User talk:Captainmike

<< User talk:Captainmike/archive

Valora
Thanks for paying attention - I saw the user but just didn't put two and two together :( &mdash; Morder (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem -- figured putting the welcome in both places would achieve a better result... :) I'll leave it to the more experienced guys to continue the process.. -- Captain MKB 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Site
http://www.captainmike.org/photos.html seems to be broken - all the images are 404'd :) But when you click on them they're there...just letting you know... &mdash; Morder (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MEh .. old party photos needed to get moved. forget where i put them, but theyre going away. -- Captain MKB 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now they seem to be all gone, thumbnails and pics. Which is too bad, because Andrew told me to go to your site to see some picture, but I don't remember what he was talking about.  But now I can't even browse them.  Wah.  Jbshryne 21:43, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there were some notable light saber fight shots. I could probably dig them up but i know the people in them hate when i drag out decade old pictures of them. -- Captain MKB 01:31, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

STEU
I left a message on your talk page over there. If you could check it out, I'd appreciate it. -- Kevin W. &bull; Talk to me 07:49, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

75.32.147.197
Just noticed you rebanned 75.32.147.197. While a new comment was added to "vandalism in progress," there doesn't seem to be any vandalism in progress. The last act was almost a month ago, and since the last block was lifted, there has been no vandalism. How is the new extended block warranted? --OuroborosCobra talk 01:09, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment on Vandalism in Progress -- since no one ever cleaned up that page, whoever reformatted that page just now made me think the vandalism was still in progress, my mistake. However, this IP is a three-time loser, another few weeks without him isn't the end of the world. Fix it if you feel that is needed. -- Captain MKB 01:18, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, I can't fix it, but don't you think you should? Don't you think it is bad form for administrators to hand out blocks when they aren't earned, then just leaving them because they are too lazy to fix it when they realize that no vandalism has actually been committed? --OuroborosCobra talk 01:25, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, as an administrator, I've reviewed the previous three blocks and have decided that the lengthened block should be continued because of the repeated bad behavior of this IP.


 * Furthermore, I'm shocked and insulted you'd attribute this to laziness on my part. Thanks for your interest in the security of the site and the application of our policies. Now that this situation is resolved, you are free to continue editing pages here on Memory Alpha. I'm glad I could be of help addressing your concerns about this situation. You're welcome. :) -- Captain MKB 01:31, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

You've done no such thing. You've reinstituted a block on an IP address, which can effect more than one user do to ISP recycling of IP addresses, against someone who has not shown a repeat of poor behavior after a week of their previous block being lifted. Blocks aren't simply "punishments," they are something that is used to protect the site from vandalism, and in this case the vandalism was long over, meaning there was no need for a block. While I was careful not to use personal language in my previous post, but to speak of general administrator behavior, I will use specific language now. You have lied. You have claimed now that you instituted this new block because you felt the old one wasn't long enough, when you previously claimed that you instituted the new block because you accidentally were given the impression of continued vandalism in progress. When presented with the fact that it wasn't continuing, you basically just shrugged and said "you deal with it if you want to." I am in no way comforted by this situation, I am not welcome, my concerns have not been addressed, and you have behaved very poorly simply for the reason of not wanting to look like you made a mistake. Deal with the fact that this IP address, which may not even be assigned to the same user now, has been blocked for no further vandalism a week after their last block was lifted. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:41, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I must be lazy. -- Captain MKB 01:45, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, OC, please reread my above comment with a much greater emphasis on the ":)" smiley face -- there's this whimsical quality to the comment, like, maybe, I'm not reacting hurriedly to your outraged rhetoric and insults, but still was speaking facetiously and was intending to deal with the situation. And I do apologize, for some reason I thought you were an admin and could help me out with this. With my laziness. And my lies. -- Captain MKB 01:59, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is a smiley face supposed to make me think "as an administrator, I've reviewed the previous three blocks and have decided that the lengthened block should be continued because of the repeated bad behavior of this IP" actually means "oops, I'll go fix this thing," because I'm not seeing how, --OuroborosCobra talk 02:03, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been working on other forums were humor plays a much greater role in the interplay between users. I didn't realize that things were so businesslike here these days. So are you saying I should unblock this IP immediately? :) - Captain MKB 02:06, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

moved from talk:Doctor Who
It's true, I'm greatly out of touch with the tone here -- i'll stick with that rather than accepting i might not be witty, as i know i am plenty so -- just not able to make it work with MA lately.

I hope that if i have further difficulties, you can find some charity and talk to me rather than talking down to me, to snap me back into shape. You know, like writing, "hey Mike, you're the only admin who can unblock that IP right now" rather than writing a kilobyte paragraph about how irresponsible I am. Do-able? -- Captain MKB 04:42, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, is it do-able for you to respond that you'll actually unblock the IP, rather than a string of responses saying you won't do it, then complaining why later someone doesn't realize you meant the opposite of what you said? More to the point, can you let old dogs lie, and not revive a dispute that is over and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue on the Doctor Who article? --OuroborosCobra talk 04:46, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

My talk page has been accessible continuously ever since then -- it would have been a great place to give me a wake up call that you didn't get my joke or that you didn't agree with my actions. -- Captain MKB 04:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and let you get away accuse me of caring only about a personal dispute with you, rather than just the ubanning of an IP blocked after having not committed vandalism? Let you accuse me of only wanting the last word? I let it end because the important thing had been achieved, you actually doing your job. I didn't need to get into a conversation about your humor, particularly since you were going to other admins complain about me cluttering your talk page. The issue was over. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with this article. I didn't bring it up in this talk page, you did. I felt no need to bring it up again, as it is a resolved issue. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just end this. Leave everything here and take the discussion elsewhere if you two wish to continue talking about IPs and what-not. If you wish to discuss the article at hand do so under the "To the point" heading. &mdash; Morder (talk) 05:47, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is fine with me...now "can't we all just get along?" :) &mdash; Morder (talk) 05:59, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Please read Morder's talk page
I'm trying to compromise with you here. Morder, the admin you went to regarding this "edit warring," has also suggested accepting this compromise. Please discuss it, as I have done on my talk page, his talk page, and now here, rather than simply re-adding comments that have nothing to do with the IP debate, and mischaracterizing this as me having restarted the previously resolved argument. This is a compromise, it gets the IP debate off the page, even leaves it with third party humor. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:06, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

My Userpage
Happy? ~ Jbshryne 07:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can smell the music! -- Captain MKB 13:06, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Leslie
The evidence in Assignment Earth for two separate characters both played by Paskey (possibly named Leslie) seems to be powerful. Please check this episode out and consider the fact Paskey's character was declared dead but appeared in later episodes.
 * There' no real way to measure which Leslie we are looking at if there were two Leslies, so it's not something we could readily quantify here. He did die, but came back, as the article(s) bout him state. -- Captain MKB 22:02, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Memory beta block
First I had to talk here since I was blocked at memory beta and I am REALLY PISSED. I didn't know you were ignoring lt jg and lieutenant commanders BUT a warning might have been a bit more appropiate.

2)Lieutenant commanders and JG aren't "half ranks" they are full ranks (is a army lieutenant or major a half rank? Is a lieutenant general a half rank, a vice admiral?) ,there are probably more of them than commanders and lts, in quoting wikipedia "A Lieutenant Commander is a senior department officer on a large ship or shore installation. He may also be commanding officer or executive officer (second-in-command) of a smaller ship or installation." It doesn't say "a Lieutenant Commander is a non worthy piece of crap half rank derided by all". I even had a lot, 36 before i was blocked too, not just 2 or 3.

Dr. Stantz 19:39, June 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * You were editing at such a fast pace, I had to stop you in order to keep the edits manageable (i had to undo all of them). You were only blocked for five minutes, you should be able to edit again. You were not blocked from editing your MB talk, you could have left this message there.


 * Please, feel free to discuss this with the rest of the Memory Beta community. It wasn't my decision, I was just enforcing it. The main reasoning is that in many novels, Lieutenant JGs are referred to as 'lieutenant' and LCDRs are referred to as 'ommander' -- so we don't have solid information on who holds these ranks, because of the terminology.


 * But like i said, this isn't my decision. If you intend to make changes to several thousand articles categories, why can't you a) not get pissed off and b) discuss it with the ocmmunity first on the MB forum page. Thanks. -- Captainmike


 * I was completely blocked I tried messaging you but it said I was blocked for several days, and I could NOT message you, i tried that first. Dr. Stantz 19:49, June 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your editing priveliges should be completely reinstated. You were only blocked for five minutes. During blocks you are only allowed to access YOUR OWN talk page. -- Captainmike

29th Infantry Division article
Captain Mike,

I don't believe we've met (hello!). I have a question about the article about the US 29th Infantry Division article, which you created. I don't believe it was ever mentioned in dialogue, text, or in production background. All we have is the, which you uploaded (and not from a screencap, book pic, or from a background Web site – just the actual patch). There were many mistakes in the episode I believe, such as the "infamous" 1980 Citroën, use of American equipment by Germans, costume errors, Nazi flag colors, even ''Hirogen in SS uniforms!' – hehe ;) etc. (I may be wrong on some of those, of course.)

Anyway, I broached the issue on the article's talk page. I didn't want to put it up for VfD – something I've never yet done – without your input or notifying you. Obviously you know more about MA's policies than I. Perhaps we can discuss it here, my talk page, or the article's.

Maybe Brannon Braga or Joe Menosky (the episode's writers) talked about it somewhere or someone in the art department did. If so, then, from my limited understanding, we could cite it and thus definitely keep the article. But if not and I don't here from you then.....?

Thanks.

16:22, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cepstrum! I would advise taking a screencap of the patch on the crew's uniforms as seen in the episode. When I was working on the article, probably half-a-decade ago, i didn't have screencap availability and thus i digitally illustrated my own version of the patch.


 * The thrust of the articles is that the episode shows US soldiers wearing the patch, and the patch is commonly known to represent that division (in real-life, citable to a reputable website source). So the episode establishes the unit, but the description is taken from real-life knowledge. Sorry the visual information isn't there, but this was back when it was very difficult for an end-user to take screencaps without proprietary software and/or high-quality copies of the episode source, of which i had neither -- just my VHS copy and no digital wiring possible through the VCR. Sounds ancient, I know... -- Captain MKB 01:36, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Captain Mike!

Thanks. I'm trying to be more useful here (see this recent discussion on my talk page: it's clear I lack know-how!), so I'm wondering if this is this reasoning is correct:
 * 1) Patch shown in
 * 2) Patch well-known to rep. the US 29th
 * 3) Apply MA's "Use Common Sense" policy.

= creation/existence of article. ? I'm still unclear about what's valid/canon/acceptable.

About screencaps: I do own the DVD. So unless Jörg doesn't have a pic, I could try to get one (my first). I envision a pic showing the (likely blurry) patch combined w/ your patch pic as a blown-up insert. Would that be a copyvio (ie, editing a screencap)? We could just have two pics, one from the show & yours, with a caption worded to make it clear the patch you provided isn't actually a close-up from the episode but instead a facsimile.

Your thoughts? Again, about this recent exchange on my talk page (in which an editor alerted me of the harm I've been causing MA lately) – perhaps you could examine the situation & provide help to ensure I stop the damage, as the editor cautioned me. It's clear I need a few (or a lot) more tips, & given your long-time admin status, maybe you could look into it & tell me how best to improve. It's disturbing me that I'm hurting MA with my gaffes! :(

Sorry about the long post: something I'm trying to reduce. Feel free to either delete it or ask me to replace it with a brief summary & link to the original on my talk sub-page for that purpose (a solution Cid & I came up with to rid talk pages of the many stupidly-long posts I made during my start this fall).

13:34, January 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning indeed describes the logic behind the article, quite eloquently describing the common sense. This was (and is) how I see the article's right to exist. I have had a considerable hiatus from MA so I can't quote an exact passage of policy that describes this in relation to canon, but i was confident it was acceptable at the time i wrote the article.


 * For caution's sake, I'd keep two separate images -- one that is an illustration (not Paramount's copyright) and the screencap (Paramount's) to avoid muddying the attributions/copyrights of the images.


 * I'm replying quickly now because I have an appointment so I have not read your other discussion. I'm fine with discussions and explanations of any length on talk pages as long as they have clear purposes and resolutions, so I don't have any problem with conversations such as this one, regardless of length. -- Captain MKB 15:18, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

My edits
If you ever have an issue with my edits, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page. I will apologise for deleting your MB link (I simply missed it), but I won't apologise for changing the templates back. I don't even know why you changed them in the first place. In any case, I have replied to your original message on Talk:Starbase G-6. --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:00, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Don't blindly delete in the future, you'll do better here. -- Captain MKB 14:33, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * He didn't blindly delete. Are you choosing not to read his comments, here or on the other talk page, for some specific reason beyond egotism? --OuroborosCobra talk 14:43, April 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * His goal was to regularize capitalization that actually made no difference how the article was displayed. I don't really care about his preference there. He should take the time to make sure he's not removing valid edits while he is making superfluous changes. He's apologized for removing a valid edit, so that's fine, but there was no reason for the changes in the first place, so he's more of a nuisance to me than anything.


 * Please don't pull out some personal attack against me on my page accusing me of having any "egotistical" problem that doesn't even apply to the conversation here. I don't answer to OuroborosCobra, go away from my talk page, I don't consider you involved. -- Captain MKB 14:48, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has done ANY programming knows that even when whitespace and capitalization don't matter, you still follow a single standard that makes seeing the code for other programmers easier. Why in God's name would you, Mike, want to make things harder by randomizing the capitalization? Seriously, it boggles the mind that you would go OUT OF YOUR WAY to make the code more difficult for other editors. Your only reason is that it doesn't matter when it is displayed? Guess what, how well other people can edit is also a consideration on a site like this. That you don't care about his preference or, more importantly, site standardization, says everything about YOU as an editor (and a person). The USS undefined template is USS on every article on this site because it makes sense in the context of its use, and you randomly come along and change it to uSS in one article for no good reason. Maybe you shouldn't be coming back here if you do not care about other editors. He made a single mistake in fixing YOUR MESS, and then he apologized for it. Rather than learn from this situation yourself, you displayed egotism and lack of care for any other editors. TrekFan took the high road, you dug yourself a trench underneath the road. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:56, April 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * More comments characterizing me as "low". Do you edit on this wiki, or just dole out tantrums?


 * I still don't see why you feel the need to smear your excrement across my talk page though. This is obviously just part of your need to shoot hostility at me, since you weren't even involved in the conversation. Go run along boy, get on your high horse, and don't let the door hit you in the tail on the way out - you bother me. -- Captain MKB 14:59, April 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Both TrekFan and OC are totally correct regarding the original issue, though. You chose to randomly add some weird capitalization scheme to pages that only you understand or like, and which everyone else tidies up as soon as you add it to pages. Stop that, it serves absolutely no purpose. Also, stop insulting other users just to get an in-kind reply which you then use as a reason to protect your own page - which, BTW, I unprotected again because it was misusing your admin powers. -- Cid Highwind 15:56, April 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm completely open to a rational discussion about capitalization issues Cid - but I need the tone of the discussion to be a little more even than OC has presented. If we're going to counsel -any- user about changing the minor details of the edits, is a personal attack accusing egotism with such a hostile tone really called for?


 * My point was that, if anyone wants me to change minor details like capitalization, they should approach rationally and discuss it, not delete the valid parts of my edits and certainly not to berate be with a hostile and harassing tone. -- Captain MKB 16:01, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

If I may say so, that is exactly what I did, but your reply indicates you didn't even read what I put. What good is trying to talk to you civily if you aren't going to even read the comments properly? --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:03, April 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm usually in a hurry. My advice would be to make your statement in a couple sentences or less. Last night I was really upset and wrote a kind of pissy response, but in reality it all boils down to:
 * Me: Don't delete my link if you have to fix the capitalization.
 * You: I fixed your capitalization and accidentally deleted your link.
 * Sulfur: I fixed that link.
 * Cid: TrekFan was right to do that. Stop doing that.
 * OC: Yip yip yip yip yip name-calling.
 * So why is all this other text here? Let's move on already, unless there is more here that needs to be concluded. -- Captain MKB 16:11, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

I already told you, I didn't delete your link on purpose. I thought all you did to the page was make those nonsensical edits. And by the way, your NCwiki link was a mix of lower/upper case aswell. I was happy to leave it at:
 * TrekFan: Sorry for deleting your link but don't change templates like you did
 * Captainmike: OK, I'll remember not to do that in future. Thanks for the apology.

But it wasn't like that. You made some sarcastic comment about "doing well to remember that" and then began to hurl insults at Cobra! I think it's you who has the problem, quite honestly. If I may give you some "advice?" You would "do well" to speak to people better around here. You might get a better response yourself. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:15, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was originally upset and made a pissy comment. Now, I've calmed down, but OC continued with trying to get in a few digs of his own after the situation was ready to subside. This is a habit of his and I don't recognize his right to do so.


 * I appreciate Cid clarifying that the style I wrote in needed correction, and am willing to accept his statement that I should edit differently. I appreciate Sulfur's catching the need for correction, I appreciate your apology for deleting something, and I'm even ready to apologize to you for being snotty, but I feel I was understandably upset, but now that has passed. So I apologize for being snotty to you.


 * But OC had no cause to continue to berate me after the moment had passed, and to continue to take digs at me over and over again. It made a constructive conclusion much more difficult to reach, and isn't the first time he's done so. He needs to adjust his attitude towards me. -- Captain MKB 16:23, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know the history between you two, but if you always get this upset over things and make snotty comments I'm not suprised he has to reply the way he does. Perhaps you would consider having a "cooling period" after reading somone's post before you reply to it so you don't make "rash" posts. You should also try reading your posts back and asking yourself "how would I take this?" If the answer is "I would be offended" then you have your answer. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:31, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got to love Mike's self-deluding timeline of events that places Cid's comments before mine and pretending Cid only mentioned TrekFan, and not me. Cid had no involvement before me, in fact this is the first comment I'm making after Cid came along. I actually pity Mike a little; I wonder if that's how he really thinks events played out. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:34, April 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I moved you to the end of the list because of irrelevance.


 * Also, please stop making comments accusing me of mental dysfunction, I find it to be name-calling, and harassment. I've already stated that your personal attacks are not welcome. Cid's intervention and my continued discussion with TrekFan are a good direction to take. You making digs against me is not constructive, and I find it highly offensive. -- Captain MKB 16:38, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Mike, can I ask you a question? Do you not think "I still don't see why you feel the need to smear your excrement across my talk page though" and "Go run along boy, get on your high horse, and don't let the door hit you in the tail on the way out" is offensive and would perhaps annoy someone so much that they would reply as OC does? I'm not necessarily saying it's right, but I can understand it. If you stop making these kind of comments, you might be suprised how other people will usually stop aswell! --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:43, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike, you accuse people of wiping shit around the site and refuse to even for a SECOND consider the websites editing conventions, and you find me insulting? Wow, you've really got some head on there. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:47, April 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I find that to be a very positive suggestion. I'd be willing to go forward with a clean slate, but every time I return to MA I face a number of users with what you describe "history" that causes them to use extreme hostility when approaching me. Each "dig" usually begets another, and I'm not accustomed to letting people walk all over me in that way, so, yes, I need to work on the knee-jerk reactions. Would anyone be willing to join me in moving forward with a clean slate? -- 16:50, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll excuse me for finding your claimed wish to move forward with a "clean slate" entirely disingenuous when it is done with the very same edits you use to remove others comments because you don't like the dispute you are personally in, and because they point out how much of a hypocrite and liar you are. Clean up your act, and I'll happily move forward with you. I won't move forward alone, as that would leave you static and not actually moving forward. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:55, April 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I will not excuse you. Accusing someone of being a liar is a flame, and you should be careful of that - saying "you'll excuse me" before an insult does not make it less insulting.


 * But the positive upshot is yes, moving forward is necessary and if we all tone it down things should be fine. -- Captain MKB 16:59, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * The "you'll excuse me" wasn't meant to make the accusation of your hypocrisy and lying any less insulting (though accurate, given your coupling a "let's move forward with a clean slate" by doing the exact opposite). It was meant to excuse my taking you as disingenuous. You'll note it was attached to a different clause. Now are you going to try and get the last insulting word in before again trying to claim the high road and say "let's all be nice to each other"? Or are you just going to try and be nice? It makes little difference to me except that I don't believe you are trying to turn over a new leaf while still throwing the old one in our faces. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:05, April 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * A guy can't get the last word on his own talk page? I've put it out there - It would be fine if everything stopped and we could go forward. I'll make a conscious effort change my ways and hopefully we can move to a place where, when I stop responding to trolling and digs against me, then those will also stop. Is that where we're at, or am I to answer for something else that requires more posts on this page right now? -- Captain MKB 17:43, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

please help
my friends and i want to build a prometheus class alfa section and where loking for blueprints that whe can use

if you have any please let me know

if you want to be in the crew also let me know that (please remember to let me know what department you want to be in

--Armando.thijssen 21:21, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Hello, sir
I am Anakin Skyobiliviator. I just recently made a new wiki called Star Wars Vs. Star Trek Wiki. I am wondering if you could make the wiki an official friend of this wiki? I am planning to go to civilized way by Fact-vs-fact, not fan fiction, but debates could be made. I feel that it is important to make a treaty between my wiki and yours. I will be doing the same thing to the Star Wars wiki. Thank you for reading. \\//_ Anakin Skyobiliviator ( talk ) 21:06, November 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm only a part time sysop here, but it sounds like a nifty idea. Maybe you could do up a forum page with this proposal and a discussion for community consensus to include that could ensue. I'm wrapped up in a couple other wikis right now so I don't know if i'd be able to edit in a link like that right now. -- Captain MKB 21:20, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Noland
Hi, I wrote a message some minutes ago, but at the end, couldn't see if I'd signed it, and don't know if it got to you.

I am visiting Memory Alpha wiki again, and noticed, if I type "Valora Noland" (that's me) into the search slot, I get the page and see, under "DARAS" in blue, that the entry starts with "by:". Since I didn't write it, this should be deleted.

Then, under "Early Production History" the entry begins "December", but needs the number 8 before that.

I noticed the photo on the "Patterns of Force" page, or Daras page, has been changed with another frame grab. There were two, almost the same at this point on the film roll, and I think the other one might have a slightly more dramatic expression. Also, it seems a little dull, as in, not enough light.

There seems to be a funny face above the swastika on Daras' hat. It has a long carrot nose, and one eye is easily visible. I have also seen another face in this part of the background, sort of upside-down. I have quite a lot I could share about "this", if you are interested. I may need coaching.- Valora Noland (talk) 16:49, November 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the "by" is just an aspect of the search engine, and not meant to suggest authorship of the entry. I'm not sure if that can be changed or not. 31dot (talk) 16:51, November 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * It cannot be changed, it's a result of the way that the search engine indexes pages. The same goes with the Early Production History result.
 * I'm not sure what you mean about sharing about "this" though. Can you elaborate? -- sulfur (talk) 16:55, November 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Some default wikia skins that are "seen" by search engines identify photos as "by" the uploader or person who added it to the article (even though most of our photos are "by" a publisher or production company i.e. Desilu/Paramount/CBS, etc.).. it's a misnomer created by Wikia software treating wikis more like conventional blogs than actual wikipedia-like projects. so as an original author of a photo that was revised, it will remain credited to the original name by the search engines and wikia spotlight pages.


 * the articles and photos themselves will of course have a more detailed history that will show the actual owner/creator/uploader of the photo and the persons responsible for each revision. -- Captain MKB 17:09, November 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * while responses are welcome here, we can look at the individual pages to address concerns involved and/or for suggestions of changes by daily editors:
 * Daras (talk:Daras)
 * file:Daras.jpg (file talk:Daras.jpg)
 * Valora Noland (talk:Valora Noland)
 * Patterns of Force (episode) (talk:Patterns of Force (episode))
 * Ekosian (talk:Ekosian)
 * -- Captain MKB 17:26, November 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * In this case, the "by" text is the tail end of the "portrayed by" segment, which is all the search engine picks up out of the page starting template for whatever reason. The "by:" for uploaded photos shows up as "Uploaded by:". That is turned off on Memory Alpha however. -- sulfur (talk) 17:34, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

Provisional ranks
The provisional rank images need to be updated, as the edge and slashes are silver, not gold. That was cleared up when the pins were sold at auction a few years back. -- Kevin W. &bull; Talk to me 05:35, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Enterprise-E revisions summarily reverted
Please review the recent activity on the Enterprise-E page. Sulfur has summarily reverted my revisions for no specific reason, instead opening a discussion in a section of Talk unused since 2009. I explained my reasoning and have no problems discussing specific points of contention without an edit war, but this open-ended, "no good reason" approach could easily leave an erroneous article on Memory Alpha, simply because one or more careless writers came first. QeylIS (talk) 18:50, January 1, 2013 (UTC)