Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

A friendly reminder regarding spoilers! At present the expanded Trek universe is in a period of major upheaval with the finale of Year Five, the Coda miniseries and the continuations of Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks; and the premieres of Prodigy and Strange New Worlds, the advent of new eras in Star Trek Online gaming, as well as other post-55th Anniversary publications. Therefore, please be courteous to other users who may not be aware of current developments by using the {{spoiler}}, {{spoilers}} or {{majorspoiler}} tags when adding new information from sources less than six months old. Also, please do not include details in the summary bar when editing pages and do not anticipate making additions relating to sources not yet in release. 'Thank You


Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki


Hi, welcome to Memory Beta, the wiki for licensed Star Trek content! Thanks for your edit to the "Talk:Jabilo M'Benga" page.

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!

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Sulfur (Talk) 2012-09-14T14:19:07


In a recent talk page exchange, you attempted to state that a user consensus might not be valid because one of our admin/bureaucrats had previously taken issue with your actions on another wiki or board and might be siding against you as a punitive measure.

I want to re-iterate that, despite that user's participation in the discussion, I was the admin who closed the matter and also attempted to reiterate the findings of previous participants when you attempted to re-open the matter. the matter being discussed was completely and totally based on weighing the principles of the wiki with the information you presented. At no point have I ever known Sulfur to deviate from a fair and balanced assessment of situations and Sulfur's edits and discussions are calm, ordered and, with Sulfur's skill at logically following procedures of link structures, usually help to balance mine.

If your argument is so flawed you have to turn to personal commentary rather than acknowledging the points put to you, you're going to have a very difficult time participating in this wiki. -- Captain MKB 03:27, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledged all the points put to me and made a rebuttal for each one (except for those in your last post). My comment about Sulfur was not meant to attack his character, but rather to get you to accept arbitration from someone who has not been involved in the discussion. I realized it would be impossible to convince you because you were too psychologically invested in your side of the debate, so arbitration was my only chance. In retrospect, my comment about Sulfur was going too far.
Since the comment can be taken as a insult, I will edit it out of my post. I will also post a rebuttal to your last post, for anyone who might be following the debate. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:47, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Cloud creature[]

Hi, I noticed that you un-reverted an edit to Debt of Honor regarding the di-kironium cloud creature -- at the point where the third edit is to be made, it is customary and proper to initiate a discussion regarding the situation rather than an edit war. another user has gone ahead and turned back your edit, re-adding annnd undoing your removing a link the the cloud creature.

I'm not sure if you are just being somewhat obtuse or are actually ignorant of the fact that the link SHOULD be in the article - the cloud creature was explicitly mentioned in the story (in fact i checked the story just now, several pages show numerous bodies in a hallway as a result of the cloud creature's visit.

The wiki operates best when users add and modify what is already rightfully in the article, rather than relying on wholesale deletion of entire links or bodies of text. If you wanted to clarify the cloud creature did not appear, it is more constructive to annotate the reference as a non-appearance (rather than being destructive and removing the link) -- Captain MKB 14:44, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Edits to TOS episode/novelization characters[]

Hi i noticed you've been removing valid links contained in the characters reference sections of TOS episodes/novelizations - stop doing this.

Also, if you are intent on creating a separate reference section to differentiate novelization characters from episode-appearing characters, please try to choose a less awkward way of forming the section title that using a parenthetical "characters (novelization)" - thats not really optimal.

So in brief, choosing better section names would be preferable, and removing links is absolutely wrong and you are to stop doing so -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 13:00, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

I thought the unnamed character links were redundant, since every episode of every series has unnamed characters. And unlike the unnamed character links on Memory Alpha, these ones don't link to specific unnamed characters, making them effectively useless. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:37, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
Well, I do have a long-term plan for crafting the unnamed characters web into a more robust version, so "because Memory Alpha does it different" is not a reason to delete links I have added in good faith. They aren't redundant - and yes, every episode has unnamed characters. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 12:50, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
When I see something like unnamed 2260s USS Enterprise personnel (USS Enterprise personnel), is it okay if I remove the second link only? I think it would make the character lists look less cluttered. --NetSpiker (talk) 08:01, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Leaving the unnamed characters aside for a moment, why would you remove links to named characters that were actually referenced in an episode from the respective episode page? Furthermore, when a character is not fully named in canon but did receive a full name in a licensed source and therefor has their MB page using their full name, it is still very much acceptible to use the canon name as a bare link (which in most cases will be a redirect to the full name anyway), or hide the direct link to the full name behind the canon name. But things like "[[Che'srik Tal|Che'srik Tal]]" are just stupid. Do better, please. - Bell'Orso (talk) 08:27, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

"Che'srik Tal|Che'srik Tal" is obviously a mistake and not something that I did deliberately. I know it's acceptable to use the canon name as a bare link but I think it looks better if the character's full name is shown on the page. Plenty of characters don't have canon names at all, so they have to be listed under their non-canon names.
As for removing links to characters references in an episode, exactly what are you referring to? --NetSpiker (talk) 09:16, October 30, 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to this: [1] - Bell'Orso (talk) 12:04, October 30, 2017 (UTC)
Billy Clanton, etc. are not characters, they're just aliases for Kirk and company. Maybe I should've moved them to Other references instead of removing them completely. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:44, October 31, 2017 (UTC)
They are characters. Fictional characters, even in the "Star Trek" universe, but characters nonetheless. Even if you don't count the Enterprise crew impersonating them as them actually appearing, they were still referenced in dialogue at least. Therefor they should not be moved to "Other References", but instead to the "Referenced Only" subsection of "Characters". - Bell'Orso (talk) 01:56, October 31, 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for being kind to me with your sources question. I'm still very, very aware I'm new and clueless as to the proper protocols on this wiki. You could have put me on blast just because I'm green, and you didn't; that was very decent of you. I appreciate it. --Cohobbitation (talk) 13:37, September 27, 2019 (UTC)

Warped parody stories[]

His, just letting you know - the parody book which lists "fake" episodes doesn't seem to be a valid reason to create an article for each one. other parodies such as Star Trekkers have stayed bound to their central article (as meta topics that are not real narratives "in universe") and other multistory works (like the individual titled levels in Shattered Universe, for example) stay bound to their original article.

There doesn't seem to be much call for this and I intend to submit them for deletion discussions and suggest they be merged to the originating article about the parody book -- captainmike Site-logo.png 01:52, January 28, 2020 (UTC)

Warped is an officially licensed parody, so I've been treating the stories the same way the stories from the Strange New Worlds anthologies are treated, with a separate article for each story. The fact that the stories have a lot of humor in them doesn't make them any less valid. I can't find any article for this "Star Trekkers", you're referring to. Do you mean Starship Trekkers? Each Starship Trekkers story has its own page: Brief Encounter at Farpoint, Party at the Edge of Forever and A Sock Time. You also mentioned Shattered Universe in support of your argument, but I can provide a counter-example: Star Trek Online has a separate article for each mission.
I think it's important to note which characters, starships, races and locations appear in which story and if you put them up for deletion, I intend to oppose. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:15, January 28, 2020 (UTC)

The core of what I'm asking you to consider is that this is one book, and each story is actually "fake" - a shell of a story described for parody purposes. Each Star Trek Online mission has a much longer story which is much more on par with using the single episode page format. And yes, i made the same argument against Starship Trekkers and I'm glad to see those articles left off on their own with little attention from the rest of the wiki (as these parodies lack relevance to the actual narrative of Star Trek)... The Warped s8 references could be listed on the central page in a much more cohesive manner. By dividing them up into individual episode pages, there is a ton of redundant and pointless data being put forth in terms of repeating the same sidebar, similar lists of characters, etc., over and over again, joke references you are linking as real references and lots of empty subsections. it's pretty pointless and I'm asking for you to consider that. -- captainmike Site-logo.png 02:22, January 28, 2020 (UTC)

There is no actual difference between a "joke reference" and a real reference. It seems to me that you can't accept the Warped stories as real Star Trek just because of their humorous content. I believe that any licensed story deserves an article on Memory Beta, regardless of whether it's a drama or a comedy or whether it's long or short. I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to repeating the same sidebar and character lists. Each sidebar has a different title, a different stardate, and a different page range. Every story has a different list of characters, apart from the regulars. The only empty subsections are the summaries because I'm not good at writing summaries. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:43, January 28, 2020 (UTC)
Once again, you're missing the point - this is one book deserving of one article. Not 2 dozen articles. Stop splitting it into a season of fake episodes. it is not 2 dozen episodes, it is one book with a series of anecdotes that are not fleshed out episodes. -- captainmike Site-logo.png 03:23, January 28, 2020 (UTC)
I disagree completely. If the other examples I provided haven't convinced you, perhaps this one will: Star Trek: Phase II: The Lost Series is another book with detailed summaries of non-existent episodes but each one of those episodes has its own article or at least a red link.
I don't know why you've also started talking about this on the article's talk page. Isn't it better to keep the discussion in one place? --NetSpiker (talk) 05:00, January 28, 2020 (UTC)
The discussion belongs on the article talk page so other users will take part in my official merge suggestion. -- captainmike Site-logo.png 05:14, January 28, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you![]

Thank you for writing up the Beta Quadrant Sourcebook references. Dealing with Star Trek Adventures books has been on my agenda for a while, but other things have kept coming up and pushing it back. Seeing all that added is fantastic. --TimPendragon (talk) 18:35, March 16, 2020 (UTC)

Am I confused about Pitcairn?[]

Hey, NetSpiker, I saw your change to my addition to Pitcairn noting his first name and added a notation about it. But now I'm wondering if I misinterpreted the conversation on pages 59-60 in "The Enterprise War" that seemed to give Pitcairn the first name Nicola, after your mentioning that second character Vicente Nicola. Is Vicente referred to later on? I've only just started reading the book.--Meacott (talk) 16:29, June 24, 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the novel, so I don't know the page number, but a Google Books search returns one match for "Vicente Nicola". Pitcairn is called "Nils Pitcairn" in the novel. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:07, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
Hadn't thought of trying that. Thanks for doing the Google Books search!--Meacott (talk) 00:16, June 26, 2020 (UTC)

Archduk3 Has Banned me And Violated Memory Alpha Policy[]

I am here because I cannot message people on Memory Alpha because apparently the ban includes basic communication. After the last message I posted on the talk page for Greek gods, I was unfairly banned by Archduk 3 for “intimidating bevahvior and harassment” and something about a “martyr complex”. This is ridiculous as I know what it is like to be harassed and would never try to participate in it. Also Memory Alpha policy on Bans and blocks says that they are used to prevent harmful edits, not as punishment and should be used as a last resort. I am being punished for something I said on a talk page. Please try to help. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 17:46, June 30, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't undo your block. When I was unfairly blocked by Archduk3, I downloaded the VPN Hide All IP and set it to change my IP address every 5 minutes. That's the only help I can offer. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:22, July 1, 2020 (UTC)

I have been infinitely banned by Archduk3[]

What is going on? I made a few minor edits to a few pages recently and didn’t revert them after they were reverted. Why have I been infinitely banned for “abusing multiple accounts”?? What?! --Anonymous Anonymous 1234dnwnzozjnwjwi (talk) 21:37, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

Only your User:Anonymous Anonymous 1234dnwnzozjnwjwi account has been infinitely banned. Your User:Anonymous 1029384756 account has only been banned for a week and the ban will expire in two days. So relax. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:13, July 4, 2020 (UTC)

I feel like I am being subject to a witch hunt. I don’t understand. I even use a vpn and when I tried switching the ip again to one I didn’t use with that account I was able to make a few edits and then I was blocked with no reason provided. Is he just blocking every anonymous user now? Why is archduk on a mad witch hunt after me? He might soon end up blocking ips that aren’t me. This is a witch hunt. He will probably block my main account infinitely when he realizes he didn’t. --Anonymous Anonymous 1234dnwnzozjnwjwi (talk) 14:36, July 4, 2020 (UTC)

Maybe he recognized you by the type of edits you made. Did you try to remove the Non-corporeal category from some species article again? Or maybe you weren't logged off properly when you switched IPs. --NetSpiker (talk) 14:50, July 4, 2020 (UTC)

Yes but it was for Nagilum (I made this edit using account Anonymous Anonymous 1234dnwnzozjnwjwi) and I was actually removing an assumption that wasn’t in the article until recently. For some reason Gsuvalan and archduk3 think mysterious and powerful automatically equals non corporeal. That is not true. Something can be powerful and corporeal, and being non corporeal doesn’t give you magic powers! It was not in the article until very recently. I removed the assumption from the article and replaced the pronouns it and he with singular they which is more appropriate. As I said, this was not on the page at all until recently. It is an assumption. And what right does he or she have to assume the identity of a user based on one edit and infinitely ban him(me) because he had a different opinion? Will this ever stop. I feel like they deliberately oppose anything I propose. --Anonymous Anonymous 1234dnwnzozjnwjwi (talk) 16:43, July 4, 2020 (UTC)

I was banned again[]

This is Anonymous 1029384756. Help me please I just got blocked again for calmly voicing an opinion. Again it was under the excuse of harassment because of what I said today in (edit: Sulfur’s) talk page. Please try to reach another admin or something because even they probably would find this ridiculous, him blocking me as soon as I open my mouth to speak. I know this because in your block log it says you were moved blocked by archduk3 for something similar only to be unblocked by sulfur saying that complaining about admins is not a blockable offense. I even then logged out after I was blocked again and said that is was sorry if anything I said came across as rude. He then proceeds to block that IP address. This is now downright ludicrous. Please find a way to fix this. It like he’s looking for a reason to block me in everything I say or do. He wants me to never be able to edit again at this rate. Try to cont sac t some of the other admins, ideally ones you think might listen. Please this has gone on long enough. I need a chance. -- 18:53, July 6, 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry so much about being blocked. I know it hurts to be blocked unfairly, but you have a VPN, so you can continue editing even while your main account is blocked. Just don't remove categories from any articles because they'll recognize who you are and block you again. In fact, just to be on the safe side, don't remove or change any existing information, at least for a while. Instead, focus on adding new information to Memory Alpha. Also, don't bother talking to the admins anymore. They have set their minds against you, so anything you say to them may be used as an excuse to block you.
You should also know when to give up regarding the Talk:Douwd and Talk:Greek god discussions. You won't always be able to convince people to agree with you, so Memory Alpha will always have some information that you regard as incorrect. Back in 2016, I tried to have the Bela Okmyx page on Memory Alpha renamed to Bela Oxmyx because that's how it was pronounced in the episode and spelled in almost every book. I pointed out that Memory Alpha policy was on my side, but no one agreed with me, so I gave up and the page is still called "Bela Okmyx" to this day.
In case you're interested about my history with Archduk3, you can find it here. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:33, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Looking back on your last message at User talk:Sulfur, I think you implying that Archduk3 was immature may be the reason you were blocked again.

But again he will block any anonymous user that edits, including ones that aren’t even me. He is on a crazy witch hunt and he will not stop until I am banned from this wiki permanently. I have been branded as a vandal with an agenda and at this point he is literally blocking me the moment a block expires. When I asked him a bout this block he said that I am blocked because I think that he’s blocking my for silly reasons, which sounds silly itself. I don’t understand why the policy doesn’t mean anything to him except when he tries to use it against me by claiming I have a “martyr complex” and I am “trying to disrupt MA to prove a point”. He says I am a vandal with an agenda and that I want to be blocked because I want to be a martyr and that “the nails to the cross will continue exponentially”. How is this not harassment towards me at this point. I have been called far more names that I have called him. I’m fact I never called him names, I only ever called him a hypocrite once earlier and immature which he is. I will never be able to edit again unless he is removed from the wiki. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 01:46, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

Follow my advice. If you don't make the same type of edits you made before, Archduk3 won't recognize you and won't block you. I've taken a look at Memory Alpha's block list. Each time your IP addresses were blocked because you did something that made Archduk3 recognize you. You either posted on User talk:Sulfur to complain about being blocked or you removed the Non-corporeal category from the Greek god and Q (species) articles. Don't do that stuff anymore. Also, you can't get Archduk3 removed from the wiki. I've tried to get his admin privileges removed in the past, but it didn't work. Like I said before, admins can do whatever they want to anyone with no repercussions.
You should consider staying here on Memory Beta. Unlike Memory Alpha, Memory Beta is focused on all of Star Trek, not just the movies and TV shows. There's only one active admin here and not as many policies to learn. However, you should be aware that the Star Trek Encyclopedia is considered canon here and it describes the Douwd as energy beings and includes Nagilum on its list of noncorporeal life. The Greek gods are described as beings of energy in the novel Gods Above, which is also considered canon here. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:05, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

None of this is even remotely fair. After I was unblocked I said that I did not appreciate being blocked and that he became admin after a yesr of editing, while you have been editing for around 5 years and are also more mature than Archduk3 but haven’t become an admin. How am I allowed to get banned for saying that? He has said that I can’t read, that I’m a vandal, that I have a “martyr complex” with no consequences. What I am asking of you is to try to reach another admin and fix this. (Although the only admins that are active are archduk3(the perpetrator) gsuvalan(assistant perpetrator) sulfur(enabler) and 31dot(likely an enabler) so I don’t know but maybe this case is extreme enough that sulfur or 31dot might reverse it like they did with you. Also why are there only four admins? Did they take over the wiki and remove all admins who disagreeed? Anyways please at least try. Maybe get a larger amount of support to back me up. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 20:43, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

There's also ThomasHL, who is the nicest admin on Memory Alpha in my opinion. But I don't recommend contacting him, because that will get you blocked again by the others. I'll contact him myself.
In the meantime, calm down and follow my advice. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:27, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you posted about it on his talk page but it seems like he hasn’t seen the message since he hasn’t replied. Will he reply? Is there some way that you can let him know that there is a new message on his talk page? --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 16:13, July 13, 2020 (UTC)

Tom hasn't been on Memory Alpha since the 8th of July. It looks like he decided to take a break just before I posted. There's nothing I can do except wait until he decides to come back. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:12, July 14, 2020 (UTC)

Then they should get the Odo treatment. Why can’t the admins even have sensible conversations like this without their rage showing through? But I will disagree with you about the thought thing. Our energy and pure thought are contradictory and he said energy first. Pure thought is Spock speaking poetically. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 17:39, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

I was banned AGAIN[]

I literally just got banned again by Archduk3 for the most nonsensical reason. This time he literally recycled the same exact excuse used last time. I don’t even know whyThe I was banned this time. The last edit I made was this (the link shows my edit being undone)

All I did was change the wording and seperated the energy being sentence form the immortal or long lives sentence as there is no direct connection between being made of energy and being long lived and replaced thought with energy as they were stated to be made of pure energy, and there is no such thing as pure thought. Why am I being banned after I made such a minor edit? I feel like Archduk3 is the enemy of logic itself. This must be fixed as it is clear he is deliberately looking for reasons to ban me. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 16:34, July 24, 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing more I can do to help you. I've posted some advice on your Memory Alpha talk page. If you choose to follow it, then hopefully you won't get blocked again. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:53, July 25, 2020 (UTC)

Im not transgender and I don’t have a transgender agenda. Humans have two sexes, however aliens might have a different pair of genders or three genders or no genders... etc. The Organians were taking on humanoid disguises and I hadn’t recalled any mention of it. Later he clarified that one of them was referred to as he, so I pointed out that the other two were not. I believe the two who weren’t should be left without gendered pronouns and the one who was should get the Odo treatment, not male, but male pronouns are used and uses male appearance as humanoid. The last edit I made was where I separated the energy being sen the new from the sentence about abilities. What does ring an energy being have anything to do with it’s powers? Non corporeal beings don’t automatically have magic powers, and beings with magic powers are not automatically non corporeal. I should have just removed the as a being of sentence as it was totally irrelevant to their abilities. Tali’s I replaced thought with energy as they were stated to be made of energy. Gsuvalan seems to firmly believe that Star Trek isn’t Science Fiction and he said angrily on my talk page that it’s fantasy and ewe should take metaphors literally. I’m sorry but that’s common sense. They are energy beings not thought beings. Since when can a user be banned when they haven’t broken any rules? I only made edits once and didn’t go around reverting and rereverting. The memory aloha policy says that bans are supposed to be a last resort if all attempts to contact the user have failed. They don’t con act em they ban me and then go all “We hate you you stupid evil martyr complex aenda vandal agenda marry thing you make me sick I want to throw up we will ban you again and again. Archduk3 literally talks like a cartoon villain. But they always claim my “agenda” is behind something, no matter what edit I’m trying to make. At this poker no matter how many times I SUA that I don’t know what they are talking about and that I have no agenda, they continue to insist that they are right. They are now like Gul Madred insisting that there are five lights. There. Are. Four. Lights! The admin you tried to contact is likely dead at this point. I don’t know what to do if literally anything can get me banned. Also, each bam is longer than the previous. Why do I get punished for a month just because I’ve already been banned? Does that mean I could not get banned again for five years and then suddenly they ban me for something minor and it’s a year long or infinite ban? Also why did they ban me from editing my own talk page? I thought the wikis policy was to let banned users communicate using their own talk page. That seems unnecessarily cruel. This goes so far against policy it is absurd. Bans are supposed to be a last resort and not a first resort. Did they basically forget that rule? Please HELP. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 16:26, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

Spock described the Organians as "pure energy, pure thought, totally incorporeal" in the episode. So it's absolutely correct for the article to say they are "pure thought". You tried to remove the word "thought" twice: once on the 22nd and then again on the 24th after you had been reverted. That can be interpreted as edit warring. As for their gender, you're overcomplicating things. If an alien assumes the form of a humanoid male, they should be referred to with male pronouns, pure and simple.
I'm not saying I agree with you being banned, but I understand why the admins are annoyed with you. You keep making the same types of edits, changing the wording of articles to make them in line with your personal theories about gender, pronouns and pure thought instead of following what was said in the episodes.
Gvsualan never said that Star Trek is not science fiction. When he said that Star Trek is fantasy, he meant fantasy as in the opposite of reality, not fantasy as in swords and sorcery.
You were banned from editing your own talk page because you changed the title of the discussion which sulfur had written. Don't rewrite something that another user has written on a talk page, even if it's just a title. The only exception is if you're fixing a broken link. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:03, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

Then the Organians should get the odo treatment. Ged er unknown (male humanoid projection) and use The pronoun he but the gender is still unconfirmed. Why can’t the admins have a civil discussion like this? Also did they forget that according to Memory Alpha policy bans should be a last resort if all attempts to contact the user have failed? They haven’t tried to contact me, they only message me after they ban me to angrily rant about why I was banned and how much they hate me. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 17:43, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the Memory Alpha admins are sometimes a bit too quick to ban someone. 31dot once permanently banned two different users [2] [3] just because he thought their writing styles were similar to a previously-banned user named Jared Paul Baratta. --NetSpiker (talk) 08:53, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

But also Memory Alpha ppolicy specifically states that bans are to be used as a last resort to prevent harmful edit if all attempts to constancy the user have failed. What happened to trying to talk to the user first? That is required by Menory Alpha Policy which has been broken. I would like to if you brought that up. “ Under specific circumstances, the administrators may choose to implement a block to ban a user from further contributing to the community. This measure should only be taken as a last resort after all other attempts to contact the user and discuss the matter have failed.” There it is. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 19:13, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

Me bringing that up isn't going to help because you've already mentioned it twice on Sulfur's talk page and it didn't help you then. --NetSpiker (talk) 07:19, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

Well is there anything you can do to help? I’m kind of doomed right now. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 18:29, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

I've given you a lot of help in the form of advice and constructive criticism. I'll summarize it here:
  • Don't type in all caps.
  • Don't call people names, not even "hypocrite" or "immature". Yes, I know the admins were just as rude to you. Be better than them.
  • If an admin has reverted your edit, don't make the same edit or similar type of edit to the same page again.
  • Add new information to Memory Alpha instead of changing existing information, just to be on the safe side.
  • If you have to change existing information, make sure you have solid evidence to back it up, not just your theories or common sense.
  • Check episode transcripts and the Star Trek Encyclopedia to see what pronouns are appropriate for a character before making any changes. The 3rd edition of the Star Trek Encyclopedia can be searched online using Google Books.
  • If a discussion is not going your way, know when to give up.
  • Don't leave messages on an admin's talk page because they don't like you, so anything you say to them will just make them angrier. If you make a lot of good contributions to Memory Alpha, hopefully they'll stop hating you and you'll be able to talk to them again, eventually.
If you choose to follow this advice after your block expires, then you probably won't get blocked again. If you ignore it, then yes, you are doomed to be blocked again, for an even longer period of time. There's nothing more I can do to help you. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:53, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

I was Blocked again and they still increase the Blocks[]

Help me. I literally posted on my own talk page begging for mercy because I was blocked for three months for an extremely minor edit I made once. I said . “They have the ability to assume both corporeal and non corporeal forms” on the article for the Q species. I didn’t get rid of any of the descriptors I just rearranged them anf added that they can be corporeal as well as shown by Sisko punching Q. I didn’t get rid of any of the omnipotent nonsense since I knew that would anger them. I just added the sentence I described. This is now firmly in the realm of being banned over superstition and Personal grudges! Also every time I get banned they always extend the ban so I can’t even post ON MY OWN TALK PAGE and it hasn’t happened this time but trust me it will. I need help and o need it badly before I am banned forever. 16:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You ignored my advice, specifically:
  • If an admin has reverted your edit, don't make the same edit or similar type of edit to the same page again. (You had made the "assume both corporeal and non-corporeal forms" edit back in August, it was reverted, but now you did it again)
  • If a discussion is not going your way, know when to give up.
Stay here on Memory Beta. The admins here are a lot nicer and there are fewer rules to follow. It's clear that Memory Alpha has become a very toxic environment for you and you won't be allowed to make the changes you want to make. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

How am I supposed to remember something I did in Uagust once? Also why did they dislike the edit? Can you please at least try to at least start over with the ban lengths since it was a minor offense anyway. Increasing every ban just shows they have a grudge and won’t let me start over. Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Trill lifespan[]

Given that the Tal symbionts had only five hosts in 800ish years, the first host is wearing a Picard era uniform, that means that Trill live longer than humans. This isn’t that surprising, as Curzon at over 100 did not look 100. I think it’s safe to say their aging is normal until old age and then slows down, as seen with not only Curzon but with Tal’s hosts. I’d like you to at least converse with people on Memory alpha about adding this to the trill article on memory ALPHA. Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's speculation to say that Trill live longer than humans because we don't know how long humans can live in the future. McCoy was still alive and active in the 24th century at the age of 137. Going further into the future, it's likely that both human and Trill lifespans would increase due to advances in medical technology, so it's no surprise that Tal only had five hosts. Or the Tal symbiont could've spent a century or two swimming around in the Caves of Mak'ala between hosts. We just don't know. --NetSpiker (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Discovery Season 3 Background Aliens[]

I've noticed many of the background aliens form the first few episodes of Discovery season 3 have not been catalouged. Can you please get everyone at memory ALPHA to put some effort into searching for all the new species. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

People on Memory Alpha make the contributions they want to make. I don't feel comfortable telling them what to do. If I did, they'd probably ask me why I don't do it myself. And the answer would be that I have no interest in unnamed characters played by unknown actors and I haven't seen Discovery season 3 yet. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well right now i can't make any edits so please just suggest it to someone. Not demand, just suggest. --Anonymous 1029384756 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, can you tell me where these new aliens are located (what planet, ship, station), so the MA editors will know where to look for them and which list article to add them to? --NetSpiker (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

They are on the planet Hima. There is no article for “Hima inhabitants” and no catalouge pages for the 32nd century. — 16:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Here it is. Hopefully, someone will create the article soon. --NetSpiker (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Race, species, subspecies, culture, tribe[]

Hi there! I noticed you have edited the alpha/beta quadrant species page i had updated with more entries to TOS novel races... you put the Thalassans under Andorians, which of course is correct... But this opens a new question to me: the way terms like species, race, etc. Are often used in ST sometimes puzzle me. At one point Vulcans and Romulans are even stated to be "two tribes of the same race" so for future entries... should i put Vulcans, Romulans, Mintakans etc. Under "vulcanoids" and novans, magna romans etc. All under "Human" ? Regards Haerangil --Haerangil (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Tough question. I'd say put Magna Romans and Novans under Human, but leave the Romulans and Mintakans where they are because "vulcanoid" is a very rarely used term that is almost never used to identify an individual, while "Andorian", "Human" and "Klingon" are very commonly used terms.
Despite the "two tribes of the same race" comment from Discovery, TNG made it clear that Romulans are a separate race, despite being descended from Vulcans: CRUSHER: We thought it would be like working on Vulcans, but there are subtle differences. Too many of them. And as far as we know, Mintakans just look like Vulcans, but are not descended from them. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Spoilers for new sources[]

In the article Gary Seven a new source (eligible for spoiler warning) pointed out a major data point for the character. The expectation of our spoiler policy is that a spoiler message would be added to the article when that data point (the character's birth name) was added. Please be warned that editors are expected to follow the policy and add the spoiler message when adding spoiler data . -- captainmike Site-logo.png 04:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Netflix subtitles[]

Hi just FYI - Netflix subtitles are written after the fact, by a company that is not associated with production or license ownership of Star trek - there is no reason to give them precedence over another source that disagrees. (like Paramount+, the property owner) -- captainmike Site-logo.png 12:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to Paramount+, but according to Memory Alpha, the Paramount+ subtitles say "Swensen" as it is in the script. However, Shatner's pronunciation is either "Henson" or "Bensen". In some cases, the Netflix subtitles are closer to the script than the Paramount+ ones. For example, a character from Friday's Child that the script calls "Deem" is called "Leem" on Paramount+, "Liam" on the Region 1 DVD, "Naam" on the Region 2 DVD and "Deem" on Netflix.
Memory Alpha almost always uses the spelling that's in the script, but I'm not sure that's appropriate for Memory Beta, since most of the scripts were never officially released to the public, are hard to find on eBay and often have significant differences from the finished episode.
It would help if Memory Beta had a policy regarding which subtitles take precedence when there are spelling differences. I haven't completely made up my mind about this issue, so I'm happy to follow whatever you end up writing in the policy pages. --NetSpiker (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Our valid resources policy says just that - anything they have on the "official" copies is decisive. Paramount Pictures scripts, DVDs, VHS, Paramount+ are all official. Netflix is outside of their organization and not part of the equation for input here. -- captainmike Site-logo.png 14:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

But Netflix is a Star Trek license holder, which makes it just as official as any story published by Pocket Books or IDW Publishing.
On Forum:Site changes, you said "everyone with ideas for rules speak up", so I'm speaking up: we need a rule about which official source takes precedence over others when there are spelling differences; I don't particularly care if it's the Netflix spelling, or the Paramount+ spelling, or the script spelling as long as it's something. --NetSpiker (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
That's what i'm pointing out here tho - the pre-existing policy of honoring licensed sources but making them subordinate to canon is key to breaking this down. Paramount+ is the expression of canon - its coming from in house. Netflix is officially licensed, outside of the originator - so when they come up with something that conflicts with the version that's canon, canon takes precedence
So this is a pre-existing policy that's already written, but we could clarify it to reference the newer formats of streaming (which didnt exist back then) -- captainmike Site-logo.png 14:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, Paramount+ spelling it is then. I'll revert all of my Swensen-to-Henson changes and change Deem to Leem on the Friday's Child character list. --NetSpiker (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


Hey, FYI - adding questionmarks to articles is not appropriate encyclopedic presentation. It looks like a mistake and is untidy. It's confusing to a reader because it doesnt explain itself, its completely vague.

If you are working on a project where you have uncertain appearances and need to annotate these reference lists as part of your ongoing work, the questionmark should be hidden from readers, perhaps by adding comment code <!-- (?) -->

If you want this uncertainty to be something presented to readers and not just for your benefit organizing references, i'd suggest a subsection or a definition list for uncertain appearances. In this way, a reader would have an explanation, without you being deliberately vague. - captainmike •••• 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Lt. Brent[]

beside the procedural issue of adopting a problematic questionmark notation, i'll start this as a separate topic

why do you think all of Lt. Brent's appearances are "uncertain"? - they seem pretty straightforward to me and there is extensive text in the Brent article describing them.

so basically, you're backing out most of the references in that article. i don't agree with that at all, especially in absence of reasoning why.

maybe you could, you know, explain yourself -- captainmike •••• 15:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Frank da Vinci played two different characters on TOS: Brent and Vinci. He was called Brent in The Naked Time and he was called Vinci in The Devil in the Dark. Memory Alpha assumes that every instance of Frank da Vinci wearing a blue or yellow uniform is Brent and every instance of Frank da Vinci wearing a red uniform is Vinci. But it's just a theory and it assumes that Brent and Vinci can't switch roles, which is blatantly false since we see Leslie wearing all kinds of uniforms. So the only certain canon appearance of Brent is The Naked Time and the only certain canon appearance of Vinci is The Devil in the Dark. Everything else is speculation.
I know you don't like the question marks. You've told me before that you think they're unencyclopedic. But I think it's unencyclopedic to present questionable information as certain. I made the decision to add the question marks in Forum:Character identity problems and I received no objection at the time.
The only options I see are to keep the question marks or to remove every appearance of Brent and Vinci other than the episodes where they are named. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't there's any uncertainty regarding Vinci in the red uniform (since Vinci wore red) and Brent in the blue uniform (since Brent wore blue) - just because another character switched roles should overcomplicate the interpretation of all of these characters' roles.

Furthermore, since Vinci was shown as a security low-ranker, while Brent had officer status and bridge duty, i think that is tangible evidence that Vinci is relegated to one role and does not transfer, and that Brent is a more-skilled utility player with blue and yellow roles. This is the reasoning the Memory Alpha appearance list is based on, and i agree with it.

Lastly, the questionmarks aren't staying. As i said above, our standard operating procedure is to not use them, and i offered two alternatives that are intended to provide functionality that the questionmarks lack. We're going to use those. If you ignore that, someone besides you will decide which to use as the questionmarks are removed. As I said, the questionmarks are not usable because they don't provide a clear explanation why they are there. That's unacceptable. -- captainmike •••• 02:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me an example of what this "subsection" or "definition list" would look like? --NetSpiker (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)



Clifford Brent


Definition list 
Clifford Brent

A third option would be to just take a regular text tag, maybe a template, and place a link after the name in the list that explains what you mean by the questionmarks. -- captainmike •••• 02:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

How would the subsection or definition list be titled? And how do they provide more explanation than the question marks? I don't know what the third option would look like. I suppose I'd be happy with any option as long as it conveys the idea that the appearances are uncertain.
Also, Brent and Vinci are not the only characters with question marks. Galloway and Johnson were both played by the same actor, both wore red uniforms and both were lieutenants. Memory Alpha assumes that every unnamed appearance is Galloway, which is based on absolutely nothing as far as I can tell. The same is true for Fitzpatrick, Grimes and Doug Bronowski who were played by the same actor and wore the same uniform. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes but those cases differ because they were specified to be different roles. Vinci was only once referred to as Vinci once and there are no other cases of the actor wearing a red shirt being referred to by a different name. Brent was only once referred to as Brent once and there are no other cases of that actor wearing a blue shirt being referred to by a different name.
The sectioning or link would be titled in such a way as to communicate that the name assigned to the character in the link or links was done so on the basis of association with another episode. -- captainmike •••• 03:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
You've hidden the question marks, but haven't replaced them with anything. What's going on? I thought we agreed that they should be replaced with some other format to show the uncertainty, not removed entirely. --NetSpiker (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we agreed there should be some sort of annotation added, possibly via a template. something with a ref tag might work. -- captainmike •••• 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
But why remove the question marks now if you don't have the template ready yet? --NetSpiker (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I removed the question marks because, as i have mentioned before, they appear unencyclopedic, and go against our standard procedures. they had to go.
As to preparing the template myself, i could circle back around and do that at some point if you really wanted, but it's not really something i consider urgent. -- captainmike •••• 12:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
It's unencyclopedic to present uncertain information as certain. You may not have liked how they look, but they were conveying to the reader that the character's identity is unconfirmed, which it is. Now there's nothing to convey that to the reader anymore and the character lists are now not entirely accurate as a result. What standard procedures were the question marks violating? --NetSpiker (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The standard procedure it violated was appearing unencyclopedic. That's it.
I informed you on 26 August that the question marks would be removed and that a more appropriate, communicative annotation would be the remedy. There were no further contributions from you in the mean time.
If you feel the situation is more urgent than I, in true wiki principle, you can start work adding annotations yourself. -- captainmike •••• 13:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
What does "unencyclopedic" even mean? That's a very vague term that can be used as justification for removing or changing anything that you don't like.
There were no further contributions from me because I didn't know what alternative would satisfy you. I was waiting for you to show me what title I should give to the subsection or definition list or whatever else you had in mind. Then I would've copied your work for all the unconfirmed appearances in every character list.
If you're not willing to do that because you don't think it's urgent, my only option would be to guess what kind of format you consider encyclopedic and then see if you revert it or not. --NetSpiker (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You're a long-time contributor to the wiki and you've typed in a whole lot of stuff here, so i'm really confused why you don't just go ahead and try something.
Perhaps you could even write the note for one article and then run it by me or another user for feedback as to whether it works or not.
If you do something problematic and add it to all 79 TOS episodes and it gets reverted, that's on you. If we templatize something, it can be corrected with one edit rather than what we just had to go through.
Furthermore, if you try something, and work with other users to optimize it, and then when it is ready to go, then nothing will be reverted - it will be a group effort of collaboration that can then be added correctly.
I'm not sure what you're stuck on here. Like I said, you're the one with the concern about how the Brent/vinci data is presented. for the sake of being informative i'd have no problem adding a note. We discussed a number of formats and then you did nothing with them. -- captainmike •••• 13:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I've made an edit to The Man Trap using the definition list format you suggested. --NetSpiker (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You know, now that i see it in action, i really don't like the aesthetic of pulling a character out of the list. kind of untidy. I just changed it to the inline ref i suggested. We can adapt the template wording to explain in more detail than just saying "unconfirmed characters" (kind of confusing to readers that don't follow at the depth you do) -- captainmike •••• 13:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the templates. I've finished adding the reference tags for Brent and Vinci. Could you create two more templates for Galloway and Fitzpatrick when you have the time? Am I able to create templates or is it something only admins can do? --NetSpiker (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I really like the inline footnotes to explain Brent/Vinci appearances. It makes the explanation crystal clear, provides an intriguing detail for people who weren't aware of the casting, yet doesn't draw undue attention. Sure, please proceed with similar setups for Galloway and Fitzpatrick. And yes, you can make templates, not just admins. --Meacott (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Captainmike, I'm not happy with the changes you made to the footnotes. As Meacott said, the explanation was already crystal clear. Now the footnotes don't say anywhere that the character's identity is uncertain, which was the entire point of the footnotes. I'm reverting your changes, but adding a sentence explaining that Brent was named in The Naked Time and Vinci was named in The Devil in the Dark. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
But the character's identity is not uncertain. For the purposes of assigning the name on this wiki, we've used logic to determine that Vinci is the redshirt and Brent is the officer in other departments. The footnote is there to notify readers that we've made that determination so that they can read further if they wish. That's the entire point of the footnotes. I'm sorry that you feel differently, but the footnotes are not there for the purpose of assigning a second, more questionable name. -- captainmike •••• 01:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

moving articles without leaving redirects[]

noticed you moved Silgov Prime to Silgos Prime without leaving a redirect - i'm not sure if you realize, but that breaks a ton of links

just to be clear: you're saying there was never any reference to a world called "Silgov Prime"? otherwise, it would be valid to leave a redirect, even if it was a minority reference, as an alternate name

making a move of this sort requires that you review the review links to the article you removed :

i cleaned up some, but really, i'd expect you to do the right thing and clean up these links and references -- captainmike •••• 14:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't know where to find the Special:WhatLinksHere page.
Yes, I'm saying there is no reference to "Silgov Prime". Or at least, I couldn't find one with a Google Books and search. --NetSpiker (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

operating on faulty logic for information[]

I was recently warned in the Moments Asunder thread on that other site for being off topic so I'm going to respond to a comment you made to Markonian there, but i also want to inform you of the flaw in your method of analysis.

The Vertians are native to Gamma Vertis IV and the Elachi are the native to the mycelial realm, so they're not even from the same dimension. They also have different reasons for abducting humanoids: scientific curiosity for the Vertians and transformative reproduction for the Elachi.

Now the flaw you're seeing here is that you see differences and not the possibilities for explaining the similarities. Given, it's not our job to write explanations for dissimilarities, but neither does it behoove us to take a stance that there is no reconciliation possible.

Given this data, where a canon species has two different non-canon origins, you are of the position that this represents a concrete division between the two. I'm open to the possibility that a species from the mycelial realm could have (accidentally or intentionally) seeded an offshoot culture on a planet in the primary universe. There's nothing that says they didn't, so that presents a counterpoint that could disprove your "they're not even from the same dimension" statement.

You're taking a solid stance about something and using it to make an argument we don't need to have, because there is a possible counterargument, besides the fact that we don't need to even make a decision. as CLB said in the discussion, all we have to do to make wiki articles that list the canon source, the non-canon expansion, and another non-canon expansion that has a different flavor to it. we don't need to divide the two branches with a concrete explanation, only to note the separation between the two. -- captainmike •••• 13:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the warning. Trek Literature threads often go off topic and our mod trampledamage doesn't mind as long as the discussions don't turn into heated arguments over politics/ideologies that have nothing to do with Star Trek. I encourage you to post your rebuttal on the TrekBBS thread where the community can read it and make their own judgments.
Now it's time for my rebuttal. Thinking up explanations for continuity errors is fine, but until those explanations appear in a novel or other official source, you're essentially writing fan fiction. Such explanations can be useful for errors between two stories that are meant to be in the same continuity, but the Star Trek Online universe and the Novelverse were always intended to be separate. Rather than twist yourself into knots to reconcile something that was never meant to be reconciled, isn't it easier to just accept that these are two different continuities? I suspect you're afraid that this will lead to someone splitting the character articles into "Picard (Canon)", "Picard (Novelverse)", "Picard (Shatnerverse)", "Picard (STO)", etc, but this is not what anyone is suggesting. We just want different continuities to be shown in different sections of the same article.
Trying to reconcile the different versions of the Tzenkethi and Elachi/Vertians is like going on the list of vampire traits in folklore and fiction article and trying to explain all the differences as "offshoot cultures" of each other, when they are clearly different fictional universes. --NetSpiker (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
P.S. There's also a third version of the Tzenkethi: a felinoid species that appeared in the short story Infinite Bureaucracy. --NetSpiker (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree on most of this but i have to say you're wrong: they're not "clearly different fictional universes" -- they're two permutations of the same universe. Even as we're not writing that explanation to bridge the two, we are acknowledging that they are both valid permutations of the same franchise that could be reconciled, even though its not our job to take the effort to do so. -- captainmike •••• 14:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


Hi NetSpiker, I just wondered if you had a source for the first name of Frank for the Kelvin timeline version of Leslie. I couldn't find the name in The Assassination Game, so I was just wondering if it was confirmed in any of the comic books set in that universe. Thanks in advance. --The Doctor (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the message, but I managed to find the information after remembering the whatlinkshere function. Thanks again. --The Doctor (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's from Star Trek: Fleet Command. I should've put it in my edit summary but I forgot. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Kasidy's middle name[]

how was it decided that the middle name from STEncyc v3 was incorrect (as opposed to a valid alternate?) -- captainmike •••• 14:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect because she was called Kasidy Danielle Yates in the actual episode that the Encyclopedia gives as a source for the Shameeka name. I heard this was corrected in the 4th edition, but I don't have it, so I can't confirm. --NetSpiker (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
conflict with canon then, thanks for letting me know. if it was corrected in the 4th edition i'd say it would be 100% a redacted mistake - but otherwise it might be considered an alternate from a valid source FYI - captainmike •••• 15:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Saratoga character changes[]

hey, your edits are way off base on the Chitirih Ra-Dreii picture

first off, don't replace an image we'd want to keep with another image. by overwriting the picture of the Efrosian with the other image, it means we would no longer have that picture of the Efrosian. obviously we want to keep that picture, so dont do things like that. think about it

as to assigning the name of the Deltan in the novel to the character in the movie, why would we do that? we didnt call Adam Scott in First Contact as "Kizilbash" because his character delivered the same dialogue as Kizilbash? we need to discuss. -- captainmike •••• 14:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

When there's an unnamed character in a movie and a named character in the novelization, and they have the same dialogue, they are usually considered the same character. The Kizilbash situation is a rare exception because Kizilbash is female in the novelization, but the unnamed helmsman in the movie is male. I assume you're objecting to the Chitirih Ra-Dreii situation because the science officer in the movie looks human, since he has hair. But according to The Voyage Home novelization, Unlike Deltan women, who grew no hair on their heads, Kirim had fine, rose-colored hair. So, I don't see any conflict. --NetSpiker (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Because the same author in the same book established haired Deltans, i think we can call that reinforcement to make the association - i just wish you'd pull a talk page and make the statement to that effect BEFORE you make the drastic change to the article.
Regarding the images, i stand by my comment - you were in the wrong and if you were really unsure, again - use a talk page before making the drastic (and completely incorrect) change of erasing our image of the Efrosian, as i needed to correct that - and you could have moved the image to avoid putting that task back to me.
as to Kizilbash, that's not a rare exception - we need to do every such association/dis/re-association on a case by case basis with these facts clearly provided. in the past we've seen you adding questionmarks and not explaining what is in question, so again, we're asking you to explain what you mean when you go off on one of these tangents -- captainmike •••• 02:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I thought I gave a sufficient explanation in my edit summary when I made the change: turns out Chakoteya's transcript site is wrong and Chitirih Ra-Dreii's dialogue matches the science officer in the movie, not the Efrosian helmsman. I can't predict what kind of change you're going to find objectionable and I don't like the idea of asking for your permission on a talk page for every edit I make. There's nothing wrong with having a discussion after the fact, if you have any objections.
Sorry about not renaming the Efrosian image. I wasn't aware that I could do that here, since I'm used to Memory Alpha, where only admins can rename images. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Again i want to remind you that what we write on this site is for the benefit of people reading the site. people reading the site will read the page itself, and rarely will they be exposed to the edit summary unless they are one of our very small group of regular editors. if information doesnt make it onto the page itself, people will possibly consult the talk page.

I'm trying to encourage you to become a better editor by making you consider the fact that there is a much slimmer chance that a future reader will track back to an edit summary from December of a previous year. Your information has a better chance of reaching a reader's eyes if it is in the background section of the article or if it is on the talk page. -- captainmike •••• 03:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I just added a background note about male Deltans being able to grow hair in the novelization. Hope that helps. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)