user talk:captainmike/archive 2007
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

Re:Inappropriate page behavior[edit source]

Greeting,

I apologize for moving content the way I did. However, it should be noted that the pages themselves had been somewhat incorrectly merged by a user, with the "Vulcan (planet) (mirror)" article still retaining all of its history and category tags prior to the merge.

As for writing the mirror species and planets information within their regular respective articles, that's something that the wiki generally doesn't seem to do. Many of these species have pretty extensive histories, to the point that writing it all down within a subsection would not be the best course of action. I'm not planning on doing a move of this kind again, and I once again apologize for the inconvenience. The Wikia Editor (talk) 22:08, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

I can see the advantage of having the articles, so i can see the point of changing this editing discipline to allow for these kinds of articles (mirror versions of planets and species), but only in case where there is a large amount of information like these. i disagree with the naming convention "... (planet) (mirror)" though so some moves will have to be made, regardless.. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 00:36, February 5, 2018 (UTC)
On that note, would "(mirror planet)" be the best alternative here? - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:44, February 5, 2018 (UTC)
That could work, although it sounds a bit odd. I'm in agreement that only mirror species and planets with extensive enough histories should be given their own articles. Mirror species with relatively little known history, like the Vorta and Jem'Hadar, could simply be written within subsections of the primary universe versions. The Wikia Editor (talk) 02:08, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Re:Image citation format[edit source]

Alright, I've fixed the links with the game uniform images I had uploaded and will make sure to use the correct links in future uploads. The Wikia Editor (talk) 17:34, March 11, 2018 (UTC)

thanks captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 19:18, March 11, 2018 (UTC)

recent edit revert[edit source]

I assume you just edited the forum page on the "srcdate" and "DEFAULTSORT" templates for my benefit simply to point out to me why my last edit to "The Cancer Within" was reverted. In any case, had I not seen that forum post pop back up again and re-read its contents, I was just about to complain why my edit was reverted. But now I see the reasoning behind it. Sorry for the trouble. - Bell'Orso (talk) 01:17, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

I figured it would be best to bring the info to the top without calling out specific edits. everyone needs to be aware -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png

Revert to my edit on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)[edit source]

Why did you revert that? What makes the popularity of the thermocoat-less bare alloy appearance so important as to be mentioned twice? Especially when one of the mentions was not cited? Not to mention that "Captain Kirk decided to recommend that the science station be relocated from behind its new position behind the Captain's chair back to a location near the position near where the science station had been located previously." is unnecessarily wordy and is, in at least one place, impossibly described. That is, the science station can hardly be behind itself. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, March 20, 2018 (UTC)

The information about the thermocoat is derived from Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. You removed that citation.
Regardless of how you think the article should be rewritten for style or brevity, you cannot remove the citation of a valid piece of information. If you are editing information from the article without referencing back to specific sources, i suggest you coordinate your efforts with the source material or with a user that added the information to prevent such errors (i.e., if you are accurizing information from Mr. Scott's Guide, but are not working from Mr Scott's Guide, then you have a problem where you are editing information from a source you are not acknowledging or consulting) -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 17:07, March 20, 2018 (UTC)
I think you are a bit confused. I ADDED the citation to the thermo-coat mention in the "Refit and further service" section that had been uncited before. I also removed a redundant mention of the incident from the "Another five-year mission" section. Admittedly this involved removing the reference citation there, but it had only been moved to another usage of the material earlier on. No sources were lost. An uncited item had a citation added to it and a redundant (but cited) sentence was removed. And I am not sure what your point about consulting the sources is. Aside from the previously described condensing of two redundant sentences, one with and one without citation, all I did was correct language errors. --Khajidha (talk) 18:29, March 20, 2018 (UTC)

ship name redirects deleted by me[edit source]

Since those pages redirected to pages with more specific disambiguants (as in, including the ship class name) I went ahead and changed the few links to them that we had (especially from the "Cutter" page, where they were listed under "cutters of unknown class", when infact their classes had been established). My reasoning is that 1) we should have as few non-content pages as possible, and 2) people coming here looking for those specific ships will more likely start at the page on the source material that the ship appears in ("The Wounded Sky" in this case) and follow the links to the ships from there, rather than search directly for the ship name with such an arbitrary disambiguant as "cutter" in the page title. - Bell'Orso (talk) 06:39, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

Spock Must Die edits[edit source]

Are you sure that the name of the shuttlecraft in the novel is Galileo? I don't recall seeing that name the last time I read it. Doug86 (talk) 22:11, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

The shuttlecraft on the cover of one of the German editions bore the Galileo registry -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 22:57, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
Just to confirm, the novel doesn't mention the "Galileo" by name. In fact, after giving the novel a quick once-over, I couldn't find any name for it. So yeah, since the "Galileo" did appear on the novel's cover we can assume that it was this shuttlecraft that was being used in the story. - Bell'Orso (talk) 09:12, April 16, 2018 (UTC)

src-nov template[edit source]

What exactly is its purpose? Also, for people using the old skin, links are very hard to see on the black portion of the template. I looked at it with the new skin as well and it was just legible enough there, but for some reason on the old skin it's not. And I don't know why that is. Maybe the link colour is a little bit brighter, maybe the black isn't quite as dark. Anyway, it looks kind of out of place. - Bell'Orso (talk) 15:19, April 23, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason i'm finding it very difficult to code. its hard to read which is why is hasnt been enacted, but also there's a lot of technical stuff i want to do with it that i cannot quite figure out.
To answer your question: it was my response to the agitators of a year-and-a-half ago that suggested they might use a cabal of supporters from TrekBBS to get this community to downgrade things that do not fit with specific continuities they (apparently) do not want to read about. They were asking if we could please move things that didnt mesh well with the relaunch novel series to other parts of the wiki, which i found absurd. I countered with a definite initiative to use strong subsectioning to make sure that continuities could remain segregated by == sections whenever possible and necessary.
what i had really envisioned was a strong horizontal dividing graphic that could pop a few links into place to tell a reader they were into a different flavor of Star Trek. for example, if you were reading Ro Laren's biography, the canon episodic years of her life would be interspersed with a few comic stories and novel cameos, etc, ... but then you'd get to one of these signpost headers and understand her Maquis years have a different theme in comics, not quite matching what she did in novels (actually i think her histories are not entirely contradictory, just difficult to track)... and then she has a relaunch novel history. a little browser bar would have been a better illustration of elements the relaunch fans didnt want to see.
regardless, you're right about all the aesthetic issues. its been a flop and i ran a test on it last night to check a couple things, they didn't all work. i can't get it down to a trim height i envisioned, and it is redundant to cite a paragraph at both its beginning and ending...
however, we seem to be keeping the wiki on an even keel, without too much more of the criticism we faced at the beginning of last year. the addition of strong graphical contributions and forgotten publications by Meacott and game and ship infro from you and Adm Markonian has really downplayed the continuity issue (as has Discovery -- if they cannot maintain continuity in CANON -- why should WE worry over here ^_^ ) -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 02:17, April 24, 2018 (UTC)
My first reaction after reading this was "All this, just to appease some whiners?", but anyway, this sounds like an attempt at a similar problem to the one with the mirror universe. And a visually even worse one, imho. But I'm not gonna start that debate up again. For the moment, the "===" biography subsection approach that appears to be in effect across most such pages seems like the best way forward, and this template should be abandoned. And if people have a problem with how things are done, let them sign up here and open a discussion in this site's forum.
Oh and speaking of images, I saw you upload some recently without linking to them on any pages and it puzzles me. We've got hundreds of unused images already, why add to that? And, if you're actually planning to add those images to any pages, I personally would have waited with the upload until I was ready to make the actual page edits (in case one wanted to add more than just images to those pages). If it hadn't been an experienced MB user who uploaded those I would have been sorely tempted to delete those. - Bell'Orso (talk) 02:48, April 24, 2018 (UTC)
  1. The template is not in use. it was a code test.
  2. Image categorization makes it intelligent to have images on hand for loads of potential future uses. I'm primarily focused on images now because I really want to optimize the category structure. All images get used for their source's page anyway, so 'unused' is never a valid cause for deletion.

With that said, we had the big image purge last year and, now that the dust has settled, I'd ask that you start following the rules regarding deletions again. It was super useful to clean cut a lot of the dross without discussions and documentation, but you can't just go deleting properly formatted images just because they're unused, regardless of the user's established status. If you were sorely tempted to delete the images, it means you were sorely tempted to break policy - captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 02:56, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

Images[edit source]

I understand about the Dr. Nambue. I could not remember which episode he was in. The one of Risa i thought i provided the right citation for it. What have have been missing in uploading images? CC-1990 (talk) 02:59, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

I've asked you several times to make sure the images were of the proper size - not too small and not too large. Mirror Risa image was too large. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 03:01, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

icon templates[edit source]

I just rediscovered those, and was wondering why there is no "iconSF" template like there is an "iconUFP" template? I really like these templates because they shorten links drastically and thereby help keep page sizes down, like the ship prefix templates do. And since the Federation Starfleet icon is used just as widely as the UFP icon, it would have made sense to me to have an "iconSF" template to go along with "iconUFP", because that would give the opportunity to cut down on page size just that much more than using the non-specialized "icon" template would. It should be easy to create "iconSF" using "iconUFP" as a base, so I'd be willing to try my hand at that and then of course start implementing it. - Bell'Orso (talk) 16:54, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

yeah the Starfleet one is the next step. the time-consuming part of creating one of those is setting the code to define the era properly - the 'general use' version is there until a specific version can be identified as a need and then used to replace it. The general use one should remain however, for one-off symbols that might not justify coding a whole spinoff template -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 20:52, April 27, 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I never said to get right of the generic "icon" template, it has its uses. Just that "UFP" isn't the only specialized one we might want. Come to think of it, "KE" and "RE" for the seals of the Klingon and Romulan Empires would also be a good idea, but one thing at a time. - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:13, April 27, 2018 (UTC)
the klingon one would save the time of writing the klingon emblem filename into the general icon template across a great many articles, youre right -- and it would be easier to code because i think there are only one or two different klingon emblems across star trek eras. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 21:18, April 27, 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of only one. - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:57, April 27, 2018 (UTC)
It was colored differently in TOS and TAS, but yes, a much simpler progression. there are a few Romulan
Also, only one Cardassian, so that one won't even need a code parameter -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 22:25, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

Yelgrun[edit source]

Hi Captain. I've just looked at Yelgrun and seen an unsourced mention of a "Yelgrun 2". The lack of a source makes me suspicious that this is that VortaExpert person causing trouble again. The IP address also belongs to that person who was asking about a paid position at Memory Beta in 2016, who was probably also that User:Grathon Tolar user who wanted to be made an admin automatically. 80.192.134.200 15:24, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

If I may just butt in here for a sec, I have again removed any unsourced information from that page. - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:52, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Great. I still think there has to be a way of stopping VortaExpert causing any more trouble. Perhaps every Vorta & Ferengi article should be on every admin's watchlist and each edit not by a user they recognise should be scrutinized. I also sometimes wonder why VortaExpert keeps causing trouble 11 years after the first encounter. --80.192.134.200 07:07, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

i'm not sure this is really critical at this point. a few years ago i was perusing one of the RPG manuals and found that the Weyoun 20#s actually had a valid source. sure, Vorta Expert was a jerk and refused to comply with citing the material, but its hardly cause to block future Vorta articles, a decade later.

thanks BellOrso for attending to the proper solution

Unfair Situation, Please Help[edit source]

I need the communities help with something very important, luckily ElectricSupernova isn’t an admin on this website so he can’t block me, however I have been blocked on memory gamma permanently after I called him out for being a liar, fandom support claims they can’t do anything without enough complaints against ElectricSupernova’s administration rights revoked. I don’t know what to do, please help me. (U.S.S. Marvel (talk) 12:59, October 5, 2018 (UTC))

I am not sure what we can do. I personally hardly ever visit MG and I have absolutely never edited any pages there. I have also never talked to any of the people there, so I don't know what is going on. That means I cannot check if what you are saying is actually true. I don't want to call you a liar, but if I cannot check for myself, then I do not want to get involved. I mean, I could check now, but that would mean looking at every edit to every page that this other user has ever done, and that would take far too much time for me. I see you have already tried to talk to the Fandom Support staff and it has not worked so far. I don't know how CaptainMike feels about this, or how any of the other admins and regular users here feel, but as I said: I cannot help you either. I'm sorry. - Bell'Orso (talk) 13:44, October 5, 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the situation there although it doesnt sound promising that there was a personal exchange--i know some liars on other Fandom Wikis as well and unfortunately our exchanges are limited to wiki info, so we cannot speak to points like that against our peers.
I've been a critic of the amateurish way that Memory Gamma was run in the past, but I'm not aware of the situation there now - the better part of valor might include residence in a more reputable Fandom environment.
I'm currently on assignments so I won't be able to address responses without a delay but I'll be observant of ways that I could help. But BellOrso is right, thats a whole other Fandom group with their own differing mission statement -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 15:01, October 5, 2018 (UTC)

Kelvin timeline v Alternate reality[edit source]

Just FYI, the [[{{{1}}} (alternate reality)|{{{1}}}]] now points to 'Kelvin timeline' pages, and all of the 'alternate reality' pages have been moved over (and links fully updated/etc on MB). Categories still need to be considered (they'll be a LOT tougher to move without a bot), and there may be some odd stragglers with 'alternate' in their titles somewhere. -- sulfur (talk) 23:20, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing that through - i figured the redirects would buy us time without having to rush but the wholesale change was needed -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 13:20, November 3, 2018 (UTC)

Source of spelling for bujwI'[edit source]

Hi there!

You recently added the word **bujwI'** to Klingonese glossary (B) as a Klingon word for "croupier". I was curious: What is your source for this spelling?

It would appear that the word was spelled **pojwI'** (lit. "analyst, one who analyzes") in the Klingon subtitles on Netflix. Neither **bujwI'** nor the apparent verb **buj** have appeared in any of the lists of new words provided to us by the Marc Okrand nor from the writers of the Klingon dialogue and Klingon subtitles. --LoghaD (talk) 00:57, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

I did base the entry on my own notes taken by my ear, and since i watch on CBS All Access i do not have access to title cards and Klingonese subtitles. If that's a concrete source we could move it, I suppose, based on my hearing i suppose it could go either way otherwise. I did figure that with 'buj' being an unused root it would be a likely addition to the glossary to assign the unused word to the new term. Do the klingon subtitles use the precise spelling "pojwI'"? - captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 02:38, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

removing categories from pages[edit source]

I want to remove an incorrect category from pages, but I am still not used to this current skin. I used the old one for as long as I could and never bothered with this one. Bottom line is, I know to add a new category to a page, but I have no clue how to remove an existing one from it. - Bell'Orso (talk) 10:11, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I figured it out. I want the old skin back. :-/ - Bell'Orso (talk) 10:15, March 23, 2019 (UTC)
I had a similar learning curve issue. i had to disable the smart editor so i could edit the raw text, which shows the categories at the bottom. i'm getting used to it now but i dont like having to drag open a sidebar frame to see linkbacks to used templates.
the worst part is fandom's insulting cover story that the reskinning was necessary for technical reasons -- wikipedia still uses the simpler intuitive interface even today, proving their lies -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 12:56, March 23, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.