FANDOM

We've noticed that you've made a contribution to our database—thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy the activities of our community after reading this brief introduction.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Beta, here are a few links that you might want to check out:

  • Manual of Style: Please be sure to read this before contributing, so you know how to accurately cite your sources, and search the site to make sure the article you want to make doesn't already exist.
  • Policies and Guidelines: For a list of the policies and guidelines that we adhere to on Memory Beta.
  • Wanted pages: For a list of pages we want most, although any contributions you make are greatly appreciated!

One other suggestion: If you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in a member's talk page or the community portal. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Beta! --Dr. John Smith 04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated talk pagesEdit

If you have the desire to discuss a topic that would encompass more than one talk page, then it would be best to start a thread in the forum section.

Please stop copying the same talk page over and over. -- Captain MKB 05:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Basic format for new pages Edit

Hello, I appreciate you’ve made it clear you don't intent o go into a great deal of detail with your additions, but would you mind at least starting your entries within the boundaries of this wikia's style. Which is to include the name of the page subject emboldened as close to the start of the page as possible. So: "Fasker was a Kevrata resistance member." rather than just "A Kevrata resistance member." Thank you. --8of5 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, as you are keeping things to bare minimum, would you mind adding the stub article to the pages you create? Just add this: {{stub}}, that will then mark the page as one that could do with some more work. --8of5 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

T'hiradaEdit

I see that you reported a problem on the T'hirda page. As I suspect you have discovered, this page has been moved to T'hirada which is the proper spelling and the old page has been deleted. If there are any further problems with this page (or any others) please report them just as you did before. Thank you. --Jdvelasc 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In the future, please know that you should never try to "delete" a page by removing all content and saving it, as you did with T'hirda. The correct way to note that a page is incorrect is to either change it to a redirect to the correct spelling, or to place a message on it stating that it needs to be deleted. -- Captain MKB 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing contentEdit

Remember also that removing content from talk pages is not allowed. If there is a situation where a page needs to be deleted or moved, please ask, the manner in which you have deleted text has caused "blank" pages to linger in the database, which causes problems with the software. -- Captain MKB 04:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages Edit

Hi. I noticed that you have left several problem reports asking about moving pages, but nobody has answered your message. Well, if no one minds, I'll take it upon myself to answer.

To move pages just select the Move tab at the top of any editable pages. A new screen will then come up displaying the existing page name, and then asks you to input the new page name, as well as asking a reason for the move.

Once you've entered the data, simply click the Move button and you're away. Happy Moving (: --Bok 23:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Canon-related articlesEdit

If you are going to create an article related to a canonically-established character or item, you should include a "Connections" section and a link to Memory Alpha.

You should also check those articles to make sure you're being accurate in your writing. For instance, you wrote Dr. Ann Mulhall was one of McCoy's assistants, when she in fact was in astrobiology. --Seventy 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Light of DayEdit

Sorry I didn't notice your questions about moving pages earlier. I see that you have moved "Light of Day" to "Light of the Day". Where does your information about this title come from? Memory Alpha also lists "Light of Day" as the title. --Jdvelasc 03:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, was there a problem with the title of the "PHI-11" page? Perhaps you wanted the title to be "Phi-11"? I am not sure as I haven't seen the comic. --Jdvelasc 04:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So the inside cover of the comic lists the title as "Light of the Day"? I don't have the comic so I can't check. Another user has noted that on IDW's website the comic is titled "Light of Day". But if it is different in the comic, I would go with the comic. As for Phi-11, I assume that the title should not be in all caps so I am going to go ahead and move that article to the proper title. Please let me know if you think this is wrong. Thanks. --Jdvelasc 15:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If I can track down a scanner, I can send you a picture. ---- AT2

No, no need for a picture. If you are looking at the comic and you are sure then this is just a case of a disagreement between two different sources which has certainly happened before (even within the same comic!). But there is still the question of which we should use for the main article title. As I mentioned, I would go with the comic. Thanks again. --Jdvelasc 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

editing protocolsEdit

Hi AT2, I just wanted to take a second to make you aware of some cleanup I did relating to After the Fall articles you are working on.

Mandylorian 
You created this article with the name "Mandylorians" -- please remember that the names of individual races and cultures are singular here on Memory Beta, to make them easier to link to. I moved the article to the correct name, Mandylorian.
Mandylor V 
For some reason, you deleted the link to Mandylor V from the After the Fall article.. did you mean to do that? It seemed like an error, so I added the link back in since it looked like it still belonged there, since the Mandylor V article cites After the Fall as a source.
After the Fall planets 
I created a separate subsection in the After the Fall article for "planets and planetoids", but you moved the list of planets from that section to the subsection called "races and cultures"... was that a mistake? they seem like two different subjects to me. If there's anything you don't understand about subsections, feel free to ask.

Thanks for your time! -- Captain MKB 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble was that Mandylore V, Boragia III, and Respler IV-A were only referenced to describe the delegates and their cultures. The planets themselves weren't locations, or much described. The book gives Mandylore V's people the name of Mandylorians, but it leaves us hanging on the other two. We could generalize and call them Boragians and Replerians, but those would be guesses, not facts. Just trying for accuracy. Not finished with the book yet, so things may change. ---- AT2 Howell

AT2 - I noticed that you made a large number of edits to Missing in Action saving the changes each time. While nothing terrible happens when you do this, it is preferable to make a bunch of changes all at once and then save the page. If you need to see how it looks after each entry, you can always click on "show preview" at the bottom. One reason that this is better is that I (and I assume others) often look at the "recent changes" page to see which pages have been edited so that I can look for vandals, controversies, etc. It is much harder to do this if there are large numbers of very small changes which fill up the page. Also, if you are making small changes that don't really affect the content of the page, you can click the "minor edit" box at the bottom. Users who look at the recent changes page can ignore minor edits and concentrate their attention on the pages that change the most.

You shouldn't feel that you can't make several changes on the same page such as when you leave and then come back to a page, but it is nice if you can do it all at once. Thanks again for all your great work here. --Jdvelasc 19:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I edit while I read, but I'll use the minor edit thing. ---- AT2 Howell

General Trek discussionEdit

AT2 - If you are looking for people to discuss trek with there are lots of good people here, although you should try to restrict long back and forth conversations to somewhere other than this wiki. The ideal place for this (where there are many more trek lovers) is at the Trek BBS [[1]]. Questions about political themes in New Frontier or anywhere else for that matter are more than welcome. I can't recall PAD every posting anything there, but tons of authors such as Keith DeCandido, Christopher Bennett, etc. are there all the time and happily answer questions about their books (and others). And of course readers love to chime in themselves.

Also, if you are posting on talk pages or forums, you should sign your posts. To do this, use a button at the top of the editing page that has a signature on it (third from the right - you can also just type four tildes). Not only does this produce a direct link to your user page, but it automatically records the date and time of the post. It took me a while to figure this out so I assume you just didn't know how to do this either. Thanks. --Jdvelasc 18:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. --AT2Howell 01:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

new articlesEdit

I have noticed you are creating numerous new stub articles, that is artiles that are very short and lack a lot of detailed content -- but several new articles you've created exist under different names. A great tool for archivists are the "search" feature and the "What links here" feature -- if you had searched for "sinclair" or "alexander" you might have noticed that we already have an article titled Margaret Sinclair-Alexander -- which is a more detailed duplicate of the article "Sinclair-Alexander" that you just created. There are numerous other novels and episodes that deal with the topics you are writing about, and sometimes it reveals better information than your own assumptions -- for example, by searching this site and the internet in general, i discovered gree-worms are not Cardassian like you said they were, but in fact, Ferengi. Just letting you know about the further possibilities inherent in your contributions -- and to avoid further errors. -- Captain MKB 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

incomplete sentenceEdit

AT2Howell, I was wondering if you could make a change in your editing habits regarding incomplete sentences -- for example, in the article "T'Prel", you wrote "She was on a covert mission to Devron II" -- this sentence does not have an appropriate verb in it. Did you mean "She went on a covert mission to Devron II"? Or is there an ending to this sentence? ("She was on a covert mission to Devron II, when something happened").

All of these short articles you have created need a lot of fleshing out -- which is why they are marked as "stubs" -- I just hope that you are aware that every time an article is marked as a "stub", it means that eventually someone will have to take the time to fix it, by adding a complete description, categories, tables and other links, et cetera.. -- I hope you are interested in taking part in this process, since you are starting the articles.

In the mean time, even if you are only interested in creating stub articles, please try to make sure they contain complete thoughts and correct information. Thanks! -- Captain MKB 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RaifiEdit

Hi AT2Howell, I noticed you created an article about Raifi -- I searched Memory Alpha and found that Raifi was actually Tobin Dax's son -- could you go ahead and edit that article to state that, rather than just saying "Raifi was someone" -- it seems like it would be more appropriate to complete the thought. -- Captain MKB 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bajoran systemEdit

Hi AT2Howell, I noticed you created an article about the Bajoran System -- did you know that that article already existed, under the title "Bajoran system"?

Could you please check things like this before going ahead and creating the articles -- I have to merge the articles now, and its quite a bit of work to properly merge the histories.

From now on, please try to create star system article links with the lower-case word "system" -- not "System" -- do you see the difference? please answer. -- Captain MKB 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. – AT2Howell 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk pagesEdit

Thank you for finally replying to me -- could you please check out "talk:Buck Rogers" -- another admin has asked a question there about your approach to creating the article, I think it would be more than polite if you answered him, as he is waiting to remove some of the information you added there. -- Captain MKB 18:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

duplicated namesEdit

Again, you are creating articles unnecessarily -- Eeiauon (which is misspelled), Shuttlecraft Marsalis and Shuttlecraft Ellington existed already under the names "Eeiauoan" "Marsalis" and "Ellington".

One thing that you could do to prevent this from happening is to use the search bar to find out if you are creating an article with a name that has been used already. Thanks for your time! -- Captain MKB 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

new articlesEdit

Hey, all the new Uhura's Song articles look great, good work. Are you ever going to finish all of them for us? I'd hate to see all of them remain stubs!

Please remember to add links whenever possible! Thanks! -- Captain MKB 17:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I put everything I remember on a subject, however I do like to put the stub marker on there so that if someone else knows more, they can add it. Like that bit about Nog and Eeiauoan porn. I had no idea. – AT2Howell 19:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You should only stub an article if there is something you have knowingly missed, if an article is complete to the best of your knowledge then as far as you're concerned it isn't a stub. However, as the articles you write are so brief and lacking in detail they almost always are stubs... --8of5 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

CittionsEdit

Please remember to cite your additions. Unless there is a citation for articles on Norse, Swahili and Egyptians you should not be creating pages for them. --8of5 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculously small articles Edit

AT2Howell please, you really need to expand your articles more. "Dolphins were a Cetacean on Earth" is really not enough to warrant even bothering to make an article. No reference is given where absolutely no other information is given about the subject, at the very least you must include details of the context of the citation, why were Dolphins, Mediterraneans or Trojan Horses even mentioned in the novel? Your articles tell us nothing, please put more thought into exactly what the sources is providing before churning out articles which are useful to no one. --8of5 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have deleted dolphin for not having enough information. Please continue to work at it at user:AT2Howell/Dolphin and move it to become an article when you have more time to improve it. Thanks for contributing, I hope that I can help you expand more of your articles! -- Captain MKB 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If I put in a pargaph about Dolphins from wikipedia, you will say I added too much. If I note only the bare facts, you say I don't have enough. In that book, Dolphin was used as a reference for the appearance and characteristics of the Dolpheels. So, not that important, right? But I seem to remember a talking dolphin in a STNG book years and years ago. There's bound to be at least a dozen references in the entire history of Star Trek to a frackn dophin. These will never be brought together unless there is a page. I did what you asked, I kept the info on a basic, short, and to the reference level. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? – AT2Howell 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you put a paragraph from wikipedia we'd say you added too much real world info and stole it from another site to boot. And you just illustrated our point beautifully right there, the context int he novel, in-universe, was to note the similarity to Dolpheels, yet you didn’t make any note of that in the article! --8of5 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To explain some more... you will never get complained at for adding lots of accurate information from a licensed Star Trek source. That is the entire point of this site. What you will get told off for is adding lots of information that has nothing to do with Star Trek.

Have you ever actually bothered to look at other peoples work on articles to see what sort of thing we are looking for? For instance, today I expanded your article on Thak, for which the information you originally provided was this "Doctor Thak was a Gorn.". Now look at that article now, it tells you pretty much everything the comic has to tell about him. That is the sort of detail we do want. --8of5 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So why couldn't you add text that says something along the lines of "Dolphins are cetacean mammals native to Earth. In 2165, Doctor Thak noted that dolphins are very similar in structure and development to dolpheels."
That is the kind of context we want you to add. Describe precisely how they were described in the Star Trek book they were mentioned in. If Scotty says that dolphins are ugly in the book you are reading, then put "23rd century engineer Montgomery Scott thought dolphins were ugly creatures." -- that is what we mean when we say add context. Did you look at the article that 8of5 suggested you look at? Please answer.. -- Captain MKB 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry response took so long, I had to go out and fix the test cell. Yeah, I checked the article out. Looks pretty good. – AT2Howell 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just thought I'd remind you of this conversation as you've slipped into the same habit again. Sabre bear, Dermal regenerator, Cyrano Jones, Hoverskimmer are all so basic it's ridiculous. These sort of things all have a context, what happened to or how was the sabre bear mentioned, what was the dermal regenerator used for and by whom? How was Cyrano Jones mentioned (the current citation should probably be to The Trouble with Tribbles as your article mentions absolutely nothing new established from Forged in Fire), where and how were hoverskimmers used? please take some time to actually write at least the beginnings of proper articles, even the most basic and unexplored subject should b able to generate at least a small paragraph from the context alone. --8of5 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm limiting my information to the source I'm on at the time. I know Cyrano was in an episode of TOS and another of TAS, but I'm not on those episodes. He was minimaly referenced in this book. At least he's now got a page. Should a person want to, they could add more info. – AT2Howell 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't have the Excelsior book, so I can't add more info.. please remember context -- did someone mention Cyrano Jones in the book's dialogue? Was it Sulu? -- Take these two questions I just asked and try to incorporate the answers into the article. The Cyrano Jones article you created really doesn't have enough information, unless you start adding context like the answers to those questions I just asked. Does that make sense to you? -- Captain MKB 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, why didn't you add category:Humans to the Cyrano Jones article? ... Did you not get my last message about that? ... could you please start trying to add categories and basic information to your articles? -- Captain MKB 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was on watch last night, so I tried to get caught up on articles. I can add categories thoughout the week. Was down at NAB Coronado in San Diego all last week (no computer). I'll have watch again on Saturday, so I'll add categories then if not before. – AT2Howell 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine, as long as you understand that these additions are the kind of thing we expect all the time when you contribute articles to this site.

By the way, I found a preview text of the Excelsior book -- Cyrano Jones was mentioned by Doctor Nej, as part of an important plot point regarding the activation of the mutated Levodian flu... I don't really consider it appropriate to create the article unless you include that description.. even though you aren't writing about Jones's other appearances, please try to include more of the information supplied in the book you are working from.. -- Captain MKB 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

Hey, I noticed that you created a large group of articles without categories the other day -- could you please browse the list of categories and see which ones would be appropriate to add to your articles?

For example, every time you create an article about a planet, there's no reason to not add Category:Planets at the bottom of the page. It would really help to bring your articles on par with our current standards. Thanks! -- Captain MKB 15:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of references Edit

AT2 please note references should be organised in alphabetical order, not just a botched list as you tag more onto the end. And also please be aware that the {{ref}} template should be used to designate references which are only referenced, rather than appear, in a story. See the References section of the style guide for more information. --8of5 05:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's Organization, with a "Z". I clean those up as I go, but they seem to be everywhere...
Any roads, you do realize that you're referencing the reference section, right? I mean, it's good and all in characters, but beyond that is just silly. – AT2Howell 06:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To quote the style guide: "It should be noted whether or not references were actually featured in the story or just referenced within the story. For instance "The strange new alien rather reminded the Captain of a Gorn", references a Gorn without one actually appearing in the story. Referenced only references should be listed in sub-section of the main references section, headed with the {{ref}} template."
There are references within the stories, which are only references, rather than appearances. Unfortunate use of the same word maybe, but useful in not making things misleading, dividing the two makes it clear what actually appears in a story, and what is just talked about. --8of5 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Like this...

ReferencesEdit

CharactersEdit

Referenced charactersEdit

LocationsEdit

Locations referencedEdit

SpeciesEdit

Species referencedEdit

Governments and organiZationsEdit

Governments and organiZation referencedEdit

Starships and vehiclesEdit

Starships and vehicles referencedEdit

Do you see the problem? It's dumb. It's all "referenced" so why keep noting "referenced"? How big of a problem would it really cause to have referenced Cardassians just be called Cardassians? – AT2Howell 06:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters you wouldn't be using all those subsections, just the title provided by the ref template. And the problem is it's misleading to just lump them together. If a user is looking for a comic featuring the Cardassians and find them listed in the races and cultures section of A Matter of Dates, they're going to be disappointed if they decide to go and get that comic and find all they get is a passing reference to them.

The referenced Cardassians are just called Cardassians, it's just made clear they don’t actually feature in the comic. --8of5 06:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Disapointment, eh? Is this a personal story? Tell you what, I won't delete any more. Will that make you happy? – AT2Howell 06:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope just taking into consideration the potential uses for this site. And indeed, it's on thing for you to be to not bother properly sorting references on pages you are establishing, quite another to actively dismantle properly organiZed pages. --8of5 06:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean to be a ... yeah. Just been on watch for a few too many hours now. It's not you. – AT2Howell 06:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite all the hubbub, I have to agree with AT2Howell's sentiment that it is absolutely stupid to have a note saying referenced next to certain objects (although acceptable for characters) in a section of an article which deals with references, seems a bit redundant to me. Just my two cents. (-: --The Doctor 09:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I support making the sections known as "referenced only" -- as that will clarify that the characters were not physically present during the story, and did not have dialogue -- they were referenced only. -- Captain MKB 15:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not stupid to have a referenced only section in the references for at least some items. For example, some books actually feature appearances of the Enterprise where others merely mention it (I remember when I was on the Enterprise...). This may lead you to think that there is something wrong with the heading "References", but when opposed to "Characters" it doesn't seem that bad. I have no perfect plan, but I do like separating the characters and ships at least. Similarly, for locations it is sometimes nice to know that part of the story actually took place on planet X versus somebody just mentioning something about X in passing.
Oh, and just to prevent a fight (and hopefully not start one), "organization" is the American spelling, "organisation" is the British spelling. We have users (and admins) from both. Is it worth having a general policy about how to deal with these issues? Or go on a case by case basis? I think that the 'z' spelling is sometimes used in Britain whereas to Americans, the 's' just looks like bad spelling (if that matters). --Jdvelasc 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Should probably have noted... I moved all this to Forum:New page layout proposal, so we can continue the general discussion without filling up AT2's talk page anymore...--8of5 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Real world information Edit

AT2Howell please think carefully about how much, and the relevance there of, of real world information to articles you create. Recent example of your articles; Lysergic acid diethylamide and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, give large amounts of real world info while providing only passing comment on the cited Star Trek references, is there anything in Star Trek for example that references Project MKULTRA which you have detailed and wikilinked? Ideally you should end articles such as this with an external link to the wikipedia page on the subject where readers can find the full history on subject. Otherwise a more suitable introduction for LSD might be: "Lysergic acid diethylamide, or LSD, was a powerful hallucinogenic drug developed on Earth in the 20th century." and as one of your cited sources seems to relate it to mind control perhaps some note of that property of the drug, but not a fully fledged history of the drug which bares no relevance to the citations you have. --8of5 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i left a similar note at the talk page of the LSD article... do you understand that if ergot was not explicitly mentioned in the book you are reading, then that means you shouldn't write a link to an article about it? Please answer whether you understand this or not... -- Captain MKB 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
And (sorry for the pile-on, but...) is there any actual reference to the Latter Day Saints at all or that Kirk "confused" LSD and LDS? Without that, all he did was get the letters wrong, and there's no actual reference.--Emperorkalan 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You've got me on LDS. That was only a passing mix-up of letters for the sake of humor. Quite a bit of info on LSD was in the book, and there was a genuine attempt in this section of the book to suggest a real-world connection to the government's research into mental control using LSD (an important topic at the time). – AT2Howell 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If that information is truly from the book then you should be citing it as such. And it would help us in not jumping down your throat if you put a little more effort into getting what is in the books onto the database in the first place - if your cited additions gave more information on the context of the citation then we would know that what you add is relevant and therefore acceptable. --8of5 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cookbook articlesEdit

AT2 Howell, could you help us by fleshing out some of the newer cookbook articles you have been creating as stubs -- some of them don't quite explin themselves well enough to be considered stub articles..

One that I see a problem with is Ukraine -- all the links to it are referring tgo the Earth nation state, but you've created an article stating it is a town on Vulcan. Could you further explain this, or possibly start a discussion to help us disambiguate the topic? How was Ukraine mentioned in the cookbook? (I don't have a copy, I'm really relying on you to help with this.) -- Captain MKB 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine is where Leonard Nimoy's grandmother came from. He insists that it is also a small town in western Vulcan where Spock's grandmother comes from. It's an in joke, but still in character. If you ever read either "I am not Spock" or "I am Spock", you will see that Leonard Nimoy considers the character of Spock to be quite real and a seperate personality within him. I believe Worf and Michael Dorn have a similar relationship. – AT2Howell 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's all fine and good -- but we need to address my point -- to separate these two meanings of "Ukraine" for the Memory Beta database.
Could you excerpt the part where Spock states the nature of the Vulcan town Ukraine so that I may better understand? -- Captain MKB 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a sec, let me change the article. I cracked the book to verify, and found that I got something wrong. – AT2Howell 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be an in joke gone terribly wrong. It wasn't his grandmother, it was his mother. Amanda was from Seattle, then moved to Shikar. There is no way she could have "brought it from her village in the Ukraine, which is a small village in Western Vulcan". I've deleted the bit about Spock, feel free to delete the entire reference if you want. I don't know how that could have gone so very wrong. Sorry. – AT2Howell 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


New articlesEdit

Hey, could you slow down and work on some of the details I've been trying to help with on new articles?

Could you stop for a second and go back and work on some of the issues I've been trying to point out, like correctly italicizing/formatting links, sorting categories and stubs, and using the 'what links here' function to gather additional data about the articles you are creating?

You create quite a lot of work for other users and we've asked you numerous times to try and put a little more effort into your articles, I think that you should stop ignoring all this and start working with the community instead of ignoring us.

If something is unclear, I think you could ask how to do it so that others don't have to clean up after you as often. -- Captain MKB 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct article titlesEdit

Please try and make sure you are using correct titles for your articles -- is Marjod's Hammer supposed to be Morjod's Hammer?

Also, when referring to star systems and star clusters, the word "system" and "cluster" are lowercase here on Memory Beta -- please try to take note of this and format your entries according to our style, rather than the style of the book you are taking notes from.

Please try to be more attentive to these issues to avoid making more work for your fellow contributors. -- Captain MKB 17:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mojod's Hammer was my bad. Cluster was done by someone else, I just supplied the article. I'll change it from here out. I knew about system, but cluster was a new one for me. – AT2Howell 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

StubsEdit

I'm a little curious why you have stopped marking your articles as stubs -- they are still mostly incomplete.

I've also found a few to be completely incomprehensible because they did not contain complete sentences -- if you need help composing articles in English, we'd prefer that you ask for help BEFORE you go ahead and create them. -- Captain MKB 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're the one that said it isn't a stub if all the info is there. When I write an article on Melpopian waffles, I used to put "stub" with the hope that someone knew more about it than just the reference I'd found. Now, if I find something that I doubt is anywhere else in the Star Trek Universe, I skip the "stub" part because there is no more information. – AT2Howell 14:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I must come in here and wonder why you don't establish more context in your articles. The most amazing one I came across earlier was for the Krenim article in which the only text you wrote was:

The '''Krenim''' were a Delta Quadrant species known to Neelix. They had candy bars.

Now I know not everyone is a Voyager fan so it might have escaped your general knowledge who the Krenim were, but a simple search on here or on Memory Alpha would give you everything you needed to know. I used a bit of that background knowledge from the Krenim and incorporated it into the article. Every other user does this, why make work for others? --The Doctor 14:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I missed most of Voyager. Between college and the war, I was a bit busy. Hell, I just finished watching the dvd run of Deep Space Nine. What a show! So there I am, reading the Cookbook, and there is a Krenim reference like "..as much as the Krenim like their candybars...". Turns out, there is no article on the Krenim. So I made one based on the info in my source. I figure if someone knows more, they'll add to it. I know, I know "You should check Memory Alpha", but I don't like Memory Alpha, which is why I write here. The preceding unsigned comment was added by AT2Howell (talk • contribs) .
Fair enough you missed the episodes (great eps by the way), but what you are basically saying is that because you don't like MA we have to go over there to get the information and add it to the article? You're just looking up the information, you're not involved in the wiki or any of the politics involved. I don't like Microsoft that much but I still have to go on there website to download the latest patches, updates, etc. Please just try to be more considerate to other users. --The Doctor 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
AT2Howell -- we've already established here that you aren't adding all the information from the Star Trek Cookbook (or whatever reference you are using) to your articles. This is why we need you to mark them as stubs.
Did the Melpopian waffles appear as a recipe? Were they mentioned in dialogue? Please, just open a note on the talk page and describe what the page looks like and HOW THEY WERE MENTIONED so we can help you... Where is the context that will give us enough information to confirm this is not a stub?
As an example, when you create an article about a Klingon phrase that is in the novel Klingon, the article will be a stub until you describe the way the phrase was mentioned in the book. It doesn't matter what other books are involved -- the fault is your own for not linking to Gowron if Gowron was the one who said the phrase. I've repeated this before but you still do not acknowledge what I am saying to do. Do we need to warn and ban you from the site before you will respond with improved behavior?! -- Captain MKB 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm done with the Cookbook, so the next book I'm on I'll try to get the speaker's name in the notes. I am already halfway through New Worlds and New Civilizations, so I'll pick up there. Also will be starting Vulcan!, James Blish's logs, and the kids books soon. – AT2Howell 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

NWNC citations Edit

Hi AT2, you've been citing your entries for New Worlds, New Civilizations wrong, currently you're citations indicate the information comes from two novels, when it is coming from one short story in an anthology. You should cite it like this: ({{ss|ST|The Glories of the Hebitians|sub=New Worlds, New Civilizations}}) = (ST - New Worlds, New Civilizations short story: "The Glories of the Hebitians") --8of5 00:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fixing it now. – AT2Howell 00:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Vega passenger list Edit

Hey AT2, I noticed you created the articles for the Vega passenger list but didn't include details about the circumstances -- that the list was the object of Subcommander tr'annhwi's search of the ship.

Coulkd you please try to add that information to those articles? Right now I don't think they have enough context to understand why the passenger list was being brought up. -- Captain MKB 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thrax's SurnameEdit

In Dawn of the Eagles, Terok Nor security chief acquired a last name: Sa'kat. What do I do to get this to reflect on Thrax's page without screwing up every page that links to him? Nerys Ghemor 18:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Add info to article first, then "move" article to Thrax S'kat. List the reason for move as "last name". All other articles will forward to this new article. – AT2Howell 15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I would assume I use a similar procedure to create an article where there's already one by the same name? For instance, there is a Cardassian ship with an article here named the Tak, but there's also an officer in their fleet by that name I need to write something for. Similarly, there's already an article for a Tellarite named Tellarite, but there's also a Cardassian gul by that name who needs an article. And...I apologize for sounding stupid, but does it take an admin to move a page, or is that something a regular user can do? Where do I go when I need to do it? Nerys Ghemor 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I would use Tak or Tak. Eventually an admin will create a disambiguation page listing both versions. You can do that part yourself, but I never learned how. I learned this code by experimenting and looking at other "edit" pages. – AT2Howell 00:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, butting in here, to move a page you just click the move tab at the top of the page and it takes you to a page where you can change the article's title and state the reason for the move. As to not screwing up the links, when you move a page it automatically creates a redirect at the former title. Disambiguation pages are easy to create all you do is list the names and give a brief desription like Tak a Cardassian ship, and add {{disambig}} at the bottom of the page.--Long Live the United Earth 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
For example, search for "raven". You will be sent to a default page. Click "Raven (disambiguation)" at the top of the article. There are all the raven articles. Other searches will bring you strait to the disambiguation page. – AT2Howell 00:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Making a disambiguation involves making a list in the same format as another disambiguation page and then tagging it with the code {{disambig}}. Its not an admin thing, any user can do it -- you simply need to add the code {{disambig}} to a list of things having the same name. Now you've learned. -- Captain MKB 01:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alien wordsEdit

I've asked you this before and apparently you are disregarding what I said: Please stop creating articles about alien words. As we discussed before, these are not appropriate subjects for single articles.

I'm going to assume you are forgetful and not that you disregard my comments as a means of being disrespectful.

If you want to consider making a Romulan glossary, use the article called Romulan language. Stop creating new articles for silly things like the Romulan word for "oh yes". -- Captain MKB 12:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Look in the back of TOS novel: The Romulan Way. There is a six page dictionary. "Oh yes" is listed. I guess that wasn't important enough to make the book, eh? And, I believe we were talking about clothing before. You know, that topic that now has about a dozen entries and will soon have more? So what determines what is important? If it's numbers, then I could keep making "clothing" articles. If it's attention in the book, then Romulan words would keep getting articles. You tell me, what all are we supposed to ignore? – AT2Howell 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that information is all important... but its important enough to be listed WITHOUT CREATING A NEW ARTICLE. This is why we have the Romulan language article. Please look at it and add to it. Do you have a problem editing existing articles? whenever you add information you seem to create a new article -- it seems like you don't want to work on pre-existing articles?
The last time I asked you to refrain from doing this with alien language words was on Talk:Ha'DIbaH -- is there any reason that you disregarded my instruction or did you forget?
Also, I'm issuing you a WARNING. Do not copy these definitions word for word -- you did this with several of the rank articles -- you should be restating this information as complete sentences, not plagiarizing the book word for word (especially noticable since the definitions were NOT complete sentences -- we require accurate complete sentences in article text. Please use Google to find a site to help you compose complete English sentences if you cannot do so now). Copying directly from the book word for word is plagiarism and will result in banning you from this site.
Offhand, I'd say anything that wouldn't get its own article was anything that wouldn't get an article if it happened to be an English word. "Oh yes" won't be an article, so neither would the Romulan word for it. Add it to the glossary at Romulan language.
Also, you have been deficient in checking for duplications of these articles -- there were already existing articles for subcommander, antecenturion and others, didn't you notice? Its quite a problem that you are leaving so much scrambled data that needs to be cleaned up by an admin. We'd prefer you enter data as cleanly as possible - by using pre-existing pages rather than creating new ones that need to painstakingly merged with the pages you were supposed to add the information to. If you have a problem with that, speak up or move on. -- Captain MKB 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Klingonese article is far from complete. Is it your intention to convert all the Klingon word articles into addtions to that article? – AT2Howell 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. -- Captain MKB 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You do realize how long that will take, don't you? You esentialy have to transcribe the entire Klingon Dictionary. – AT2Howell 19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know or care how long it will take. If you want to keep adding information like this to the wiki, start doing it in the manner I've described -- if the task gets too large, we can deal with that when we get to it by creating alphabetically sorted sub-articles.
It helps when people work together rather than refusing to work on articles with the community -- if an article or summary topic already exists, you have to work on that article rather than creating your own new article. -- Captain MKB 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DeletionsEdit

I'm having a little trouble with all the articles you've been creating with incorrect information -- So I've gone ahead and deleted several of them. If you have any questions about the subjects, a talk page discussion would probably be a good idea before you go ahead and create/recreate these pointless and poorly written articles. Feel free to start such a talk page anytime. -- Captain MKB 02:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you for starting the discussion on talk:The Romulan Way, this should help you in what seems to be your struggle in trying to comprehend the nature of the references you are reading about.
just to let you know, the following articles also needed correction, all on points we've tried to counsel you about before, such as duplicating information, linking to irrelevant topics and making incorrect assumptions. These should be examples to you of behaviors you should avoid in the future while using this website.
Hopefully this will help you curb your bad behavior here by me informing you of the problems with your contributions. -- Captain MKB 03:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Final warning Edit

I'm leaving this message to inform you that you are on a final warning with regards to your excessive addition of very short, incomprehensible, articles. While that alone would not normally guarantee a harsh rebuke, you have been constantly told about how to format articles and asked to expand upon them. Unfortunately, these calls have largely gone unheeded on your part, leaving others to clean-up your work.

It is this lack of regard for working within a community which has led for many of our active users to call for some form of action to be taken. Captainmike and several others have highlighted your unwillingness to add to preexisting articles or to verify information when asked for it. A recent example is the klugat article: A simple search of both this wiki and Memory Alpha would reveal that the term used in the episode (and countless other licensed sources) was kligat. You could have then redirected klugat to kligat and left a note about the different spelling in the novelization.

However, you did none of those things. I had to read through the novelization, discover that klugat wasn't simply an unverified spelling mistake on your part, and then perform that actions that you should have.

With new users, this wouldn't be a huge problem as everyone has to come to know the ropes, but you've been here long enough and had enough advice to know better. If there isn't a marked improvement in your contributions to the wiki then we will, unhappily, forced to prevent you from editing for a period of time, possibly indefinitely. --The Doctor 12:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it had to come to this -- we are impressed by the fact that you WANT to contribute so much -- however our concern is that your contributions are POORLY DONE -- we try and try to give you suggestions, but you seem to only want to make ONLY NEW ARTICLES with LITTLE OR NO INFORMATION in them. Its something we've asked you not to do, because we are more interested in working as a community -- meaning that you should be talking, communicating and trying to find ways to improve the short articles you create, rather than just making more. -- Captain MKB 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I read constantly. I note every little thing. No one else does this. The others are content with main characters, and polishing off articles on Spock. If I didn't report on every book I read, no one else would. Or, they would do it badly. As I have said a hundred times, if you think there should be more information to an article, add it. I don't know everything, I just think that if a book is to be entered into the wiki, it should be done correctly. This picking and choosing of what information we should enter goes entirely against the theory of a searchable database. If I spent months on each book, and left the others I read in the mean time to other people, who would do it? Who would record a novel so well that I wouldn't have to go after them and add in all the links they "forgot"? Show me this person, and I will coordinate with them. Every other book I read, they can cover, and I will spend twice as much time on my articles. Is there any other person in this wiki as thorough as I am with entries? If there is, and they write better articles while they're at it, introduce me. I'm more a reporter than a novelist. In my job, I write after action reports, not tech manuals. – AT2Howell 14:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"I just think that if a book is to be entered into the wiki, it should be done correctly" - That is precisely our problem with your contributions, you are not doing them correctly, you rush out incomplete, sometimes incomprehensible articles rather than spending the time to get the information from the source (it is not a matter of you knowing everything, it's you using the information given to you by the source, possibly cross referenced with information already on this wiki). I am one such person who writes on ever subject given by a book or comic, and I do indeed sometimes take months to do that, because the articles I add are as complete as I can make them. It would be preferable for you to take that time to properly cover information from fewer sources rather than making many many articles which are all but useless due to under development to cover topics from every single book you read. --8of5 16:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 8of5, the article needs to be more complete to have any value. Take for example Kennelly: You had "Vice Admiral Kennelly was a Starfleet flag officer familiar with Ro Laren." All you would have had to do was go to Memory Alpha and look him up and you could have written a more complete article, but since you apparently don't like MA I had to do it for you. That is what the others are trying to point out to you; others are being forced to do simple work for you. Also, I see no problem "polishing off" articles like Spock. He is an important character and people are probably more interested in him than the passengers of the Vega.--Long Live the United Earth 16:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This isn't "Memory Beta, the Memory Alpha clone". There was no article here for the guy. I had a very limited source. For all I knew, that could have been the only written source for the guy. Do we intend to have a page for every page on Alpha plus some? And yes, Spock is great and all. What are the chances someone read his name in a book and has no idea who he is? Now, if someone reads about some obscure species and wants to know if there is more information, they'd look here. If I wrote the article, yes, it would be short. But at least there would be an article. Most of the pages on this wiki are either blank or all the links are in red. I'm slowly fixing that. I still have to finish two more books before I get to TNG novel: Greater Than the Sum. By then do you think it will be well documented by then, or will I have to take notes on that one too? – AT2Howell 22:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried, I really did. I read all three of the "Khan" novels, thinking that I could take my time working on their pages afterword. I had planned on reading Greater Than the Sum while working on those pages. I decided not to add to that page, assuming everyone else could cover that one. I've gotten to page 66. I've already noticed so many references missing from the page that I might start over, this time taking notes. Please tell me someone else is already working on this novel. Please? – AT2Howell 21:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't I just ordered the book yesterday (damn, I wish we had transporters). If you decide to add articles please give a little more detail than before and a spoiler warning may also be needed since the book came out relatively recently (but I'm not sure about that).--Long Live the United Earth 21:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've started taking notes, but don't worry, I won't start on the page until after I finish pages on the three Khan novels. With any luck, by then the page for Greater Than the Sum will be mostly complete. I'll then add whatever minor things were left out. I must warn you, there are many, many references in that book. – AT2Howell 23:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
From now on, you should check if a subject is covered on Memory Alpha before you create the article -- not to duplicate their articles, but to provide a correct citation. You should do this for every article you create, no exceptions. For this one, you would have been able to cite the episode "Ensign Ro" for the article, and you should be checking so that you can know whether or not to add a "{memoryalpha}}" link -- which you should do one every article you create that is duplicated on Memory Alpha. -- Captain MKB 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If you were writing an "after action report" about the Vega passenger list, would you REALLY leave out all the information about how an enemy combatant raided the computer for that list?!? Each one of those characters' articles should have an explanation why the Subcommander was looking through the list in the first place. The articles have NO CONTEXT right now (even though I asked for it) -- you need to explain the scene from the book. I've told you this before -- explain the scene in order to add context. This would make you a "reporter" writing a decent short article. -- Captain MKB 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I do still plan to go back and add to those. I intended to ask you how you would sum up the situation in a line or two. – AT2Howell 22:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I would expect a decent description to be like "So-and-so's name on the passenger list was part of the data information uncovered by Romulan Subcommander So-and-so when he boarded Vega in 2276." (with links and formatting appropriately added)
In the future, you need to show the initiative to write sentences like this on your own before the articles are created, or ask how to state it before the articles are created. If you do not have the time or initiative to ask first or create such a sentence on your own, then you do not have enough time or initiative to create a new article to Memory Beta. -- Captain MKB 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Classes on episode pages Edit

Those classes are supposed to be on those episode pages according to an admin. I'm fixing those articles, please don't do it again. Also, next time you have problems with a mistake I make on several articles contact me on my talk page. Thank You.--Long Live the United Earth 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The "official" format does not require it. Please show me where in the text of each reference the class is listed. Granted, the shuttle craft class is listed in one source, but it already appears elsewhere on the page. Every publication under the sun does not have the words "Constitution class" in it. These pages are not for your own personal extrapolation, they must be grounded in the reference material. Show me. – AT2Howell 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless you contend that this wiki is based on your own personal knowledge rather than sources, please change it back at once. Thank you. – AT2Howell 00:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what 8of5 told me to do. If you wish to argue the point talk to him, and tell me the results.--Long Live the United Earth 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was you. Let me ask your opinion then, if the information is not listed in the source for the page, why would it be listed on the page? – AT2Howell 00:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know. I took them off the first time through, but I wasn't doing it correctly so I'm fixing them now and I was told the classes go there.--Long Live the United Earth 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, I won't change it. I'll wait to hear from 8of5 before taking any further action. It's no big thing. – AT2Howell 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I also want to say that some of those classes were in the episodes, and since the pages are for episodes and their novelizations:). Also, I want to apologize for jumping down your throat ffor something so minor, I'd been working on these all day and was afraid I would have to go back through all of them. And don't worry if 8of5 changes it just tell me I'll go back and change everything (it's kinda become my pet project).--Long Live the United Earth 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of a book as you suggested on my talk page it would indeed be impossible to verify the class if it were not directly referenced by name. However in the case of an episode/comic/anything else with a visual element you can see the class of ship. Much the same as you would be right to add characters to the reference section who are not named in an episode or comic put still appear - say if Uhura just appeared in the background on the bridge, she might have no lines, no one may say her name, but she is there. --8of5 02:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give. Visual references count. – AT2Howell 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

stub templates Edit

I just wanted to tell you that their are several stub templates you can use that classify articles in stub categories by article type (for example {{stub-planet}} gets you [[Category:Memory Beta stubs (planets)]]). This just makes it easier for a person to find an article type they want to expand (like if they just want to work on planet articles they can look at the planet stub category). I just wanted to tell you this since you create so many stubs, this will make it easier for people to expand them. The list of these speciality stub templates can be found under S in Category:Memory Beta message templates. Thanks!--Long Live the United Earth 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI Edit

FYI... shit stirring. You may have some issues with some admins but don't try and stir it up for others. Besides which, Seventy probably knows and he probably doesn't care. End of. --The Doctor 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just letting a brother know. It ain't polite to talk about people. At least let the man know he's a hot topic. And who do I have a problem with? I like the Capt. – AT2Howell 15:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I know butting in is bad, but I just wanted to say see Talk:A Less Perfect Union, I'm pretty sure Seventy knows about the talking. Also, the only admin doing the talking was the Capt. and that was more or less how to deal with a disrespectful user (and I don't really think Seventy was that disrespectful; just reasoning it out) and two other admins responded asking for further proof of what Mike called a continuing problem. Those discussions haven't really been active for at least a day. So, I'm forced to agree with the doctor; your stirring up shit.--Long Live the United Earth 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this one should go away. I have a list of the various unacceptable things I've seen going on here and I've actually back-burnered answering that query -- because I'm not interested in making a major issue about anything right now, I'm more interested in working on articles.
The reason other admins have been informed is because I'm not going to take part in users' insult games anymore, so the other admins will need to take over for me if it comes to that point. Anyone who knows how to use recentchanges could and has seen that, there's no reason for you to involve yourself. -- Captain MKB 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Edit

Well as you can imagine we have a few Elizabeth's in Britain. Some clarification would help? Although if you mean the Queen then her full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Mountbatten-Windsor. Although any article with her name should be Elizabeth II. --The Doctor 08:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and used Elizabeth II. – AT2Howell 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there, but I was reading through this talk page and came across this section. I'm fairly certain that Elizabeth's surname is Windsor, not Mountbatten-Windsor. The latter is the surname of her descendants, which reflects both her familial name and the name Prince Phillip took when he became a naturalized citizen of Britain, i.e. Mountbatten. These names, however, are informal. Formally, titled royals in Britain have no surname, hence Elizabeth's full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, and Phillip's full name is simply Phillip. --Columbia clipper 22:00, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

2 things Edit

A) Thanks for the heads up about the book. B) I noticed that you copied the edit count thing from my user page (which I have no problem with; I copied it off someone else) and I just wanted to tell you that you need to change the first part ([[Special:Editcount/UESPArules|) to [[Special:Editcount/AT2Howell| because it has the correct edit count for you, but when someone clicks on it, it would go to my edits. I would've changed it myself, but I don't want to edit another user's user page.--Long Live the United Earth 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed it. I'm thinking about adding those "user boxes" on the right side. Is there a list of them somewhere? – AT2Howell 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of.--Long Live the United Earth 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I found it at Category:Userbox templates.--Long Live the United Earth 01:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dwarf planets & asteroids Edit

Can I ask why you added Haumea + Makemake to the Sol system article? I'd like to know what Star Trek source mentioned them. -- Captain MKB 13:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought they'd look good next to Eris and Dysnomia. I assumed they were allowed because it's obvious that they are in the system. Would hate to leave out two larger bodies. What is the reference on Eris and Dysnomia? It's not like I wrote an article or anything. – AT2Howell 05:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Honestly dude, I work on like thirty articles yesterday, and you flip over the solar system and the navy. Come on, what about my question on ENT novel: Kobayashi Maru? That use of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot has got to be some sort of a new record for Trek. I'll let you decide if it was a new high, or a new low for the franchise. – AT2Howell 06:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
exactly - I flip when you disregard the rules -- like you did on the Solar system and the US Navy. The other thirty articles seemed fine on the face of them. When you write an article in a manner that matched the other articles on the site, while working directly from a source, you're fine, so I wish you'd "written an article or anything".
I'm not even sure about references for Eris and Dysnomia, but understand -- it isn't all right for you to disregard the rules just to make something "look good next to" something else that may or may not disregard the rules. You really should know better -- the rules say that you shouldn't be linking to planets that aren't mentioned in Star Trek, and I had to spend time undoing what you did wrong, so I'm letting you know.
As to you Kobayashi Maru comment, I'm not even sure what you mean -- and its not what I came to your talk page to talk to you about. Whereever you popsted the comment originally, maybe you should re-ask the question there -- Captain MKB 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler warningEdit

AT2Howell, this is a warning -- do not leave spoiler information on users' talk pages unless they ask you for a discussion about the actual information.

Someone asking about the Borg being in past tense could simply be asking about our past tense policy, or they could be asking if the Borg survived Endgame 10 years ago. It's not up to you to decide that a vague question means they want you to spoil a newer novel for them.

This even applies if you use the {{spoiler}} template -- by putting it right on someone's talk page you are making it impossible for them to judge the information without knowing what they are seeing.

I'm really hoping you start to understand this because this isn't the first time you've been notified about this, and you'll be very quickly banned unless you come in line with all these very simple reminders we are giving you. -- Captain MKB 03:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Email change Edit

You can change your wiki related email by going to User Preferences; it should be right there on the first tab. --Captain Savar 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. – AT2Howell 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalous edits Edit

AT2Howell your recent edit to the Reman page is absolutely unacceptable. It does not matter if two sources contradict complete removal of information from one of the sources is not the correct way to resolve the issue. Memory Beta has always had issues with conflicting continuities, and the answer has always been to describe both and note the discontinuity. The situation with the Online timeline is no different to any previous discontinuities. --8of5 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I noted the discontinuity. The way the article was written had one chain of events following an entirely different chain of events as though they meshed together. That's not vandalism, that's called fixing an errant article. – AT2Howell 01:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I do admit that the current version is much better. – AT2Howell 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes you noted the discontinuity, you also removed a significant portion of article detailing one of those continuities, that is what was unacceptable! --8of5 02:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandal Edit

Thanks for the heads up with regards to the recent vandal, and for undoing their handy work.  :D. I've banned him for 1 day, but if he comes and tries it again we will have to try a longer ban. --The Doctor 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Over a Torrent Sea Edit

Hey, I was just wondering why you removed the {{ref}} template from several sections on the Over a Torrent Sea page? Thanks! --Long Live the United Earth 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As a community, we have had many "discussions" about this. Reference in characters is one thing, but to divide everything else is kinda sillly. Should any other section get too large, there are other, more logical ways to divide it.
If we apply "referenced only" to the entire "reference section", next thing you know, we'd have a separate section for referenced cheeses, and then...anarchy! And, nobody wants that. You're not an anarchist, are you? – AT2Howell 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As a community we've had a few discussions about this; and as I recall generally and majoritively decided in favour of it! So stop being a smart arse and conform to community decisions, style and arrangement guidelines thank you very much. --8of5 12:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To quote The Doctor "it is absolutely stupid to have a note saying referenced next to certain objects (although acceptable for characters) in a section of an article which deals with references". – AT2Howell 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And as you're perfectly aware of the source of that quote (this very talk page and this forum for anyone who's not) I needn't bother to quote myself, Mike, Jdvelasc, the fact that Emperorkalan was involved in the discussion and made no objection, or that once he made his initial objection the Doctor didn't bother to pursue the matter in light of greater support than opposition (or after getting a better explanation of the pros and cons of the reference only sections). So I say again, stop being a smart arse and conform to community decisions. --8of5 12:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it to a vote, and hope it turns out better than the one in Iran. What do you say? – AT2Howell 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always liked it so that people know what was actually in the story and what was merely referenced in a story.--Long Live the United Earth 19:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

AT2 Howell, this was already discussed and a consensus was reached -- why re-vote it now? This isn't for minutiae like cheeses or chicken sandwiches, but for concrete things like "Vulcan characters were characters in this book, but Romulans were mentioned without actually showing up" or "They visited Starbase 2 but talked about Starbase 3 without going to Starbase 3" situations where it would help us to know about these things. -- Captain MKB 23:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Referenced references, then? What's next? Vicarious references? Intended references? Where does this stop? How about an "Assumptions" category? – AT2Howell 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in, but I really don't see what you're arguing, AT2. The definitions of what's included in the "References" section is fairly well documented in the style guide. If a character, location, etc actually appeared in the work, it's listed there. If the character, location, etc was merely mentioned, then it gets listed under the {{ref}} section. Mike fairly clearly spelled it out in his immediately preceding post, so I'm not sure where the confusion arises. --Captain Savar 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
AT2Howell usually ignores my comments Savar, I'm used to it. What we are seeing here is his own misunderstanding of the word "reference". In this case, we definitely do not need to vote on this, probably just leave him alone so he'll stop arguing with himself. -- Captain MKB 15:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
C'mon, Cap! I don't ignore you. You're just wrong once in a while. – AT2Howell 15:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've readded those templates as 2 admins say it's policy. --Long Live the United Earth 07:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek cereal Edit

Hi AT2Howell, unfortunately we don't have any Star Trek cereals in the UK. There wasn't even a cereal promoting the new movie, as far as I remember. The last time there was any major promotion linked to cereals was in the early 90s when Weetabix had dioramas printed on the backs depicted scenes from the series and you had little cut out figures of the TNG crew. But really nothing in the last 15 years or so, mainly because it hasn't been that big over here since TNG went off air in 1994, and the biggest thing here now is of course, the excellent Doctor Who. This is promoted to the hilt on various candy rappers, cereal boxes, and even tubes of fromage frais. --The Doctor 22:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know it existed until my kids found it last weekend. It's kind of like "Lucky Charms". I think it's only a short-time thing to promote the film. I just wondered how widespread it was. Of course, I bought 3 boxes. – AT2Howell 12:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WarningEdit

AT2Howell, as you've been informed before, this isn't the kind of website where we're going to have long discussions on talk pages regarding which story points you personally think are "stupid" -- we're not interested in your criticisms unless they involve some citable fact we can put in the article. Keep your comments on topic. -- Captain MKB 13:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Romulan War Edit

Well, I believe I've gotten everything, but I won't be writing articles on everything, so if you want to write articles for some of them you may want to take notes. And enjoy the book!--Long Live the United Earth 23:01, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm back in college after a decade off and still working at NASA, so I don't have a lot of spare time. Just wanted a story to read that didn't involve the guilt of not taking notes. Now I can sit back and enjoy. – AT2Howell 14:26, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Your comments todayEdit

Hi, could you please tone down your sarcasm when dealing with other users, myself included?

Contrary to your comments today, it is not our policy to 'ignore' information or 'pretend' it is different. Discrepancies should be noted through the use of appropriately written annotations placed in the appropriate articles.

There is one Star Trek universe and it does frequently contradict itself. This does not justify subscription to your opinion that certain parts of the Star Trek Universe that don't meet your personal approval should be considered separate of the whole that they are part of.

When lacking acceptable 'constructive' writing skill, don't fall back on being 'disruptive' on talk pages whenever you find information you can't personally understand. -- Captain MKB 21:07, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I was just being appreciative of the new kid's input. He is obviously a brilliant man. I didn't know that the separation of continuities was covered by Online, did you? – AT2Howell 21:18, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't -- for all you've written about your personal displeasure, and opinions, this is the first time anyone's brought an actual shred of real usable information to the table - i can see how that impresses you. -- Captain MKB 21:25, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, you're brilliant too. – AT2Howell 21:29, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Off topic commentaryEdit

Your commentary on talk:Michael A. Martin is off topic and needs to stop. First warning, please don't escalate this. -- Captain MKB 17:13, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek OnlineEdit

The user that commented about an 'alternate universe' existing in Star Trek Online's website was referring to the alternate universe of the Star Trek 2009 movie. No-one has offered any reliable source stating that Star Trek Online is in an alternate universe. Please stop distracting our site with your misunderstanding of the situation. I am answering your comment here because it is off-topic on the page Talk:Michael A. Martin you left this comment. Please note we do have acceptable areas of discussion on STO policy, but only if you are willing to correct your disruptive behavior. -- Captain MKB 17:16, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you are only comming down on it because you don't like it, not from lack of facts.
And the guy I was talking about was a dude at work here at NASA. He just told me that he didn't understand what the drama was because the game "clearly identifies itself as an alternate reality". You assume this means it is a part of the alternate reality of the new film, but that doesn't make sense. The new film created an alternate reality, the Countdown comicbook contradicted the film in it's attempts to be a 'prequel'. Of course, you don't like to be bogged down by details like these, so there is no way I can convince you. if Online is the future of the cancelled timeline that produced the new film, that continues to contradict the novelverse openly, then how is it not an alternate universe? I give up. You will not look at the differences. You will not listen to the writers. So, there is no way you will ever listen to me. I give up. Change your name to Capt. Denial and let's just move on. – AT2Howell 17:30, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "you talking to a guy" is not a valid source. Either get a clue, or stop bothering people with your ranting.

You haven't said one thing that would be regarded as a valid addition to this wiki, but you have insulted me, and everytime someone tries to discuss it with you, you accuse us of denying facts which you refuse to produce. This is your second warning - make a constructive comment, produce your facts or sources as article additions, or do not post on talk pages. Those are your options. -- Captain MKB 17:41, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Path_to_2409#Discontinuities

It looks like everything is listed there. Why are you wasting people's time if the information has already been added to an article? -- Captain MKB 18:18, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I stopped listing the proof when I realized that you weren't even looking at it. The list of things that show the onlineverse and the novelverse are seperate is too long to write. When you close your eyes to the obvious, I must give up. So, your're right! It makes perfect sennse that the Borg were destoryed in 2383 and then the entire universe got amnesia, causing them to reappear! Yes, you are right! Yes, it makes perfect sense that none of the dates match up! Obviously you are correct and we cannot let contradictory story lines confuse us into believing that they are contradictory. My appologies. You are correct as always! Just because something doesn't make sense, doesn't give us the right to say it doesn't make sense. I surrender. Don't be a sore winner. – AT2Howell 18:27, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
The list is not too long to write. This site is here to write about it - it's what we should be doing. You are trying to draw a conclusion about the existence of an alternate universe. Contradictory sources do not draw this conclusion.
If you want to list these contradictions, you should be doing it, instead of trying to prove a ridiculous, undocumented alternate reality every time you encounter one little contradiciton. -- Captain MKB 18:35, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Right! One contradiction does not make an alternate universe. How many are on that list again? But, I give up. Not an alternate storyline. Columbus died and then discovered America and then he died in the civil war. It makes perfect sense. You win. – AT2Howell 18:43, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Nobody's saying that these things coexist. We're just saying that alternate realities don't get created everytime you personally can't comprehend something. Many times they are simply mistakes made by fiction writers, and those writers didn't intend for their mistake to create an alternate universe. It would be unfair of us to misrepresent their work as being 'alternate reality' just because one detail didn't fit one Memory Beta editor's approval.
Your last statement shows that you are still completely intent on drawing conclusions based on your limited view of the facts. Perhaps Columbus's clone was the one who died in the civil war. If that was the case, it would be absolutely wrong for you to draw a conclusion about there being an alternate universe, because the contradiction exists because you don't have the complete picture, not because of an alternate universe. Understand? -- Captain MKB 18:54, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
You just invoked the writer's intentions! Why is it cool for you to guess at their intentions, but blasphemy for me to actually ask? I'll give it to you, we don't know yet. Mass amnesia is still an option. Rampant delusions could have skewed the story we have been presented. The mental health of the entire galaxy is under suspicion. I guess that makes more sense than an alternate universe theory. Oh well...– AT2Howell 18:59, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Writer's intentions are wrong for us to assume, and are also not proper to add when undocumented. Meaning that simply asking the writer is not the solution. They need to go on record - in a published interview, not in a simple bit of fan-mail. Obviously you didn't understand this the last time it was explained to you either. -- Captain MKB 19:19, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

AT2 you seem to be missing the point of why we keep having clashes over this issue; I am quite sure that nobody would deny there is irrefutable evidence that Star Trek Online and the "novelverse" have numerous discontinuities that cannot be reasonably reconciled into a single timeline. So it is indeed perfectly reasonable for us as fans to think of them as two distinct alternate timelines, because that's the neatest way to rationalise it. However, as our inclusion policy very clearly explains; "Memory Beta's purpose is not to reconcile the Star Trek universe"; the new Star Trek Online continuity might be a very big bump, but if we automatically assume it to be an alternate reality (in-universe term), as opposed to an alternate continuity (real world situation) we set a massive precedent for declaring every discontinuity in the long (and discontinuity full!) history of Star Trek stories, an alternate reality. We refer to things as alternate realities only if they are declared to be so by an official source, be that the real world premise (the alternate realities in Myriad Universes for example), or explained explicating within the story ("City on the Edge of Forever"'s alternate timeline, etc). Neither of those things have happened with Star Trek Online; as far as has been explained by any source so far Star Trek Online is the prime universe's continuation, as is the prose-continuity, just doing it different, because they are alternate continuities. --8of5 19:52, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

It's like I told Cap, I give up. We'll see what comes out. Let's forget about the alternate reality. Look at our other articles. In Borg history we have conflicting storylines that alone do not constitute alternate realities. What did we do? We separated the information. Now look at any number of articles that use The Path to 2409 as a source. Despite conflicting information, the information from the onlineverse is included in the article as though it is accepted as part of the same story line. You have articles that say something happened, then the next paragraph says it didn't happen. The Reman article notes the difference in the storylines, but then continues telling the 2409 story as though it was the 'main' storyline. Klingon history does a good job with this. It identifies alternate and possible futures. All I was asking for is that the information from 2409 be contained. Note it all you want, but we must keep it separate and not pretend it agrees with the 'main' storyline. If the onlineverse contradicts 3 pages, but does not directly conflict with a 4th page, it needs to be noted as separate. If it is separate from the storyline of topic 1, topic 2, and topic 3, we cannot pretend it is the future of topic 4. I keep trying, but I've got to give up. I'm just repeating myself anymore. Last example. Imagine I tell you a story about 4 dogs in a yard. The story of these four dogs is all good, but then later someone else tells you another story about these same 4 dogs. In this new version, the story contradicts the details on three of the dogs, but does provide more information on the fourth dog that is not necessarily contradictory. You would note the information from the new tale as contradictary on the pages for the first three dogs, but would also have to note the suspect nature of the information gained in this tale about the fourth dog. But, I really do give up. Capt wins. – AT2Howell 20:13, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Offical timeline issueEdit

Hey AT2, I found an article in the Star Trek Magazine yesterday which also labels the Online continuity a different timeline, which is great for us, but your rush to label things isn't really helpful, we need to find the right terminology as both the prose and online timelines are the continuation of the prime reality, neither one is alternate, it's a bit tricky. I've started a discussion on it, please contribute your thoughts: Forum:The prime reality split issue --8of5 11:17, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 8of5, I have an additional concern -- in the past, AT2, you've shown an inability to write descriptively and comprehensibly. I'm not sure you have the skills of expression required to make some of the changes you've so gleefully suggested for all these alternate reality definitions, because you have shown extreme difficulty in stringing sentences together in a way that makes sense. Don't take this as an insult, because you have improved over the years, but it is not your strength to create paragraphs. Please wait for discussion before pulling apart all these articles, as we need to do this in a way that makes sense to readers. -- Captain MKB 13:28, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

CommunicationEdit

What's such a big issue you can't discuss it with me here on the site? I'm not sure you are really interested in talking to me since 'it pains you' to do so, and it's bound 'to make me angry'. I wonder why, with such delightful overtones to every communication you initiate? -- Captain MKB 18:54, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I just didn't want to put it on your talk page. What can you tell me about inserting pictures and how would that translate onto the 'real' wikipedia? This has absolutely nothing to do with star trek, or even this wiki, so i was trying to keep it off these pages. As a favor for a friend I am helping increase 'public knowledge' on a topic. I wrote a wikipedia article for the guy to help a cause back where I come from, and thought it might help to add pictures. However, I've never had a good grasp on how to do that. I get the whole "upload your own photos" thing due to copywrites, and I know that in "Image:Spot.jpg|thumb|right|275px", the 275px has something to do with size. How do you determine what side of the page the image appears on? Consider it a compliment that I'm bringing this to you. And the topic of the article, you ask? Not something I would normally support, but this is my hometown we're talking about, so yes, this is a 'save the environment' section on an article. See? Nothing nefarious about it. – AT2Howell 19:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
If you scroll up on this very page there are a number of entries dating back to 2007 where many individuals (not just me) try to offer you editing tips in a friendly manner and you completely ignore them. I consider this extremely disrespectful, which is why we've moved past the point where I really feel like doing anything to help you.
Wikipedia has a number of help pages offering the correct way to code images. You wrote the code correctly here for spot.jpg, so that's fine. If you haven't seen the correlation between this code that says 'right' and know the difference between your 'left' and 'right', I'm not sure I can help you make the image land on the right (or left) side of the page. "px" stands for width in "pixels", and it isn't necessary to add if you are thumbnailing ("thumb") the image. It's not rocket science... -- 19:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Capt. The pictures fit right in. – AT2Howell 19:34, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Related stories Edit

Hey AT2, can I suggest when you're including several very similar related stories references you lump them together, to make it a bit less repetitive, like this:

--8of5 18:30, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that looks better. – AT2Howell 18:40, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Your editsEdit

Hey AT2Howell -- you're making some pretty massive changes right now that I'm against.

I feel your edits today violate our POV policy by breaking POV and describing events with a game/series name which doesn't exist 'in-universe' -- inside the Star Trek universe no one says 'this is the Online timeline', that's out of POV

The last discussion I saw active was at talk:Donatra -- furthermore, many of the articles you've added this to don't really need the subsectioning because they are not 'alternates' -- for example, there's currently only one piece of info about Deep Space Station K-7 in the 2390s, so why designate this as an alternate timeline? Alternate to what?

Please consider correcting what you've done today to fit our POV policy and also correcting what you do to honor the results of the discussions started. -- Captain MKB 14:25, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, Capt, i'll hold off untill 8of5 and a few others chime in. We should keep this democratic. You must admit, we did give you loads of time to put your opinion in. – AT2Howell 14:30, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I did Species 8472, but I'll stop there. That one needed to be done. – AT2Howell 14:34, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yes loads of time where I was otherwise occupied with other people trying to override my viewpoints on other subjects. Thankfully, the wiki is open and democratic and there's no time limit on trying to figure out how to avoid breaking our POV policy, which is the issue I am trying to bring up.


I'm sorry I had to bother you but I didn't want to be pushy or edit war or anything so I figured I'd ask nicely to help you stop making these edits which really break with how I see our POV policy working.
Thanks again to you for being so cooperative, but please note that my POV objections have been inserted into many discussions over the past four years and just because I haven't brought them up lately doesn't make my viewpoint invalid. I'd rather find a better way to avoid breaking POV in subsection titles. Thanks. -- Captain MKB 14:42, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Like I said, I pulled the brakes on editing those articles until everyone can have a say. – AT2Howell 14:44, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

AT2Howell, we're starting to see you edit war and your comments indicate you might be feeling a little heated about this, causing you to be snarky. Could I ask that you either stop and cool off, or, if you can manage, explain your reversions on talk pages? 8of5 Explained one needed reversion very clearly, but your edit to Mackenzie Calhoun contained an unintelligible (to me) comment about 'friends not food' -- i'd really prefer you explain what these things mean.
I'm in a compormising mood today, I'd love to work these things out instead being on the receiving end of your attitude and an edit war. If you give the information, we can consider it and in cases where you are right and i am wrong, we can fix the article accordingly, and vice versa. --- Captain MKB 18:57, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

"Fish are friends, not food." -- Finding Nemo. Don't ask. Any roads, Calhoun is needed at K7 in Online to defend against Klingons. In the Destiny timeline, Klingons become even closer friends of the Federation, so he would not be fighting Klingons at K7. He might be hanging out there. He might arrest a rogue Klingon for jay walking. See the difference? – AT2Howell 19:01, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

If I may... Calhoun has been established as participating in Federation defence in the Borg Invasion, as well as serving on K-7 in the Online timeline. While it is not impossible that he will still go on to serve on K7 in the Destiny timeline, we don’t know this yet. And (if I'm remembering correctly) K7 becomes a more significant base in the Online timeline because of the Klingon war, so the circumstances putting him there would be very different. Calhoun therefore has two paths in the two timelines. --8of5 19:07, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

See? You do that so well! He says something, I retort, and you translate for both of us. Interstellar war avoided. Everyone gets a beer. Good times. – AT2Howell 19:10, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Of course if you just said it like me in the first place there'd be no problem! --8of5 19:11, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Well said, 8of5. Hope he gets the hint. -- Captain MKB 19:35, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Earth-Romulan WarEdit

On the Earth-Romulan War page says it starts in 2156 and then states it starts in 2155, which is right?. Does this have to do with the new Star Trek Enterprise book about the Romulan War. Should we change the date from 2156 to 2155 for the start of the war.--TyphussJediVader 16:54, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

ENT novel: The Romulan War: Beneath the Raptor's Wing has it start in 2155. Other sources have been all over the board (TOS novel: The Romulan Way has a 25 year war that occurs before first contact with Vulcan), but I think we're using this new novel as the 'official' info. This novel was just the opening chapter in the war, so there will be more to come. – AT2Howell 17:40, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Articles that look like crapEdit

I'm not sure what your issue is, but you are hardly a person who should be making judgments about how an article someone is working on "looks like crap" without having constructive suggestions for improvements. Please clean up your tone or go find another forum for your bad attitude, it's not appreciated on this wiki and will not be tolerated on our talk pages. -- Captain MKB 21:27, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

It seemed fairly clear that AT2Howell intended to make those improvements, but wanted to stay out of your way while the issue under discussion was being resolved. It didn't strike me that anything untoward was meant in the tone, only that common casual speech (which that phrase is, to my distaste) was being used to express a desire to improve the appearance of the page. --Columbia clipper 21:38, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
That's not where we are. In the past day I spent about 6 hours working on the article to improve almost 10 kilobytes of reference lists, formatting and sorting after that discussion reached a probable resolution with numerous votes made. If AT2Howell has questions about the quality of that work he can either state it explicitly or suggest the changes. Since I intend to complete the article with my current edits, I'd question what he intended to do at that point with his statement of waiting until I was finished to correct the article. I have been and intend to continue improving and correcting all aspects of the article, and since I have worked hard to get it where it is, I'd say it sure doesn't look like crap. -- 21:48, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it looks like many of our articles on publications do, but without the benefit of a story that can be summarized to break up the extensive list of reference. I'd recommend changing the contents section to a multi-column layout, like those used on starship class pages, possibly with the appendix section in a similar multi-column layout under a sub-heading, but otherwise don't really see a problem other than those inherent in our usual format (which isn't to say I have any suggestion for changing that). --Columbia clipper 22:09, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

By 'crap' I mean the long list of references before the reference section, and the lack of formatting. As Clipper said, I was giving you or anyone else room to finish (if you were working on it) before I ran in to fix everything. If you are fixing it, I will stay out of your way. This is not some personal attack against you. I saw an article that needed a lot of help, and I saw a lot of discussion about fixing it. Are you fixing it? And what's this about my articles? I think The Romulan War: Beneath the Raptor's Wing looks great. – AT2Howell 13:12, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

This displays your basic ignorance -- that list isn't references, it is the table of contents of the book. In fact, given your lack of knowledge of the source matter and your lack of awareness of the simple section heading labeled 'contents', would you even have a capability to make a beneficial edit to this article? I mean, do you have a better idea or are you just shooting off your mouth again?
And my comment about your articles is in reference to the many articles people have asked you to fix on this very talk page. If you simply scroll up, you'll see many unanswered comments dating back to 2008 about substandard articles you've created. And yes, I think that the effort of the group of contributors who have helped expand Beneath the Raptor's Wing really looks great .. you should follow their example. -- Captain MKB 01:50, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

True, I was on 'mop up detail' for that article, but that's only because the others did a good job on that one. Proud of them. They only missed a few references this time. We're getting better everyday. Looks good though, doesn't it? – AT2Howell 13:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Please stop editing, I'm obviously still working on it. I've now put the 'inuse' notice on the page. -- Captain MKB 13:49, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Chronology Edit

Hi AT2, I was wondering (out of desire to expand articles and add interesting information rather than enforcing any particular formatting rules) if you might be willing to write more extensive notes for your chronology additions. Looking at The Galactic Whirlpool for example, there are quite a lot of referenced date points, and it makes me wonder, why were they referenced? How does that information fit into a mid-23rd century story? What I did with Cloak and Dagger's chronology section tries to explain those sort of references. I'd be very appreciative if you could do similar annotation for the articles you work on :) --8of5 15:00, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

How's that? Did it help or hurt? – AT2Howell 15:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Help, thanks :) --8of5 15:17, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about the other recent pages. – AT2Howell 15:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

OnesEdit

http://news.google.com/news/search?q=%22ones%22 -- Captain MKB 18:55, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

All good examples of how to misuse the word 'one'. I point out some other misused words to look up --

"Refudiate" -- Billy Wigglestick
"Supposably" -- Foul Ole Ron
"Probly" -- Coffin Henry
"Irregardless" -- Altogether Andrews

All fun words to look up and laugh at people for using. Enjoy. – AT2Howell 19:14, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely laughing at someone, and enjoying it, thank you. -- Captain MKB 19:28, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Accusations Edit

Hello, having re-read today's discussions I have found one of your replies to Captain Mike essentially accused him of being a homophobe. This is entirely inappropriate, and in the context not even justified, so watch your communications in future AT2, that sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.

I would also like you to consider your general style of communication; being sarcastic and trying to be witty, while not answering queries that have been directed at you, is not a productive way to find solutions to problems. Try and take a step back from your emotional response, consider what is being said to you, and asked of you, and reply in a way that addresses the problem at hand. Thank you. --8of5 23:27, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Contact Edit

Hey, please PM me over at the TrekBBS. I'm there as "Sci," too. There's something coming up I'd like your input on. -- Sci 06:44 17 FEB 2011 UTC

Can I be involved too? -- Captain MKB 07:52, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I just registered over there, and sent you a 'friend' request. Shoot me a message. And Capt, I asked you before if you wanted to have any connections outside this forum. You weren't interested. Why the change of heart?AT2Howell 14:49, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

DiscussionsEdit

After our last discussion, I have to reiterate 8of5's last warnings to you -- please scroll up and read what he wrote -- we're not interested in your sarcastic sense of humor and personal disregard for respectful address of other users. i do take these things personally, and in upcoming discussions, disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. -- Captain MKB 10:00, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I was offline for a couple of days. What did I miss? And just how surley was I? AT2Howell 14:42, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Show meEdit

moved from talk:Spock Must Die!

Hey Capt, I see you've blocked me from editing the page. I know you'd only block me for violating a format rule, so I do understand that you had no choice but to react the way you did. Just for the record, would you mind listing what rule I broke here? I'd love to know, that I might not repeat this obvious error. I mean, it's not like you're saying, "My way or the highway", right? You'd never do something like that. It'd be an abuse of power, and you'd never do that. AT2Howell 20:04, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you from editing the page.
You're continuing your personal attack against me, I see. -- Captain MKB 20:10, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

An attack? No, never! I have just noticed a pattern to your edits that MUST be more correct than mine. I seek enlightenment. Rather paranoid, eh? AT2Howell 20:14, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

I made a standard, allowable edit to the page based on a process of sorting entries described in the manual of style. The last time i tried to explain that to you, you persisted in a personal attack of name-calling against me.
After tempers cooled, I tried to warn you on your talk page, you professed an ignorance of having done so.
Your current edit (reverting mine) is disallowed -- my edit was made in good faith and in keeping with policy. Your reversion is a violation of policy and an edit war (to immediately revert a good faith edit from a user you personally dislike)
Please keep in mind that your edits made solely to display your personal dislike of me personally could have consequences for you also, as with your personal attacks against me. -- Captain MKB 20:10, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Where did you ever get the idea that I didn't like you? The is no feud between us that I know of. I have pointed out, in the past, that you have become rather totalitarian in the last couple of years, but that is neither here nor there. So, you systematically targeting articles to fit your own personal format is okay, but me preferring it the other way is not? Roger that, shipmate. AT2Howell 20:24, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

We could have had a discussion about it, but I find your continued insults (right off the bat, each time, calling me "king of the wiki", "totalitarian") that characterize me personally as attacks. This is why you aren't making any headway in disucussing your differing style preference -- you continue to distract the discussion by accusing me of wrongdoing. Since you've provided no evidence of wrongdoing to any proper channel, not only are you failing to discuss the issue at hand, you are also being off topic.
I refuse to discuss anything with you under these conditions, you are being quite abrasive, and I'm not going to recognize any points you seem to be trying to make until your correct this attitude. The edits I made are in keeping with policy (as already explained), and they'll stand as is until you learn how to express yourself in a civil manner. -- Captain MKB 20:46, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'd call 'totalitarian' less an insult and more of a description. Like, if I were to sum up your last statement as 'autocratic'. That isn't being derogatory, it's just stating the obvious.

As I've suggested before, how about you edit your new way, and I'll edit mine. So long as neither of us is in violation of the format policy, there need not be an 'edit war' or one of us telling the other that they are 'wrong'. Want to try? AT2Howell 21:17, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Here's your first mistake. When you start an argument with a personal characterization of the person you are arguing with, you create an abrasive atmosphere, whether explicitly derogatory or not. I'd like to have discussed this with you without you making ANY observations about me, my name, my personal habits. Even a non-derogatory accusation is still a personal characterization. This is against policy, to go off-topic and start picking on ANY of another user's personal traits. You seem to get away with a lot here, but this is something I can no longer take from you.
Second, what you suggested cannot work. I made a very simple sorting edit using the style I derived from my interpretation of the style guide. You reverted it less than two minutes later. This shows that having two different users practicing two different styles will not work. Also, immediately reverting another user's edits without explanation is in fact you starting an edit war, no matter how much you try and deny it. I made an edit in good faith, you reverted it.
Now, your accusations nonwithstanding, I've made an edit in good faith, and I've quoted a policy that supports the edit. This gives you somewhat of a problem -- If you don't like the style I used, you can take some time to grow up a bit, lose the snide remarks, and approach the issue as a site discussion, rather than as a chance to vent your characterizations you wish to make on my person. Until then, since my edits are in keeping with policy and are made in good faith, I'd say you have no purview to revert my edits nor do you have purview to start a different style that conflicts with the policy.
As you can see, there is nothing arbitrary about this discussion on my part - I've demonstrated that you are making personal characterizations about me (which is against policy), in doing so being off-topic (also against policy), reverting good faith edits by another user (a violation of policy). This isn't any totalitarian autocracy on my part, this is your own actions establishing your disrespect for this site's policy... - Captain MKB 21:40, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

You see, the part I love most about this is how you make it sound like I'm the one that got a sudden idea and started running about the wiki changing every article I could find to fit my own personal format. YOU came up with this sorting idea a couple of months ago. YOU are the one changing everthing to fit your personal views. YOU are the one demanding everyone else follow your way of doing things. YOU are the one proclaiming anyone who doesn't agree with you is in violation of the rules. YOU should take a long hard look at YOUR actions and learn to accept that I can make edits in 'good faith' that go against your personal style, and that's okay. I'm not starting something new like you are, I'm just keeping to the standard format. AT2Howell 14:17, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

You don't like edit wars, and neither do I. I'll accept that you're going through hundreds of articles and editing them to fit you own personal style. I'll let it happen and assume that they're just 'edits made in good faith'. I ask that you return the favor by accepting my edits when I go through hundreds of articles and edit them to fit my personal format, which is the same format this wiki used for years and years. See? No war! Peace is wonderful. I won't complain about your 'personal style' edits, and you won't cry 'foul' when I edit things to reflect the 'standard' style. Wow, making peace is awesome. I wonder if this is how 8of5 feels all the time. - AT2Howell 14:26, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the point of a wiki then. On a wiki, people SHOULD come up with sorting ideas. People SHOULD accomplish edits to sort and link to articles logically. People SHOULD recommend policy to keep articles all formatted in a logical manner. People SHOULD be willing to take a long hard look at their actions. Like when I quoted the proper policy which described exactly what I was doing.
A proper participant would suggest a positive change to the policy to reflect a different preference. What you've done is not only to avoid discussing the policy, but instead you take every chance to prove me of wrongdoing. I've done nothing wrong, and you're talking in circles -- saying that your name calling and accusations are justified by the fact that I'm trying to force this edit down your throat. This type of edit and is spelled out in policy, but you refuse to accept it. Instead of discussing rationally, you immediately revert the edit (you even deny that this is an EDIT WAR), and start a tirade against me. Instead of discussing the edit, you AVOID ALL DISCUSSION OF THE QUALITY OF THAT EDIT, and you focus on me. You pretend that it is a crime for me to edit according to a policy you personally don't like. If your problem is with the style, why be malicious against me? -- Captain MKB 00:07, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Being the responsible person you are, you discussed this change with others or took a vote BEFORE you started implementing it across hundreds of articles, right? You didn't just run off and play the autocrat by pushing aside anyone who questioned your edits, right? - AT2Howell 14:20, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

  1. The edits i made were spelled out in the style guide already before I made them. What makes you think I need to ask your permission before I make an edit that is described in the style guide?
  2. You immediately questioned my edits when I made them. I answered your question - that the edits were valid - immediately, on my talk page. I quoted the style guide to you. This is almost a megabyte of communication for you to recognize this simple fact
The only reason you might feel pushed aside is because you responded with a tirade of accusations and other unacceptable forms of communication, like name-calling (despite 8of5's previous warning about your behavior, see above). You never once suggested that I consider a different format or even acknowledged the style guide, you simply accused me of misconduct for making a simple edit. Anything else? -- Captain MKB 21:53, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

So we're agreed? You'll make your edits based on your own personal style, and I'll make mine based on the standard that has been around forever. And you won't get pissy about it? Sounds great! I feel some personal edits coming on. Maybe take out a few parentheses... - AT2Howell 22:11, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

8of5's warning above also addresses the topic of sarcasm.
What you have just added is not at all the conclusion of this discussion. My edits are valid, there's a policy that supports them, so if you revert them without acknowledging that fact, you will in fact be vandalizing the articles.
Since 8of5 warned you against this kind of bad communication, and I've already warned you that this conversation has been unacceptable also, I'd consider such vandalism a third strike towards banning you from using Memory Beta. -- Captain MKB 22:17, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Again, if it doesn't go against the rules, and is in keeping with our standards before you got this idea in your head, how could it possibly be vandalism. If you're hunting a vandal, look for the guy changing hundreds of articles to suit his personal style, not the guy keeping things strait. - AT2Howell 22:51, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

This isn't "my style" -- this is something I have taken right from the style guide and enacted. If I change hundred of articles to fit something from the style guide, then I am following the style guide perfectly.
If you revert valid edits I make (like you have done) based on this valid style guide, then you become the vandal. That's how. Either find an appropriate way to address the situation, or drop it. -- Captain MKB 23:00, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

I see my edits as following the style guide. You see yours as following the style guide. Which of us is going to believe harder? - AT2Howell 13:26, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

It's not really about a matter of belief. It's a matter of your actions being wrong on the basis of being carried out in order to be malicious towards me, and also your actions being wrong as a matter of you violating policy. No further taunts from you are going to change this, you've already more than demonstrated there is no real purpose or reasoning behind this. Sarcasm, name-calling, personal attacks, ignorance of rules and policies. Even as I remind you of these things you ignore the fact of it and pretend that I'm doing something wrong - I'm not.
On the subject of belief - you believe something that is not true, I've more than done my part to try and reveal the fault to you, but you refuse to acknowledge any points I'm making. Basically, you're having a blast being disrespectful and avoiding reality. I can't guarantee that this behavior will lead to any good coming of your future editing on this site. -- Captain MKB 16:13, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

I see you made an edit on The City on the Edge of Forever. You seriously think that 5 hyperlinks qualify as extremely numerous? "If any section becomes extremely numerous then you may wish to add additional sub-divisions to that section." I believe you also said your motivation in these many changes was to prevent confusion. Do 5 entries often confuse you? Please help me understand your motivations. - AT2Howell 20:08, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Stop revertingEdit

Stop reverting to try to make your point. Seriously. Just don't do it. And when you're asking a question of other admins, give context.

In terms of your question, "extremely numerous" was a poor choice of wording. Any time you have (for example) five references that would fit nicely into a new category, then it might be time to create a subsection of an article for that. -- sulfur 20:35, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Right. Now if I like the format one way, and Capt likes it another, which of us has the power to unilateraly announce that theirs is the only way and then begin locking the other person out? That's about where we're at. He's running around doing his thing. I'm doing mine. He says my way is wrong. We need some definition here.

Old way #1:

CanadianHumanVulcan

Old way #2:

Humans
CanadianNavajoZulu
KlingonVulcan

Capt's way:

Human (Asian (AugmentLittle People)• French (Albino) • German) • KlingonVulcan

Please help me better understand what makes his way awesome and un-questionably correct, and the other two ways oh so very wrong? He has a hard time explaining some things. He also thinks I spend most of my day making fun of him (long story). - AT2Howell 20:53, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "numerous" requirement would not seem to apply to using parenthesized sublists in reference lists.
For example, under the heading "Starships and vehicles", frequently additional information about one ship will be parenthesized as such: USS Lollipop (Tinsel-class heavy barge) • USS Youessess (Sheen-class docking ferry)'
Notice how this style, which has been in common use for years, uses parentheses? And how there is nothing extremely numerous about it? I'd say my sorting of "human cultures" falls in line with the identical treatment of "starship classes" regardless of the "extremely numerous" clause of the styleguide. The edits were made to sort two lists together and is not a "new" or "unprecedented" thing.
Please remember Sulfur's present warning about reversions/behavior and 8of5's previous warning about attitude/behavior before you respond further on this issue. -- Captain MKB 20:47, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and please be extremely clear in your answer. Some people on here assume every comment is in support of his position and will continue on that assumption for months. Some people on here also have a slight persecution complex, so let's not point any fingers. - AT2Howell 20:55, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

You've got to love the way Capt just pushes forward. Here we are, discussing something that needs to be addressed, and he's still converting as fast as he can! I do that and he say's he'll ban me, but it's just awesome when he does it. This is usualy the part where I point out that he's abusing his power, and he says I'm calling him names or something. You've seen the text, you know what I'm talking about. And, for the record, I actually edited that article. Yep, I took the time to change the format to my preference (evil, wrong). I notice he's still clickn' the crap out of that 'revert' button (good, awesome, inspired). You just keep truckn' buddy. Don't let anyone get in your way (the only way). - AT2Howell 21:03, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Crazy question here. What would we do with a Vulcan born in Japan, raised by Korean parents who lives the Apache lifestyle? Would that all just go under 'Human'? Just asking. While we're at it, is there a law that a Bolian can't be Canadian in culture or birthplace? Are 'human' cultures exclusively human by the 24th century? Like today a white guy born in Africa can't be African? Oh wait, he can be! My mistake. (I'm making a point). (I thought I'd point that out, as an aside). (I know how much the wiki loves parenthesis). (((((!))))) - AT2Howell 21:09, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not insane at allEdit

Wow, so you (Capt) can just up and change the style guide on a whim. Nooooo....the power hasn't gone to your head at all. Let's all make sure Capt has a ride home tonight. No sharp objects. - AT2Howell 15:53, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Cool downEdit

Because of your latest taunts on my talk page, which included sarcastic accusations and profanity, let's take a cool down period where you are banned from using this site. I don't appreciate anything about the way you address me disrespectfully, so I'm taking this action to stop the harassment -- Captain MKB 15:57, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. You should ban that other guy. You know, the one that changes things despite being asked not to, ignores requests and discussions by his peers, and changes the rules on a whim whenever he starts to lose. Wait, that's your usual complaint about me!
You're right, though. I do just need to accept that this is your game, and I need to play by your rules or go home. I still say you should ban that other guy for a month. You're the only one around here with the power to stop him. See you in a month. The 'Bans and blocks' page says 48 hours... - AT2Howell 16:03, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.