Where was it ever said that Bolarus IX was a member of the Federation Hermiod 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the mention about an unused script point? In my opinion, its questionable enough to list names not mentioned on screen, which were taken from scripts... but to take that to the level where things purposely left *OUT* of a script are include on this Wiki would seem to run counter to MA's charter. Not to mention there isn't a citation anyway. I could make up anything, and say it was left out of the script.Hossrex 09:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. My change was reverted back to its initial form. I gave my reasons for change, then waited three days before I changed it, and then it was changed back without so much as a reason. I'm going to revert it back to my reversion, for the reasons I've given (which is a pain in the butt), and if anyone has a problem with that, they could bring it to this page. I'd be happy to talk about it. Which... for the record... I tried before I edited. Please people... if you're going to revert an edit someone makes... especially after they've brought it up on the talk page, and waited several days before a change... explain your justification of the reversion on the talk page. Please. Or else we'll just keep going back and forth.

I am putting it back. It does not go against the "MA charter" to have it as is was, as background information. Indented italicized information is not being stated as canon, but as relevant background, such as the creative process, non-canon info, production notes (like this one), how much something sold on auction for, etc. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I should add that will will find background notes like this, and in this format, throughout this wiki. I ask that you do not bring this up on a single article talk page if you want this changed, but over at the forums. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly I know who you are. Clearly I wont revert it after you've changed it (it wasn't you last time... or I would have respected that also). But my problem with this is that not only is it a non-canon source in the extreme, there isn't even a citation *FOR* the entirely non-canon statement. Where is the line drawn on random statements made, which can't so much as be confirmed by final production scripts? It isn't my site. I don't really care about this page. It just irks me to know that all the pages I may go to are entirely unsubstantiated, and non-canon. Which is exactly what this page represents. A non-canon statement, which isn't substantiated by fact. A citation for the non-canon statement would be welcome. Barring that... I'm not sure how any serious wiki could entertain that "fact". Especially to the point of reverting a reasonable change twice.Hossrex 09:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. This is more an addition based on your addition above (as my first statement was posted before it)... thats fine. I don't understand why we have talk pages for specific entries, if we're required to talk about them in random other places... but... again... it isn't my website, so I'll respect that. Perhaps that should be made more clear to people who are used to editing *normal* wiki's, where the talk page for an article is where users are encouraged to talk about the validity of statements made for that particular article.Hossrex 09:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it is non-canon, but it is relevant production information. It is not being stated as canon, that is the entire point of having it be in that different format (indented and italicized), that standardizes it as not being a statement of canon. I would also not call it "non-canon in the extreme", this is an early draft for a canon script. That is far more canon than, say, a note regarding a computer game or a novel, which is non-canon and isn't even related to the development of something that is canon. As for citing it, yes, this should be cited. Adding an {{incite}} at the end is the proper thing to do at this stage, not outright deleting information. "Serious" wikis, like Wikipedia, operate this way.
As for your second point, I asked you to bring this issue to the forums if you wanted it changed because it impacted a standard policy throughout Memory Alpha. It impacts hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, not just this one. If the discussion only impacted just this article, than the issue belongs on this talk page. Had your issue only been that the note in question wasn't cited, that would belong here. Most everything would belong here. Something that impacts the very way MA operates in every article, that is better suited elsewhere, in the forums, or on the policy talk page. Why do we do this? Because otherwise we get the issues over past tense/present tense POV that was raised ad nausem on dozens of article talk pages whenever any editor noticed it wasn't how they wanted it, rather than on a central location like the Manuel of Style talk page. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I respect that you've added a request for citation on the page, as far as I'm concerned, that more then satisfies my problems with the page. As I said, I respect you cobra, and I did not, and would not ever revert a change you made. In my defense, I brought the point up here, saw no resistance, and decided to alter the article. It was reverted by a name I'm not familiar with (and I apologize if it was a regular person, whom I simply haven't seen yet), who didn't bother to explain on the talk page why it was reverted (common courtesy), so I changed it back. Once you got involved, I completely backed down. I respect you, and I respect the board rules. So long as there is a citation (or even if we're at least making a notation that a citation is needed), that makes me feel better about the article. I hope you can understand that anyone could add all sorts of things, about all sorts of articles, if all thats needed is for the person to say "this is from a rough draft, which didn't make it into the production script". At least if we cite something from the shooting script, thats easily checked (i.e. unnamed characters, etc). But we're honestly pushing it, if we decide that any stray thought going through the writers mind as he wrote an episode (which is PRECISELY what this is), is a valid entry for Memory Alpha. But... I'm done.  :) Hope I didn't burn too many bridges with this.
I don't think you've burned any bridges, least of all with me :) So that you know, the person that originally reverted you was Jörg, one of the MA admins, who may not have seen the talk page you had started, and only the edit summary. Oh well, stuff happens. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)