bridge was initially intended to be used dramatically.  By placing the the science station next the main viewer, it created a natural sight-line from there to the captian's chair to the turbolift --all key points of exposition in any bridge scene.  It would seem that when the focus on Spock became more pronounced in the second pilot, his station was moved to a location where Kirk could speak with him on more equal terms.  Instead of being a Jack-in-the-box with some key plot point, the new location would allow for more of a conversation.  Thanks for helping me through this bit of dramaturgy.--GNDN 16:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So let's get a background note about how other stations functioned with some similar roles until the series became finalized. The point i'm trying to make is that every panel on the bridge had identical components and graphics to another one in some way, this really doesnt mount evidence that any of the controls did the same thing., therefore we shouldn't claim that it was "definitely" a science station at this point, although the observation will make great article additions. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)