User talk:Balok/archive

This page exists to preserve older talk information, so that the main talk page can be free of clutter.

=2004=

User Images
Hey Balok. I've noticed you made some very good contributions to Memory Alpha lately. Your articles are really well-written! :)

However, it's usually not allowed to have personal images hosted at MA. Image:Smaller balok.jpg is only used on your user page. See User:Ottens for example. You'll notice the image is linked to from my own webspace. So, unless the Image:Smaller balok.jpg would fit in on the Balok page also (which seems unlikely, since there are three good images there, but a fourth is unnecessary), I'm afraid your userimage will have to be removed. Sorry :). Ottens 16:30, 17 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * I have removed the reference from my user page, and have added the image to the images for deletion page. If more needs to be done, let me know.  Thanks.  Balok 21:52, 17 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Point of view
Just a brief note to remind you of the point of view used for articles here. Similar to that used by the Star Trek Encyclopedia, it is intended for us to write from the perspective of the late 24th century Federation observer, rather than our current timeframe and timeline. Some of your recent contributions have mixed the two, and have needed to be adapted. Speculation and the like should be avoided whereever possible, as should attempts to "fill in the gaps". -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:04, Aug 18, 2004 (CEST)


 * I will keep this in mind. Balok 17:03, 19 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Recent Contributions
Hey. You've made some great contributions to Memory Alpha lately, especially concerning the TOS series. Keep up the good work! :) Ottens 12:29, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * Thanks! --Balok 17:23, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * You've been bussy lately. I would like to make one suggestion: we usually try to add references/appearences of certain characters, ships, etc. on our pages. A recent example is the Eve McHuron page. I added a reference as  Thanks. Your other recent additions, like Ben Childress all include references. Good work. :D Ottens 11:48, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * I try to remember those references, but I'll freely admit that I don't always get them. If you catch one, feel free to fix it or just bring it to my attention here, and I'll fix it.  Thanks.  -- Balok 17:35, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Categories
Balok, i rearranged some of the categories you created in David Opatoshu. since the category tree is still in discussion, i'm treading lightly, but doing some tests will help us work things out and also generate interest and attention. please leave any commentary we need to at the talk pages associated with the category tree. hopefully, we'll make some progress! -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 03:59, 19 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * I saw that, I was going to post a message asking if there were rules. I'll go look them up.  It seems like certain of the "lists" pages would benefit from the automation 'Category' provides as far as reducing the maintenance.  So I figured I'd dip a toe in and see how it worked. -- Balok 04:01, 19 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Well, the concern is that massive amounts of edits will be necessary to remove incorrectly named or placed categories, or simply that some will be redundant. There was a discussion of how to tree them, but talks kind of broke down. Hopefully, by keeping things simple, a few tests like we are doing may help clarify a direction (since i was able to manipulate the direction our tests are going without too much hassle, i don't think this will cause too much of a problem with the overall tree discussions. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:07, 19 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Then the right course of action at this point would be to avoid categorizing? It sounds like you're telling me things are still inchoate... -- Balok 04:10, 19 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Well, I'm planning on trying to perform more tests, kind of "create" a basic tree by finding a few articles and adding them at a time (rather than a complete categorizing effort). I'm not saying that its forbidden, i'm just saying that our purpose is first to try and accurize the categories to our tree discussions, and only as a second step would we go on to a "complete" categorization of Memory Alpha (if only as to prevent conflicts with other users who aren't on the same page as us yet). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:19, 19 Dec 2004 (CET)

Discussion about categories
Hi. You participated in the discussion of categories on Memory Alpha talk:Category tree in the past. There are several new suggestions now, it would be nice if you could check the talk page and comment on some of them. Thanks, Cid Highwind 17:42, 2004 Dec 25 (CET)

=2005=

Vegan choreomeningitis
Where did you get this spelling? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:21, 5 Jan 2005 (CET)

Templates
Hi, Balok. Yesterday, you wanted to know if "regular members" are allowed to create templates (User talk:MinutiaeMan). As far as I am aware, there are no special restrictions regarding the creation of templates. Just make sure the templates you create are listed on the appropriate pages and perhaps try to discuss your ideas first if they would result in major changes. -- Cid Highwind 17:39, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * I would like to thank you for your creation of the IMDb-link template. I have gone through hundreds of pages replacing whatever IMDb link was there with your standard template. I know this is months later, but thanks. -Platypus Man | Talk 17:39, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. It was an experiment in achieving standardization between the name at the top of the page and the name in the link. -Balok 23:04, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

=2007=

Unnamed Providers
I have moved the information you wrote at this article to the species article, Provider. The unnamed Providers article is intended to describe the individual characters, not the species and their abilities - that is what Provider is meant to do. That article was in need of some expansion anyway, and your additions have vastly increased the information there. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. It seemed to me that when I looked for a Providers page it redirected me to Unnamed Providers, but I must be misremembering, as Providers has clearly been there awhile. I've added some more specific information to the character page, which also contained a few grammar errors and one factual error (it originally stated the providers were non-corporeal, which was not the case). -- Balok 00:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)