|(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)|
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
<center>[[user talk:captainmike/archive 2007]]<br>[[user talk:captainmike/archive 2008]]<br>[[user talk:captainmike/archive 2009]]<br>[[user talk:captainmike/archive 2010]]<br>[[user talk:captainmike/archive 2011]]<br>[[user talk:captainmike/archive 2012]]</center>
<!--start new discussions below the line-->
== Mirror universe ==
== Mirror universe ==
Latest revision as of 13:43, 12 January 2013
user talk:captainmike/archive 2008
user talk:captainmike/archive 2009
user talk:captainmike/archive 2010
user talk:captainmike/archive 2011
user talk:captainmike/archive 2012
user talk:captainmike/archive 2013
user talk:captainmike/archive 2014
user talk:captainmike/archive 2015
user talk:captainmike/archive 2016
user talk:captainmike/archive 2017
user talk:captainmike/archive 2018
user talk:captainmike/archive 2019
user talk:captainmike/archive 2020
user talk:captainmike/archive 2021
- 1 Mirror universe
- 2 Edits to 2371
- 3 Bounty 2/Bounty II
- 4 Disambigs and DPL
- 5 Your recent comments...
- 6 ()
- 7 Anon-spam
- 8 Terran Empire
- 9 X System v X system
- 10 My talk page
- 11 Did I do it right?
- 12 Citation Notation
- 13 Requests: file deletion and signing
- 14 My Apologizes
- 15 Merge?
- 16 25th Anniversary
- 17 Cincinnatus shuttlecraft
- 18 Klingon Academy "USS Decker"
- 19 cast no shadow, bonhomme richard
- 20 Sorry for the spam: RPG cleanup
- 21 Reversion of Template:D7 class (31 Aug 2011)
- 22 USS Rowlett
- 23 DTI novels
- 24 100 year time slip
Edits to 2371
Hi captainmike, don't your edits on 2371 re "The Return" belong to the "Shatnerverse", and don't we have some kind of guidance (which I can't remember at the moment) on how to deal with the different timelines / universes? Just a thought :) Tkhobbes 20:17, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Since there are no sources that explicitly state that Kirk did not Return/go on to have further adventures, I'd have to say that you are mistaken in thinking this is an "alternate" timeline or universe in any way. -- Captain MKB 20:40, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Bounty 2/Bounty II
Someone had created a Bounty II article; I created the Bounty 2 article without knowing about the first. The source novel always uses the arabic numeral, not the roman numeral. I don't know if a merge is necessary, maybe a redirect from one to the other; all of the content of the II article is on the 2 article already. Thanks. --Savar 16:00, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Disambigs and DPL
FYI, discovered something quite annoying this morning with DPL and the newest Mediawiki release. Pages that link to articles in their DPL (ie the disambiguation pages) don't mark those pages as actual internal links according to the "whatlinkshere" special page as of the newest Mediawiki release. We may have to go back to re-creating the disambiguation links page by hand, as those pages are starting to fill up the orphaned pages list anew. :( -- sulfur 14:11, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Hm damn. It probably wouldn't be too hard to keep up the existing DPL lists as our source material for identifying all those that need to be listed.
- Is there any toggle in the code to make the software recognize them like that? -- Captain MKB 17:07, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Fix't, verily. I repopulated the manual list. Keeping it up is going to be a chore, though. It still seems to me this is the kind of thing wiki software should take care of for us. -- Captain MKB 18:02, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if there is any such toggle, I get the impression that pages linked from DPL were never supposed to show up on the "whatlinkshere" stuff, so it appears that behaviour was actually "buggy". Alas.
Hopefully, now that we have the list, keeping it up shouldn't be that tough, as long as we remember to add to it when we create new disambig pages. Whee. -- sulfur 18:18, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
Your recent comments...
In regards to this comment and the others that you made in the similar timeframe, I feel that you've come off as a bit passive-aggressive. Perhaps instead of making snide comments that the user is unlikely to see/notice, it would be more appropriate to make constructive comments on a user's talk page. Or perhaps it would be better if the editors who contribute in a positive manner aren't made to feel unwelcome here, or made to feel uncomfortable. I've never felt your behavior to be welcoming to new editors, or to well-meaning editors who make the occasional mistake; instead, we're all expected to live up to some set of guidelines that haven't been made clear or defined in any meaningful way. My apologies that I don't look at every single article on this wiki and glean the hidden information of the way that you do things around, but constructive criticism goes a long way towards making a more welcoming and friendly community. I don't know how others feel, but I flat out stopped contributing because of some of the behaviors I saw towards other users, and decided I didn't want to be a part of a community where that was the norm. I came back to contribute because I felt moved to do so, but I've again felt increasingly like I don't want to put into a system that is administered by people who look for every nit and make snide or aggressive comments towards others. This community is something valuable; look at the list of acknowledgments by authors who thank MB for their efforts, but this community will stagnate if people are continually pushed away or turned off. --Savar 19:02, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Just trying to get the information out -- there was a sizable list of unsorted articles (i've been going through correcting them for months), and several of the users who created the articles have never used the category code correctly. If you'd like to help me get the information out another way, I'd welcome the help. I think you're reading a bit too much into my tone rather than trying to go forward with categorizing the articles. -- Captain MKB 19:07, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am, or perhaps you're not aware the possible tones your language can take without the intonations of speech. Consider it. --Savar 20:35, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
- I have considered it, but I feel the possible gains of convincing others to refine their articles for the good of the wiki outweigh the risk of being misunderstood as sounding snide.
- People have a tendency to misunderstand me when all I'm doing is making matter-of-fact statements with clear parameters involved - fix the way the articles are written. "Please start using category sort keys" is not an abusive statement, and I'm not looking for feedback about how that makes people feel inside. People who want to participate and refine things without being thin-skinned will move the wiki forward. -- Captain MKB 20:44, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Mike, look again at what you wrote. "user:captain savar, could you please start using the correct category sort code when creating new starship articles?" The question I pose to you is how am I to know that all starship pages are sorted using a certain sort key? Is this documented somewhere? Is it on a link that new users are linked to as part of their welcome message? Or am I to simply intuit it from looking at other pages? What if I don't look at other pages, then? In my case, I've been editing for a while, yes, but there's so many little demands that you make. I appreciate that you feel that your language is "matter-of-fact", but on the other side, some people (like myself) see it as degrading, insulting, and demeaning. In regards to the link I pointed to, rather than put a message on my talk page saying "we do sort keys this way... blah blah... here's a link to where we list those things", you instead put it as the comment on an edit on a page. That's passive aggressiveness, and no good will come of actions like that. Additionally, I've observed you be abusive towards other users, leaving what appear to the rest of us to be snide and degrading comments. I have observed you revert an entire edit to an article just to remove one misplaced technical issue (wrong link, etc) and leave the edit comment with vague information, rather than help anyone else out by leaving them a direct message as to what their error was. In my opinion, you seem to be attempting to drive good people away just so you can administer your own wiki, and everyone can do as you say or leave. Yes, I've seen you attempt to gain community consensus on issues before, so I'm not stating this as a fact, but this community is so small that many comments go unanswered and many actions go unchallenged. Again, I ask you to consider the language you use, and consider the methods you use. Perhaps it doesn't feel like anything I've mentioned above to you, but to other people, it does; consider the other points of view. --Savar 22:31, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
- I said please. I don't know why you feel demeaned by someone asking you to do something, something they are actively showing you how to do (clicking 'compare previous edits' would show you the exact changes made to the category sort to correct the situation on future articles)...
- Why do you want to make this a confrontation with another user who isn't interested in your complaint since nothing said was demeaning or degrading? There is absolutely nothing wrong or abusive with me communicating a short request (and even a demonstration) with other users. You overreact.
- If you wanted to fix 'how requests make people feel', wouldn't a more positive solution be for you to find a way to communicate the specifications for categorizing an article to others to avoid it having to be conversed about? We could work together on a short instruction page if you were willing to do so, rather that writing a kilobyte of statements about how it makes you feel when i make a very simple communication and your desire to confront me about it.
- Or are you demanding that I write an instruction on how to categorize articles? Should I feel demeaned and insulted that would demand it from me? I'm obviously not in the state of mind you are, maybe you should look at what you said over again when you aren't so confrontational. -- Captain MKB 22:41, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Is there a new directive out that says we have to use parentheses? I know you're rockin' them as hard as you can, but is it now required? If not, then it's all a matter of preference. I prefer to not use them in the 'Cultures' section becasue I think they look like crap there. As long as we're talking prefferences, let's just leave them alone. If, however, it is now required, let me know so I don't get obsesive about it. AT2Howell 16:48, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- The section was created to list alien races and cultures, so putting sub-groups of the Human race separate from the Human race doesn't make much sense -- are you implying that people of different racial types are not Human? It's better to organize these to avoid misunderstanding, making them an obvious subset rather than placing them at different places in the list. since this is so obvious, I hadn't thought about making this a style requirement, but if it would help you not get obsessive, I'll support writing down any rules possible to keep you from getting too far outside of doing what is logical and right.
- Also, have you looked lately at all the stub articles you've abandoned here on Memory Beta? Apparently you created tens of thousands of short, pointless incomplete articles a couple of years ago, and abandoned them to the rest of the database to try and destub, cite and expand. Given any thought to helping clean up the mess you made? -- Captain MKB 17:03, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
See, this is what I'm talking about. I always thought it said 'races and cultures'. I completely missed the word 'Alien' in there. So, you get busy on changing all those headings, and when you're done, I'll start using parentheses. Until then, leave it alone. You do yours one way, I'll do mine another. Everyone will be happy. AT2Howell 17:07, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- There was actually a discussion a few years ago about what should constitute an article about an Earthbound ethnicity - why do we need them, why wouldn't the unified Human article be sufficient? The articles have all mostly been created and have some good additions, to answer that question. Anyway, these articles have been created, and when we list them, they should be obviously organized, and correctly organized (as my addition achieves)
- We're not changing the section headings, so that's not actually a real project you just mentioned. I assume you are just being snide. As to telling me to leave it alone, I'm not sure why you think that's an acceptable form of exchange either. You wouldn't listen if I told you to leave it alone, so what's your basis for asking (demanding?) that I do so!? I'll continue to correct problems as a wiki editor displaying sound judgment. -- Captain MKB 17:13, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
And I'll continue to take the parentheses out, as a contributer. As an editor, you can change them also, but your opinion isn't worth any more than mine because I'm not breaking any rules. I'm sure an edit war is exactly what you're looking to start, right? AT2Howell 18:08, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- On the basis of everything I've said, I have to say that that wouldn't be the right thing for you to do. I've displayed proper judgment and reasoning, and provided the following examples that establish the latest edits I made as the correct way to do this: avoiding confusion, properly listing subgroupings under a master grouping.
- By making a comment that you intend start an edit war instead of follow a sensible specification introduced by a fellow editor and admin, who is discussing in good faith with you making an edit specification part of the site style, you really seem to be stating that your purpose is to disrupt the wiki. You've made this statement before, also, which is precisely why your edits don't hold a lot of weight to me. -- Captain MKB 18:18, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'm just keeping you from being the wiki king. You think something looks better one way. I think something looks better another. When I contribute to a page, I'll do it my way. You won't like it, so you'll demand I do it your way. That's how these things start. I just suggest that you write your articles your way, and I write mine as I see fit. Or, you could just force a change in the format requirements. Then, I'd have no choice but to submit. You've started using parentheses quite a bit, and not just in this section. It looks like you've decided which direction the wiki should head, and are surprised when one of us is not interested in your change. It's a small thing, and I'm sure that after you huff and puff enough, you'll get your way. Until then... AT2Howell 18:24, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- So you admit you're doing this out of animosity towards me. That is disruptive, and bad behavior like that could get you banned. I'd encourage you to try and keep your personal feelings in check. I am not the "wiki king", I'm an admin trying to keep our standards despite your attempts to disrupt things. ... and you yourself helped to ratify the style guide perhaps you should read it...
- from the Memory Beta:Manual of Style
- If any section becomes extremely numerous then you may wish to add additional sub-divisions to that section. For instance, dividing characters by their posting or affiliation, or making separate section for locations in space or on a planet.
- I believe this sentence from the style guide covers what I am doing. You never brought up your distaste for parenthesis when it was under discussion, but perhaps you should have expressed yourself more clearly Regardless, your edits are in violation of my interpretation of this part of the style guide. I'd ask that you follow that community rule, and stop the edit war. -- Captain MKB 18:28, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
I see you've now started your edit war and overstepped your bounds to make sure you win. You changed an article without reason. I reverted that edit. You decided to abuse your power and lock me out. You don't normally abuse your power this early in the game. But, to be honest, there's no one on here that can stop you. I must submit to the king of the wiki. AT2Howell 18:30, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't make this a personal attack against me, it's a little early in the game for that too... unless you're trying to achieve an eventual conclusion quicker, as there are consequences for personal attacks.
- I have clearly cited and linked to a passage from the style guide that allows for the edit you reverted. Your reversion while the matter was under discussion was not a well-thought out decision, the page protection is to try and keep you focused on the discussion instead of your edit war. I'm not asking that you submit to anything but the rule that you yourself ratified, but further disorderliness can have consequences also. -- Captain MKB 18:37, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and some of these are 'so numerous' that they have a whole 6 items. Is that a lot for you? Hey, what can I do. It's your way or the hard way. AT2Howell 18:32, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's the style guide's way. You wanted to start a fight about 'following the rules' but never checked to see that the rules don't back up what you are saying. The style guide doesn't define "numerous", but I made an interpretation, and you're attacking me for it. -- Captain MKB 18:37, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
And, if there was any question what you were doing, you labeled your changes 'edit war'. Damn, dude, is subtlety lost now? When do you get your crown? I know, I know, you will 'make it legal', right? AT2Howell 18:37, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- This is your last warning. I am interpreting your continued name-calling against me as a personal attack, and it must stop. It's "your edit war" YOU are the one who is doing this. -- Captain MKB 18:39, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to leave the B-4 artcile as though it doesn't disagree with itself, you need to restore the first half of the first sentance to reflect the chain of events. I took it out because when you accept that there is a difference between the destiny and online timelines, you don't need it. Check the history, you'll see what I mean. AT2Howell 18:44, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to lock people out, you have to fix things correctly by yourself. Still waiting. It's just half a sentance that you're leaving out. If we are reverting it back to the way you want it, you need to go all the way. AT2Howell 19:03, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not working on that article right now, in light of the hostility and your decision to edit war. Please stop harassing me regarding this situation - my talk page is reserved for business, not your posturing. -- Captain MKB 20:15, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Hey, you seem to be getting a lot of anon-spam at Starfleet Command Appeals Board - may I suggest semi-protecting the page, at least temporarily - for some reason, spambots seem to latch onto a few pages, and continue to spam them - so protecting it might help. RandomTime 20:50, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up -- I also purged the edit history. -- Captain MKB 05:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
You've got some nerve complaining about "edit wars" when that is exactly what you have started on the Terran Empire page. You are treating Star Trek: Online as gospel, when it obviously is not (it's just a video game, and is only one of many different possible futures). Mr. Laser Beam 05:23, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
- I am not treating STO as "gospel" -- I'm giving it fair time based on pre-existing policy discussions. You are the one who is failing to recognize that an approach to this article material has already been discussed as policy, I'm informing you of it but you do not give me the respect of listening.
- You keep talking of possible futures. We aren't chronicling "possible" publications here -- we're chronicling "actual" publications. You can't cite sources that haven't been written, so stop. -- Captain MKB 05:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mike, shall I tell you what I think about your policy? You're not giving STO 'fair' time, you're giving it ALL your time. You are treating it as the official, canon depiction of the future of Trek, where in actuality, that is not true! STO's historical timeline is one possible future. One of many. One of an INFINITE number of them. And since STO is not a TV series or movie, it's not official! If you could possibly stop your love affair with STO long enough to realize this, it would be greatly appreciated. And as long as you brought up actual publications, need I remind you that every Trek novel that has ever been written, including those which conflict with STO, is an actual publication? What makes STO more real than them? Nothing, of course. You ARE treating STO as gospel, and allowing it to influence your judgment. Mr. Laser Beam 05:39, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all, not at all. You're obviously losing your ability to deal rationally. This is the licensed Trek wiki, STO is licensed, so it is 'official' for our purposes. When you calm down, apologize for calling me names, then I will talk to you again. -- Captain MKB 05:37, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
You'll talk to me right now, bub, you got that? The terms 'licensed' and 'official' are not always the same. 'Licensed' simply means that Paramount allows it to be written. Official means it's part of the Trek canon. STO is licensed, but it is not canon, and therefore is not official. Shall I repeat this more slowly so you can understand that? Only movies and TV series are part of official Trek canon. STO is neither of these, so by definition, it's not official. And therefore, STO's depiction of the future is no more real than any of the current crop of 'Treklit' novels. Mr. Laser Beam 05:40, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
What he said. Maybe I'll just starting posting that after everything MLB says when it comes to this debate =P JDB 06:14, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
- You'll both stop taunting me on my talk page immediately, or there will be two bans in effect. There is nothing constructive about these most recent comments on my talk page beside taunting me. Mister Lazer has been calling me names, and is not garnering responses from me as such -- JDB, you seemed to have the beginnings of a constructive discussion on the other talk page - i'd advise you focus your efforts there if you wish to pursue the matter. -- Captain MKB 06:17, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Please note -- if you want to discuss canon, Memory Alpha is the canon Trek wiki. Memory Beta is the wiki for licensed material. That includes video games, RPG information, novels, and comics. At this time, the practice has been to treat them all as valid unless there is inherent contradiction, and in that case, list and discuss the contradiction. Is that the best way to do things? Perhaps not, especially with the more prominent and obvious fracturing of storylines between TrekLit and STO. Can we find a way to deal with this and sort it out? Possibly, but it relies on people not bitching at each other, and presenting ideas for solutions. They don't have to be good ideas. Just brainstorm some ideas. Really. -- sulfur 11:40, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
X System v X system
Just FYI, the new search engine and suchnot that comes with the Mediawiki version we are running now handles differences in capitalization on redirects (ie... if you put in "X System", and you only have an "X system", the software finds it now). This didn't happen previously, but now it does. That was the logic behind removing the "Sierra System" redirect.
As an aside, in STO, all of the names are capitalized, but full capitals, such as "SIERRA SYSTEM". We just have to work on education on the new STO users that come here, and we can start removing the plethora of bad capitalized redirects. :) -- sulfur 12:14, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
- We've maintained redirects in the past for both search reasons and for user learning curves. You describe educating these new users as if it is an easy process but for right now I think it would be easier to leave the redirects for the time being. i'm sorry you disagree, but i don't see myself holding each new STO users' hand for as long as it will take to educate them (look at how much back and forth it took to get simple citations this morning), probably not possible for a site with (this week) 2 active admins (last week's brouhaha an obvious exception). this is not high priority for me. -- 22:50, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
My talk page
Dude, you better settle down. That shit will get you banned. There's this guy on here...he's kinda crazy. Talks to himself, is a little paranoid, and keeps to a total double standard. Yeah, he thinks five is an extremely HUGE number, and that sort of thing confuses him. Watch out for this guy! You'll probably find him changing thousands of articles based on his personal style, despite being asked not to. Now, if he catches you doing the exact same thing...well, he'll ban you. Be careful out there. - AT2Howell 13:19, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
- I am not changing anything based on "my personal style" ... if you'd reference the policies on "the site style" you continuiously break, you'd notice that I haven't written or edited them at all. Oh, and the syle no longer mentions that "extreme number" thing, so I don't know why you're clinging to it. It's yesterday's news.
- Why don't you get with the new style? You could've suggested changes but you chose to be petty and insult me instead. I'm still waiting for an apology.... -- Captain MKB 15:48, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
Did I do it right?
Dear Captain Mike. Please tell me if the information I provided for the 'Skin of Evil', was correct and in the format that you require. I am a Trecker. Not a trekkie.
You said "please stop changing these" and "please use standard citations". Care to explain? I'm not sure what's wrong with what I've been doing.
ST as a citation tag is unspeakably redundant. Everything here is Star Trek! We don't do ST:VOY for example - that Voyager is Star Trek is self-evident Meanwhile, stating the maker of the RPG tells at a glance which one it came from, which is especially useful when the three RPGs disagree so thoroughly on many topics.
- ST module: The Orions: Book of Common Knowledge - It's Star Trek, duh, but under what umbrella did The Orions come from?
- FASA module: The Orions: Book of Common Knowledge - Ah, it's the FASA rpg!
To be more specific, many FASA and LUG sources don't even mention Star Trek on the cover, or make it a small logo in the corner, so it seems incorrect to put it under a "Star Trek:" umbrella title anyway. BadCatMan 02:15, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
- This site started off with a policy deciding "series - format - title" in citations when this began as a novel site, and we've kept that consistent as a matter of policy across all our different citations. making a change to that would involve a community discussion, rather than a plea on my own talk page. I am not a "boss" nor could I make a unilateral decision to override a standing policy. if you wish to promote a change to the status quo, i suggest you call for a community consesus discussion to determine how this suggestion will be included into policy, and changing them to a new format shouldn't continue until a decision has been reached. i certainly understand your concern that this is redundant. -- Captain MKB 02:31, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. You were the only one I've seen making these changes, so I came here. What would be the best way to start a community discussion on this? The forum, a citations talk-page, or something else? BadCatMan 02:38, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, just trying to enforce the style as has been practiced thus far. I would suggest the forums, as they would reach the widest audience. The discussion can be filed on a policy page when a conclusion is reached. -- Captain MKB 02:41, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Mike thanks for the advice. but I am still learning. If you folks must. Redue my work.
I've been reading the manual over and over again and are slowly figuring it out.
I haven't written stuff like this since my old Dos computer back in the early ninties.
Also sorry about the Wagner outpost, I confused it with another novel Yesterdays son which I was hoping to fill in that blank.
So if I contribute, I'll need you pros to straighten my work out.
It is trial and error with me at this point220.127.116.11 01:57, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
- If the code confuses you, make sure you can write something clearly instead without using any code. Check your spelling, write complete sentences. -- Captain MKB 01:42, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
Requests: file deletion and signing
Dear Captain MKB, I would like to ask you whether you can help me with two things:
Firstly, ould you please delete File:Marko Woerligen.png ? It is a vanity file I uploaded using the Userpage-photo-uploader, unaware of the policy not to have such images.
Secondly, when signing my name using the tildes, it produces my username and the time stamp, however, I have to link it manually to my userpage adding the square brackets. Is there a way to do that all in one, i.e. creating a userpage-link and the time stamp with one character string?
Regards, –Markonian 08:13, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, if you're absolutely sure, i'll delete the image. As a game image, it does have relevance to Star Trek, so it's not a complete offender. Such an image could be kept as a uniform illustration however, even though the character is not a valid concept - but that's up to you. For example, my userpage image i chose a symbol that had been printed in Fact Files, as I could upload it to the assignment patch page.
- As to vanity images in general, I'm not sure we have a way of approving them yet, but the placeholder function that wikia added makes anything we decide hard to enforce. the vanity image reminder might need to be enforced to the community, as the policy exists now i'm not sure about bringing up a mass deletion to the community, as it would add a lot of cleanup administrator tasks to the wiki as they are judged for deletion.
- As to your signature, I use the "preferences" to write a code for it, and when I wrote it there i put the brackets, so that it would reproduce the brackets each time without me having to retype it. I also used it to edit my signature to use my initials when I sign. -- Captain MKB 16:39, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
- In that case I prefer to keep the image as long as the policy is not enforced. And thanks for the signature description. Thank you for your response! -- Markonian 12:57, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
--QuantumAura5901 10:06, May 22, 2011 (UTC) Sorry about getting you upset over the Dukat page. But out of curiousity, what did you object about the edits I was making to that page? I was being careful and meticulous about those edits. (By the way, I realized I spelled grammar incorrectly. Little mistakes like that happen from time to time.)
- I reformatted the article about two hours ago, and then your edit undid all of those changes and restored the incorrect version of the article with numerous format problems.
- I have now merged the grammar corrections you made with the correctly formatted article. -- Captain MKB 10:11, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mike. I have a request, if you get a chance. I never figured out how to merge two articles that already exist (never had to before) so I was wondering if you could merge Marie Celeste and Mary Celeste if you don't mind. --Long Live the United Earth 18:39, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Sure thing - the simplest article merge is to move the extra article to the preferred name, agree to delete the first article, but then go through and restore the deleted revisions of the article that was moved over. Last, you also need to make sure to paste both versions together so that all the sentences of both articles are included in the new version. -- Captain MKB 18:43, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
You recently called me "silly" for changing adding a reference on the Ptolemy class page to the "PC game" 25th Anniversary. I did this because there are two games with that name, one for PC and one for NES, and they have different stories and different Memory Beta pages (though the NES one is currently empty). I'm trying to enhance the documentation on this game overall, and was just trying to indicate to the reader which of these two applied to the article in question. I really don't see a reason to be snide...
I also don't see the need to keep dozens and dozens of lines of ship name and registry links (some of which aren't even complete) when there is a lovely Ptolemy class box that conveys the exact same information minus the individual registries in a much more user-friendly format. But that's a very minor point.
- There has been discussion about registry lists and it was decided that they should stay -- the registries are useful information. I'm afraid that that was a consensus of many users, so you'll have to discuss changing this with more people than just me.
- We use citation templates to format links to source material, so you should create a link to the specific game you mean when you reference one of the two games that bear the same name. However, they are both video games. And yes, it is silly to leave the link incorrect and change another cosmetic description while the link still leads to the wrong place. -- Captain MKB 01:49, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't aware of the consensus. Sorry. When I saw that a bunch of the registries were so sloppy that no one even bothered to check and fix them, I assumed no one cared about them.
Frustratingly, that's just it--the link does lead to the right place, since the ship in question is in the PC game with which the link is connected. Unfortunately, there's a bunch of stuff floating around out there that references both games, but they all link to the PC game without any clarification.
I'm not sorry for your judgment of me as "silly"--I think that name-calling is no way to treat someone adding information, even if it is cosmetic--but I do sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding.
Mike I need approval to correct wrong name for transport tug Hiyashi. the correct spelling is Hayashi.--David Miraglia 00:24, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting out the Cincinnatus debacle - I think I was just making things worse! Cyfa 15:59, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
No problem. there was actually no need for adding any kind of disambiguation in parentheses since there is no other topic sharing the name. -- Captain MKB 16:02, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
Klingon Academy "USS Decker"
I was going through and cleaning up some links to ships and so forth and came across a series of ships that link to a USS Decker ship, but of no type. Neither version of the USS Decker that we have seems to fit the bill either. They're in a simulated mission in the Klingon Academy game, and I was wondering if you might be able to help sort it out. One of the ships in question is the USS Omaha. Thanks. -- sulfur 12:33, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't gotten a copy of KA yet -- i downloaded SFC (the original Interplay fleet game) and am still mining it for info. Each game has a preponderance of in-game ships, and even more when you look at the associated game materials like guide manuals released by the publisher. -- Captain MKB
Hey Captain Mike,
Thanks for the Welcoming message.
Can you tell me what pages you need worked on?
cast no shadow, bonhomme richard
Mike I forgot to sign in when recently editing Cast no shadow and Bonhomme Richard. I was the one who made the edits and could that be added to my page of contributions.--David Miraglia 17:44, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, there's no way to change the history. -- Captain MKB 22:23, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the spam: RPG cleanup
I've been doing a lot of the RPG template cleanup "automatically" (or at least, somewhat so), so sorry for the large amounts of RC spam of late. -- sulfur 14:17, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
- No problem - i 'haven't seen 'oldest pages' and 'shortest pages' have such robust changes in quite a while - it's a good change to see what categories and automated lists the recoded new changes now exist in. -- Captain MKB 22:26, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
As a followup -- some mistakes made with the bot. Thanks for noticing the one. I blame brain-numbing repetition for that one. Ha! -- sulfur 14:38, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
Reversion of Template:D7 class (31 Aug 2011)
Hi, I was wondering why you reverted my edit to the page Template:D7 class. You didn't leave any explanation, and I don't know what might be wrong with my edit. Would you mind taking a moment or two to explain, please? Thanks much. --Brisingamen 06:16, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Sure thing. The D7 class template is reserved for listing ships that have been identified as belonging to the D7 class or one of its distinct subclasses. I wasn't aware of any source equating that requirement with the ship you added. -- Captain MKB 06:22, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
- The "Lost Era" book Serpents Among the Ruins says that the Ventarix class is a D7 variant. I included it in the description of my edit so that my source would be clear. Ventarix class also notes that that ship type is "an upgrade of the D7 class cruiser," and cites Serpents Among the Ruins
- The Ventarix-class battle cruiser—squat and long-necked, composed primarily of straight lines and edges, but with a bulbous projection at the fore end of the thin neck—belonged to a new squadron of vessels upgrading the Klingon-designed D7 heavies that the Romulans had been using for the last decade or so.
- Would you mind checking with me before reverting one of my edits for poor sourcing? I try to be very careful, and be very clear about what I've changed and why. I am always happy to clarify. Many thanks. --Brisingamen 06:49, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again. Actually I was aware of this reference - and note that is doesn't say it was a D7, simply that it belonged to a related series.... Just because this class was an upgrade of the D7, it does not necessarily follow that it was of the D7 class itself. Other Romulan ships of the era are clearly related to the D7 series but do not actually belong to that class-they simply share features with it (which is what this passage establishes). Take a moment to digest the logic necessary to establish such a reference, you'll see that it is not established here. Thanks again for your contribution, but we'll need to pay heed to the source itself and not your assumption in this case. -- Captain MKB 06:55, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've misunderstood the passage. It states that the Ventarix-class upgrades the D7 design; in standard English, that means that it "improve[s] (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components" or is "a new version, improved model, etc." I quote from the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2009 and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2006, respectively.
- Relying only on Serpents Among the Ruins and the dictionary, we can see that the Ventarix-class must be part of the D7 series, not part of a related series. That is not assumption; it is English and logic.
- Again, please check with me before reverting my edits for poor sourcing. This exchange should have been carried out on the talk page before any reversion edits were made, as simple courtesy. --Brisingamen 07:23, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Again, you miss my point - something can "upgrade a design" and not be part of the same series. You've misunderstood the source. The newest aircraft carrier Enterprise is an upgrade on the design of the original aircraft carrier Enterprise - but they aren't the same class. See what I mean?
- As an administrator on this site i will continue to revert incorrect edits. I'll leave you a little note if it involves you again. -- Captain MKB 11:41, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Ummmmmmmm. Poor taste! Who are you to judge taste? I was doing it off the cuff and was just trying to have a little fun. I swear some of you Trekers take stuff way to seriously! Its all in fun. Thats all I was trying to do. Well I had a great day today and now this just tops it all off. I get insulted by someone that doesnt even know me or why I put up what I put up. Thanks a bunch!!!!
- Sorry about the misunderstanding. It came up in a search for the word "rape"
- Regardless, you aren't allowed to write that here. Please stop. Thanks. -- Captain MKB 10:09, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Hey Crewmen Mike, you are a complete JERK!!!!!!!!
- I haven't had a chance to fully go over this with you: this isn't a free writing website. Please do not write up your own imaginary ships here.
- Maybe someday you'll have to explain some sort of rules to someone, somewhwere, and you'll understand how silly it is that you think I'm a jerk just for being the first person who explained to you that you are doing the complete wrong thing. Bye. -- Captain MKB 10:43, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Hi, so you know, DTI is a series. Discounting the idea that the title "ST: DTI: WTC" makes it a series, there's scheduled to be a second book coming out in 6-8 months or so. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:25, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
100 year time slip
Oops! Thanks for making those amendments to the time stream. I think I must be living in the 24th century rather than the 23rd... Cyfa 10:23, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry i'll try not to have it happend again, keept to those guidelines in mind as i wrote the Giri article.