Memory Alpha

OuroborosCobra/2007 Talk Archive

< User:OuroborosCobra | Redirected from User talk:OuroborosCobra/2007 Archive

41,722pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page Discuss0

This is an archive of discussions from 2007 previously located on User talk:OuroborosCobra. As it is an archive, please do not edit these discussions. Feel free to open new conversations on the original talk page.


Îmi bag pula în mă-ta de muist zglobiu ce eşti.

Please leave comments in English. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Măta are ciuperci în pizdă (Just some words) Edit


Translation: I appreciate what you are doing here. Keep up the good work.

I'm pretty sure Romanians don't use the words "dick", "fry spleen", "dogs", "barbecue", "funghi in cunt" etc to express their appreciation... --Jörg 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Klingons in the Federation Edit

Hi, I opened up some discussion at Talk:Samaritan Snare (episode)#Klingons and the Federation concerning the dialogue about the Klingons in that episode. I'd be interested in your input. Thanks! — Scott (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

hi.thanks Edit

Thank you for making corrections. I am new to the wiki world.

Can you show me how to make a user profile like yours?

Sure, well, I'll do my best. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Picard family album Edit

Hey, Cobra, what's been our position on the canonicity of the Picard family album? I noticed Kennelly has been changing a bunch of the album-related articles to real-world POV, and I just wanted to see if someone else knew if we were treating the album as a special case or not. Thanks! -- Renegade54 14:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally liked having treating it as canon, as it gave us a lot of interesting bits of information on the Earth-Romulan War, the founding of the Federation, etc. The problem is, those contents were not on screen, and by our canon policy they aren't canon. I'm one of the people with a reputation around here of wanting us to keep tight to policy, and therefore I have to say we need to put it in "real world", like with Martin Madden, and the "deleted scenes" stuff. I hate it, but that is what I think we have to do. Reluctantly, therefore, I am with Kennelly on this. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I just wanted some verification... thanks! -- Renegade54 14:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 ?? Edit

Can you assist me with the articles:"Military Intelligence" and "Secret Police" ? 08:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot my sig. must be getting old. 08:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User page edit Edit

Hi Cobra. I just edited your user page. Sorry about that, but you weren't available at the moment and I think this shouldn't have stayed as it was. Contact me about it, here or on IRC. (Note: While I'm logged in, I may be unavailable during the next hours, depending on RL issues). Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was meant in humour it was tasteless and certainly not in order for somebody who counts on his userpage, how often he has been mistaken for an admin. That's certainly not the way. --Jörg 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you guys are misinterpreting what I meant by it. It was meant to be a message to Bp that he was valued, and that while he was sometimes a pain in the butt to me, I want him to come back. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It was not meant to even be a joke of a death note. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also Jörg, if you guys wanted to discuss it in IRC, why are you leaving notes about it that are flat incorrect on what was intended here? --OuroborosCobra talk 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The intention here was to sen a message to Bp that I want him to come back, that he is being missed. I cannot do that directly, as ANY direct communication I have had with him in the last few weeks has ended with him attacking my entire history of being an editor on MA. I decided to try an indirect route. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I am really pissed off about this now. You ask me to go to IRC to discuss this privately, then leave criticism of it here in the open. Why the hell bother try to end this quietly if you are just going to do it here anyways? Nice job. Wasted my time by having me drop what I was doing by coming to IRC, which I was perfectly willing to do, but also have to make it a public issue. Great job there Jörg. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to come to IRC, that was Cid. I just posted on your talk page what I think about the RIP message you left at the top of your page. I'm still at the IRC and I didn't stomp off all of a sudden. --Jörg 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I left because you made it clear you had no intention of handling this privately. I thought you admins were supposed to work together somewhat, not just step on each other's toes and counter what each other do. I will also note that NOWHERE in what I had on the user page for this did it say "RIP". That is for someone else, and is clearly in a separate notice box. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, if you want to talk about this, I'm in the chat room. --Jörg 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kira's missing earring Edit

Hi OuroborsoCobra, you have reverted my change to "The Maquis, Part I", but after checking I'm completely sure my comment was right. Please see my comment onTalk:The Maquis, Part I (episode). Thanks! -- Bakabaka 10:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your right, I thought you were talking about a different scene. I have re-written the note, fixing the links, making more clear which scene, and a slight encyclopedic tweak. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :) -- Bakabaka 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

additions from Memory Beta Edit

Sorry. I didn't know. I'm going to go through and erase the pages but I don't know how to delete them entirely so you may have to do that. Again, sorry. I didn't know. --WTRiker 04:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't blank them. Those that are copyvios have been marked, and will go through the proper process with the help of the administrators. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was worried I'd be blocked from one of my favorite sites. So, next time I do something like that, should I just run it past you first? --WTRiker 04:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Brattain vs. Brittian Edit

I don't worry about the spelling error. My last name is Brattain and noone ever gets the spelling or pronunciation right...

Thanks A Lot Edit

Just want to say thank you for answering my question about the ranks. Next time you want to start up one of those trivia contests, post a message on my user page! Thanks again!!Captain Jon 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: File talk:Loskene.jpg Edit

Regarding your comments on the above mentioned talk page-- as well as numerous other talk page containing similar comments-- I'm really not sure constantly reminding people of the proper usage of talk pages, on the same talk page, is really any better-- as it does not constructively add anything to that particular page that would necessarily make it back to the original contributor. If you are really concerned about a user's specific contribution, perhaps it would be best to address the sitation on that users individual talk page with useful links to relevant Memory Alpha policy pages, making your reminders more visible to that user. Speaking from experience, not everyone is guaranteed to read any one reminder on any one talk page-- immediately-- as they would on their own user talk page.

With that said, in the case of this image, that user does have something of a point in his observation: how will they handle Loskene in the remastered TOS? Will they recreate it as a CGI Tholian, just as they did in ENT, or not? This is especially noteworthy because they did not recreate the Gorn in "Arena" with the same CGI effects they used in ENT. --Alan del Beccio 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Constantly? Hardly at all is far more like it. Several months ago I used to do it a lot, but I stopped right about the point we had this conversation, which was 5 months ago. Please do not exaggerate when trying to correct me. There are worse present offenders on this, such as Shran. Your suggestion of posting the actual policy is a good one, and I shall try to do that, but there is no need to mischaraterize my behavior. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Oy! What? What'd I do now? --From Andoria with Love 04:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Tell people that talk pages are supposed to relate to the article, and contents thereof. Nothing bad. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oy! When did I do that? --From Andoria with Love 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere. I can't be expected to find everything :P --OuroborosCobra talk 05:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oy! Why the bloody hell not? :P Seriously, though, I know I've done it before, I just don't recall doing it very often. Then again, I've been known to be wrong before... --From Andoria with Love 05:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, a lot of talk pages have been just getting deleted lately when they had nothing on topic or useful (something I entirely agree with). I seem to remember that being you, but I could be wrong. I sort of lump that in the same category, since I do not have the power to delete stuff. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Silly Cobra, tricks are for kids! But, yeah, deleting an irrelevant talk page and replying to an irrelevant comment are two different things. ;) I do know that I've replied to a few, though, and while replying to someone on their talk page would likely be the best way to get a point across, there's still a good possibility that whoever posted the comment will see the reply on the article's talk page, since they are generally interested in other people's responses to their query or comment. --From Andoria with Love 05:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming and recent stuff on the Main PageEdit

  • Okay I read the entire page and now I get it. Sorry if I caused any problems on Memory Alpha. --Captain Zman 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll make sure to do that. Thanks for the note.

Your Ban Edit

Welcome back from your 10 minute ban. As you have realised, your actions on Memory Alpha have been unacceptable in the past. Please make sure to read the necessary documents under our help page to further familiarize yourself with the codes of conduct with Memory Alpha. As of this moment, you are under a Code Foxtrot Alpha 6 and your edits will be monitored. Please make sure to remain under the best of behaviour.

...welcome back Cobra :P - Enzo Aquarius 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Long live the snakeman!!!--Sheliakcorp talk 21:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Final Mission Edit

Are we not interested when Trek nods to other important sci-fi? You may not be aware of that series by your age, but many others do. -- unsigned

If you were trying to include information about Gamelan V's name, then the note does not belong in the article about "Final Mission" -- it belongs in the article about Gamelan V!! -- Captain M.K.B. 05:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler policy Edit

Moved to Memory Alpha talk:Spoiler policy, where the conversation is actually really relevant. -- Sulfur 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't I get a say about things leaving my user talk!!!! :P no problems Sulfur --OuroborosCobra talk 19:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Template talk on IRC Edit

Hello, do you have a copy of all the discussions on the templates, by chance? --StarTrekMan(Talk | Contribs) 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't log everything. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Movie TitleEdit

  • How come Star Trek Nemesis and Star Trek Generations are not called Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Generations? The other TNG movies are called Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Insurrection. --Captain Zman 00:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not OC, but their official titles did not contain colons, for whatever reason. -- Sulfur 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not OC either, but to reiterate and expand upon Sulfur's answer, the official titles for Star Trek Generations and Star Trek Nemesis do not contain a colon between Star Trek and the subtitle. If you look at the credits on the DVD box or the CD or the book or a poster (like the one I have of Nemesis hanging in my room), you'll see there is no colon. I can't be too sure why this is, or whether it was intentional, unless they meant for the title to mean Generations of Star Trek and Nemesis of Star Trek, which is entirely possible. For the record, there are other films whose official titles have no colon where one would think there should be one; Kill Bill Vol. 2 and X-Men The Last Stand come to mind... --From Andoria with Love 04:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You have a poster for Nemesis in your room? NERD! :P --OuroborosCobra talk 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signatures in articles Edit

Oh. Okay. Sorry. – Orr6000 01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your signature, how do you get the icon to appear next to your name? -FleetCaptain 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:StoryMaster Edit

Hey OuroborousCobra, I see that you are having difficulty with this user with regards with trying to "expand" the Vorta and Ferengi characters using his short stories. I believe this user to be User:VortaExpert who plagued Memory Beta with the same rhetoric a number of weeks ago. I feel I must point you to the following pages (1, 2, 3) to examine the problems he caused on Beta, and hope that they can be avoided here. --Vote Saxon 00:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles I have been proud to work on Edit

You wanted it, here's the list!

  • Antarian Trans-stellar Rally - Did a major rework on it, felt that it needed much more than it had when I did the rework.
  • ISS Avenger - Started this article (I think after "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" aired), now has grown well and even has the ship's badge on it.
  • ISS Enterprise (NX-01) - Heck, it's an Enterprise and I was one of the first to edit it (apart from Mike ;))
  • Delta Flyer - Added a ton of missions that the original Delta Flyer participated in, which greatly improved the article.
  • "The Naked Now" - Made up the whole summary, which I consider one of, if not my, largest contribution to MA.
  • Ocett - Greatly expanded the article to turn a one-episode character page into something quite detailed.
  • Augment Crisis - Started the article on a major plot arc in Enterprise that I consider to be quite important.
  • Species 8472 energy focusing ship - This may seem silly, but this article stemmed from about an hour of conversations in the IRC and now we have a second Species 8472 ship in our database, complete with 2 pictures.
  • Nova class - After much observation of "Equinox", I was able to greatly expand the article to what it is today. Along with "The Naked Now", I also consider this one of my most significant contributions.
  • Federation shuttlecraft classes - After sometime, I can't believe nobody had created this page. There was a page listing names of actual shuttlecrafts, but no actual list of shuttlecraft classes. So I decided to go about and make it.

Well, there's 10 articles that I can think of that I consider to be articles that I've been proud to work on. Enjoy! (for whatever reason you want it for :P) - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 00:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Way to go, amigo, you just got the gateway blocked. Edit

  1. memory-alpha Cannot send to channel

<bp0> better to block the gateway

<sulphur> sorry. i was just getting tired of seeing the same crap over and over again.

<bp0> better to block the gateway

mode/#memory-alpha [+o sulphur] by ChanServ

<bp0> plus that keeps out cobra as well, so there is a bonus

<JorgH> better to block the gateway

mode/#memory-alpha [+b *!*@gateway*] by sulphur

--Faramir 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not my problem. You are the one sitting there being a vandal, intentionally annoying other people, and getting close to personal threats, or requesting information so as to carry out personal threats. It also won't keep me out, despite what Bp says. I have other ways to get in. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Me, too.--Faramir 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If they have actually blocked the gateway, then no, you don't. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes I do.--Faramir 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Then use them and leave me alone, talk pages are not for harassment. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Eric A. Stillwell bio Edit

OuroborosCobra: I no longer work for Polara Productions (i.e. "Nanna's Cottage" or "Monster Sunday School.") While some of the episodes that were produced in 2006 may not have aired until 2007 (hence the 2007 credits), I have not been employed by Polara Productions since before Christmas 2006. I now currently work at the University of Oregon as a Government Relations Assistant in the Public & Government Affairs Department. I majored in Political Science at the UO and graducated in 1985, so I am very excited by this new job as it is something I've been wanting to do for a long time. During my years in Hollywood, I was also politically involved -- served as President of the Paramount Office Employees Association, and was also elected to the Board of Directors of the Hollywood Media District (a business improvement agency for the City of Los Angeles). So while my new job may seem a departure from my work in the entertainment industry, it is actually something I very much enjoy. I hope this resolves the issue of you "correcting" my bio. Thank you. EStillwell 06:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

comment Edit

thanks for your input. i'll keep that in mind :) cheers -ensiwe

Additional commentEdit

I know you got some bad news yesterday, but I hope you don't totally abandon the site. Good luck on your next adventures.--Tim Thomason 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday Edit

Happy birthday, mate.

Now get back to work! ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


But Lark Voorhies also said that she stopped acting in Soap Operas because of the sex scenes offered to her but she's doing one in BET's Fire & Ice, so is she no longer Jehovah Witness?

I don't know who you are or why you are leaving comments on my talk page, but please do not leave messages with no relevance to Memory Alpha on people's talk pages. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bryard/Brazil Region Edit

Dear OuroborosCobra: I'm sorry for the bad discussion.If u need some information about my country, i will help u in the spirit of of friedship.Anything u need just let me know.Sincerely : Bryard 28 April 2007 - 18:51 (UTC)

Wesley CrusherEdit

First of all, User:Jörg was the administrator that discussed using the Preview button after a large series of edits on the Phlox page. Further, five or six edits on a single page is not a flood of edits and demonstrates that I have taken his reccomendation. Besides, I was finished with the article. I understand your frustration and will again take note of the Preview button. --Dr. Zefram Cochrane 06:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Borg Edit

I wasn't aware that repeatedly editing an article in a short space of time was a problem; otherwise I'd have done it all in one shot. The Borg article is so long that it was difficult to approach all at once.

I felt the information I removed was either redundant (why include a list of Borg technology when you can link to the Borg technology article which basically contains the same list?) or trivial (Borg children don't go to school; Borg ships have shields; a dozen quotes on why the Borg are Very Very Bad; etc.). In general the article appeared poorly organized and overly long, so I was trying to rearrange the facts into more appropriate sections and link to excise topics covered in other articles. For example, I still think the Background section is such a big block of text that it's hard to scan, so I personally think the bullet points on the Borg Queen and the controversy surrounding "Regeneration" should be moved to the articles on those subjects. --Jimsmith 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Infringment Edit

GEEZ! I am SO SORRY! Please delete it if you cannot get permission! I did not see that! I shall use another picture that I got from Trekcore! – Orr6000 05:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about it, really. That copyvio notice is a boilerplate that looks a lot scarier than it really needs to if you ask me. I know you wouldn't have done that on purpose, and I'm not even 100% sure it is a violation. I can't delete it, but if it is a violation, an admin will come along and delete it in due course. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But wait... Edit

I just read the notice on the lkin where I got the Jeri Ryan image from It says:

Please Note: All material on this page is original content, and intellectual property of Any unauthorized OR UNCREDITED use of this material will result in possible prosecution.

I certainly gave them credit. So I think it can still be used. What do you think?

Orr6000 05:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the copyvio page, I don't think that giving credit constitutes getting authorization. I read that notice, and it seems to me that someone needs to both get authorization, and give credit. Either way, this discussion belongs at Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements, and not on my talk page. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I know why... Edit

You know...I always wondered why there are so few performer photos in memory alpha. Now I know. With every photo you have to make very sure you are not stepping on any legal toes. I have another J.R. Pic on a page where I do not say any copyright notice whatsoever, but now I am afraid to use it! *LOL* – Orr6000 06:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Edit

Typo in the last message! I meant to say I do not SEE any copy right notice on the page I got this new pic from. So I am afraid to use it here. I'm no criminal! Oh, hell...I'll just shut up! *Very flustered* – Orr6000 06:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Abusive language Edit

As you may not be aware, your use of abusive language as of late, found here and here, is a violation of the Memory Alpha:No personal attacks policy, under "No insults, no flaming, no trolling, or any other forms of offensive behavior. Period." Please consider this message a warning, so as if this form of abuse continues, an administrator may be forced to temporary ban on your account. Thank you for your cooperation in these matters. --Alan 09:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood, though I find this comical coming from you, considering it is a policy you cannot be troubled to follow. But hey, you've decided numerous times now that being an admin and having 40k+ edits makes you above the rules. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was a joke (not saying that yours weren't). Even so, I don't see any overly abusive language there, just a sarcastic comment intended to appear as a personal attack. No one is above the "rules" (guidelines) here, obviously, and any temporary ban on anyone would be merely intended as a preventive measure to stop such behavior. Suffice it to say, OC, I don't believe you, and others, comments of late is very beneficial to the site, and you're not really helping by continuing the conversations.--Tim Thomason (care of Jörg 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC))
And I feel that certain administrators here have decided they are above the rules. They undelete images without following the proper undeletion policies we have on the site, they change categories agreed upon by the community with no discussion, they berate other users for asking for source information (which is in fact a requirement of this site), they perform outright personal attacks (in other instances I have seen), they perform merges against the consensus of the community, they delete massive amounts of content worked on by other members of the community with no discussion or policy cited, etc. etc. What, do you guys expect the average users to not get fed up with this eventually? You say you are not above the rules, yet certain admins violate them any time they feel like it, and I have had it. I'm not sitting down and shutting up any more. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this might be a good forum topic then.--Tim Thomason 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
A few points:
"They undelete images without following the proper undeletion policies we have on the site"
We don't have undeletion policies for images. I think we just re-add the image with an explanation as to why it was re-added, which I believe is what Alan did. No explanation for the re-addition of a previously deleted image would mean it gets deleted immediately.
"They perform outright personal attacks (in other instances I have seen)."
Most of those I've seen have been jokey, light-hearted, or otherwise in good humor. Not that there certainly haven't been a few instances, but I couldn't tell you by who off the top of my head.
"They perform merges against the consensus of the community"
When was this? I know I did at least one by mistake, but I thought that was fixed.
"they delete massive amounts of content worked on by other members of the community with no discussion or policy cited"
Could you supply a few examples of that, 'cause I have no idea to what you are referring.
Annd... that's about it. --From Andoria with Love 22:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
We have a single undeletion page, and nowhere on it does it say "for articles only". I have seen major personal attacks which can in no way shape or form be interpreted as light hearted, and besides administrators should be holding themselves to a higher standard of following the rules. I'll have to look through merge histories, but the Constellation is not the only one that has happened. Deletion of massive amounts of material would be in cases such as Scientists (deletion seen here, which after Renegade and I did a lot of work sorting them alphabetically, by species, and showing whether Starfleet or not, an admin came along and removed it all to make it into a redirect to a category that only had one third of the information we put into that article. No discussion, nothing. That is what I call a massive deletion. I am sick and tired of this behavior, and it is one admin in particular who is the offender on all accounts. Lets even take some of the recent undeleted images. After the community decided they were not fair use, the administrator has come along and when asked why he felt they were now fair use, answered "Because I put on {{image paramount}} and because I say so". One admin does not suddenly counter the word of three separate discussions that deemed two images not fair use. This has got to stop. Administrators either need to follow the policies, not attack other users, not berate them (which happens even more than straight out attacks these days, and is higly "elitist", something the admins are not supposed to be either), and follow the community, or we need to start making a policy to have offending administrators removed. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like being called elitist, but that's neither here nor there. If you have problems with how something is handled, then you should address it on the appropriate talk page, as if you reply here, you're technically only talking to yourself. A forum post or starting a conversation about the administrators' elitism on an appropriate talk page would be able to spread this conversation out to other users, so we may clarify and correct any problems or mistakes. This section was intended to make you aware that some users (like myself) found some of your recent comments offensive or denigrating to the site (and not really in the PG-13 attitude of Star Trek). Some users have been banned for less (which may be another of the incorrect activities). You can continue pointlessly bickering here, or you can place a post in an easily findable and correct place, so that other users may join in and help rectify any problems. Any discussion not related to *your* recent attacks (not saying others may have been worse) shouldn't be here, in my opinion.--Tim Thomason 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The specific warning which sparked this conversion I have already understood and will follow. I actually have not called you an "elitist", you are not the admin I am concerned about. There in lies the problem. I cannot make a forum thread about this without violating "personal attack". Given that I am already "on notice" from that admin, I really have no option other than to say that I find it hypocritical to be given a warning on a policy the admin in question has a long history of violating. The only way I feel I can make a thread is with some assurance that I will not be banned for doing so, but I since I was informed in a previous discussion which can be found in my archives that admins don't have to work together or care what each other do at all. So really, I have no choice, this is the only place I can talk about it, and even here, I'm likely to get banned as soon as that admin returns. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That admin (Gvsualan) is still around, I believe. I don't think it's a personal attack as long as you don't attack him personally. Bringing up issues with Gvsualan's breaking of policies can only be a good thing, as no one is supposed to break them. We used to have a forum post specifically about problems with Alan, but I can't find it at the moment. It might've been archived or deleted, as it wasn't built around the same issues you bring up. There are about 14 other administrators than Alan (including myself) around, so he can't do something uncalled for, like banning you for committing something that only he sees as a personal attack. Don't get me wrong, I am all for Alan on giving you that warning, as I believe it was necessary (and it worked, thanks for being warned!), I just believe that if you see a problem with someone's behavior you should address it (first on their talk page, and if failing or believed to fail there, then to the community at large). I was under the impression that you had a problem with the administration, which would be better addressed to the community at large (through a forum post).--Tim Thomason 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict Well, no, there isn't anything that says the undeletion page is for articles only, but it's never been used for images before. Images are just simply re-added, with explanation. As for the scientists thing, it is common practice to turn a list into a redirect of a category of the same name. See? This practice was discussed somewhere first, I think, before it was implemented, but I couldn't tell you where. Also, regarding Alan's reply on the Aeroshuttle image talk page, he did give more of a response than just "because I know so." He stated that Paramount owns the rights to the image, meaning he has acquired that information since the image was deleted. Sure, he did it in his own unique, sarcastic way, and no, he didn't say how he got that information or where he got it from, but there may have been a good reason for that... also, I don't think mentioning that was really completely necessary. Basically, what that came down to was trust: Alan has been a contributor for nearly three years and an administrator for two years and in that time has proven himself to be a beneficial, valued member of the community. So when he adds information or an image, we trust that he knows what he's doing. Jorg and Tom have made similar contributions, but we rarely question them anymore because we trust that they know what they're doing and that they mean no harm to the community. Alan should be no different. He's watched MA evolve and has been part of that evolution and he's known for his accuracy and quick fact-checking, so I think we can trust him when he says "I know so," especially when he says how he knows afterward. ;)
Now, to quote MA policy, "Arguments are not constructive. Consider how much time might be spent writing responses for an argument with another contributor – and then consider how much of that time might have been spent writing new articles or refining old ones instead. Protracted arguments don't serve anyone." So, let's end this... please? :D --From Andoria with Love 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you, and if Cid or Jorg or anyone else had done this, I would have questioned it. One of those images had no less than TWO discussions establishing that the community did not feel it was fair use, and did not want it here. Had it been anyone else but Alan or a few others, I would have nominated it for immediate deletion since policy dictates that anything previously deleted and not brought through proper undeletion is a speedy delete. Instead I asked what has changed, and STILL have not received an answer. Trust does not mean blind faith. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jorg! Edit

Sorry, I accidentally put 'Jorg' instead of 'OuroborosCobra' in the summary field for the USS Sovereign redirect fix. So thanks for telling us about the redirect update. ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 21:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

TNG Comics?Edit

You given up on these for the time being... or...? -- Sulfur 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly given up on Memory Alpha due to the administrators closing up in a code of silence regarding a valid policy complaint/suggestion. Further proof in my mind of the very elitism I feel you guys have now, whether you realize it, intend it, or not. Not a single comment from another administrator, the only comments on the policy were from StoryMaster in his campaign for becoming an administrator himself, which should have hit about strike 5 by now. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, yes, I am still interested in working on the comics, but at this point not until some discussion occurs on the issue I raised in the forums. Until then, I maintain that the administrators here are not doing their job. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

GAH! Edit

You left IRC before answering my bloody question, dangnamit! I was going to create the Carlos Franzetti page at Wikipedia. Did you want me to do that or did you want to create it? He's your uncle, after all. :P

I shall give you ten minutes to respond! After that, I will create the page... and nothing, not even you, shall be able to stop me! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! --From Andoria with Love 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My internet connection actually went down before I ever saw your question :P
As for the article, go ahead and create it. I think you could do some justice. I'd prefer not including any of the info we discussed on IRC if only because I am not sure if I was remembering it 100% correctly myself, and would not want incorrect info going on there. Thanks :) --OuroborosCobra talk 09:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do it justice? Aw, man, I was just gonna make it a three-sentence paragraph! Great, now I'm under pressure. :P Anyways, I wasn't gonna include any info on you-know-what (the play); just a few biographical tidbits and a few credits. I'll probably just create the initial article tonight and work on it later. Anyways, g'night, boyo. ;) --From Andoria with Love 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia?? Edit

OK can I then write article about Serbia, if Chicken paprikash is good reason for writing article about Hungary, then mansion of Serbo-Croatians should be good enough reason Serbia?

Chicken paprikash is not why Hungary is mentioned, it is mentioned because it was named:
JAKE: "You're cooking chicken paprikash. You only cook Hungarian food when you're in a really good mood."
Depending on how Serbia and Croatia were mentioned, they may qualify for articles. It is also possible that Hungary should go up for deletion. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DON'T there is one Hungarian who hates me already, I don't want whole country on my back :)

REED: (looking out main window) Commander.

TUCKER: No Brits, no Italians, no Serbo-Croatians. REED: Commander. I think you'd better come and take a look at this.

Fair Use...? Edit

Greetings. So, what exactly is fair use? I have asked the question on the image deletion page subject I brought up. I have read the policy and followed the fair use link to Wikipedia. But what makes one image or work use fair use and another a copyright infringement? – The Head of the Obsidian Order 15:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My user page Edit

I saw you reverted some edits on my user page. It may have appeared to be vandalism, but it was me forgetting to sign in. Please do not change my user page. I will know if it's been vandalized. Thanks. --StarFire209 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to promise to refuse to combat vandalism on any page of Memory Alpha, sorry. Memory Alpha policy states that user pages are to be edited by the user only, or administrators and the like carrying out maintenance tasks or enforcing other policies. You edited your page in a manner that did not look like your other edits (making use of acronyms to foul language, which you have also now used elsewhere to skirt policy), and not logged in. There was no way to know that it was you. In such cases, I will revert it as vandalism, as I do on any other article on MA. Don't like it? Then log in when you edit your user page. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy page states

Your user page is yours.
No other user is allowed to edit your user page. If another user edits your personal user page, it might be considered an act of vandalism. Some exceptions to this exist:
2. Content that is considered offensive may be removed by an Administrator without prior warning – this includes vandalism by others as well as content you added yourself.

It does NOT state "administrators and the like." Your ID is not on the list of administrators.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were combating vandalism, although, I would think than anyone engaging in a valid change to another user's page would have the courtesy of notifying the user why the page was be changed.

By your own statement you knowingly changed my user page in direct contravention of the policy. You have stated that you are willing to do so again in the future. That means you are a vandal. You have defended your vandalism by misrepresenting either the policy or yourself. We both know what that means.

If you don't like what I put on MY user page,

1) don't read my user page, or
2) leave me an intelligent note outlining your objections, or
3) whine to an administrator, but
4) DO NOT VANDALIZE MY USER PAGE AGAIN.StarFire209 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my original statement, edit your own user page while logged in, and actually realize I was combating vandalize with my reversion. I did not put anything in the edit summary explaining as such because my method of reversion did not let me. While I am not an administrator, I have been granted an ability normally administrator only, a "revert" button, and when clicking it, mediawiki reverts all edits in sequence by that user, and places that edit summary you read. It doesn't give an option of another. Live with it, and don't troll. I NEVER vandalized your page, and if you continue on this line of accusations, I will be forced to go to an administrator myself. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Two points to note:
a) Starfire: Calm. It's accepted policy for people to revert edits to pages when they're not made by the user proper. So, if you're editing your page, make sure that you're signed in, or expect it to be reverted. Reverting such edits is not considered vandalism here at MA/en.
b) Cobra: Calm. No need to go to an admin. No need to treat these as accusations of vandalism either.
So. In short, both of you, just calm down, and don't fret. Starfire, log in to edit, then none of these issues occur. :) -- Sulfur 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Cobra, I apologize for the vandalism accusation. From my perspective the reversion appeared personal as it immediately followed some spirited disagreements we've had in the two weeks I've been here and the initial response appeared less than straightforward. Had the "reversion" authority beeen explained in the first place, I would not have reacted so vehemently. Still, I apologize for thinking the worst.
However, I am not a "troll" and going to an admin is not a threat or a hazard for me. I say what I say based on the information I have. I may be wrong but I don't say anything just to rile anyone. Challenge them, yes, Rile them, no.
Good night and I hope we've put this to bed. – StarFire209 05:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Best way to put it to bed might not have been to try and get the last word, and instead leave it at where the third party and administrator left it. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

comment on talk page on StarFire209 Edit

Hi. i don't want to be involved between you and StarFire209. But could you please not delete MY comments to HIM on HIS talk page? That is jsut not polite, to either him or me.
Well, Live Long And Prosper, -- Örlogskapten... Channel Open... 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how that comment got deleted. I see that it happened in my edit of his talk page, but I don't remember seeing it, and certainly did not intentionally delete it. I apologize for any inconvenience from this error, whether it be in my part or the browsers part. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Brannon Braga Image Edit

I found a screencap of him from the Enterprise DVD bonus features. I would like to upload it. But how do I classify it. He is not a performer, and I have seen no 'writer' category.–- Eyes Only 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cancel that. I found the right category: 'Production Staff'.--– Eyes Only 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha (some copied over from User talk:

Please read and take note of the Memory Alpha:Canon policy, and if that isn't enough, also look at Paramount's canon policywbm, though note that there are some minor differences (mainly that TAS is considered canon on MA, but not by Paramount). --OuroborosCobra talk 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

this is an outdated and biblically originated word, whose last literal use was in middle english. not Modern, it's in the same realm as tupence or furlong. However, your website, so I'm not really that stressed if you want to spruce it up with things that give the impression of intelligence. Personally I do not debate or accept language advice from anyone without an Ma or higher. Good Day.

I should add that there are reasons it is "apocrypha". First off, apocrypha is actually the antonym of canon, that is how it is in the English language. In addition, "gaming appearances" is entirely inadequate, as the list includes more than just gaming appearances, such as the Millennium novels. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this isn't the place for a debate on the modern uses of "Apocrypha" and so. Both "Apocrypha" and "Canon" are biblical terms that have been adapted in "fandom." If you don't like the modern usages of the terms, please disregard and place in "Official" and "Authorized," or whatever, instead.--Tim Thomason 02:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Causality paradox Edit

This is a new article I wrote. It covers an important temporal mechanics concept that Janeway spoke about (she used the exact term) in the Voyager episode "Year of Hell". The episode is full of instances of this phenomenon. So I decided to write an article about it. Please tell me if it meets MA standards.
--– Watching... listening... 01:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For a "beta" page, for lack of a better term, it's pretty got-dang good. --WTRiker 00:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.– Watching... listening... 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise-B status Edit

Constable Odo 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)But, isn't it likely that the Enteprise-B would be decommissioned or destroyed by this time? I mean, since Generations, we have now put focus on the 24th century era of Star Trek, minus the prequels which do not involve the 23rd century. And the new film coming out will take place during the early 23rd century, way before the Enterprise-A, let alone B, were developed.

You answered your own question with the "isn't it likely?" part. That makes it speculation, which does not go in the canon portion of the article. Since speculation does not belong there, we put the last known status, along with the date of it. You don't REALLY know what happened to that ship any more than I do. It could have been decommissioned, it could have been destroyed in first contact with the Cardassians, it could have been lost in some freak accident with an asteroid. You don't know, I don't know, so we should not claim to know. At the sam time, we don't want to put "unknown", as MA is supposed to be written from the POV (at least to an extant) of a Federation database, and it is highly unlikely that THEY don't know what happened. Therefore the best option is to leave it at the last known information, with the stated date. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

fictional Indiana vs. real Indiana edits Edit

Where should I put info about the real Indiana stuff? I figure someone else will find the info about Jeri Taylor and the library collection useful. I came here looking for it myself a long time ago. Thanks The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katyism (talk • contribs).

Not here. It doesn't belong. A link to the collection might, but otherwise, it definitely does not belong here. -- Sulfur 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a good place would be the Jeri Taylor article. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Already put stuff there first, then I guess I went on a little spree after that. Oops. Katyism 20:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:DidYouKnow/44 "not according to canon..." Edit

Sorry. My bad. Mixing up canon and non-canon. But if George Lucas created Star Trek...

Repost from User talk:Gvsualan Edit

...because it concerns both of you.

I think you're both very good at putting fuel on the fire. I see childish behaviour on both sides of this "debate" (using this term very losely) and frankly, I'm sick of it. All this time would better be spent constructively instead of citing policies at each other, finding yet another precedence, trying to get even more people involved in your private war and, yes, breaking WP:POINT, which might be policy on Wikipedia only, but still should be fucking common sense here as well. So, please, get your act together and stop stepping on each others toes. -- Cid Highwind 10:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair Edit

tell Farfallen the same thing. Or did you ignore his own similar (milder, sure, but similar) comment? 02:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What he did was not an attack or sarcastic comment of any sort. He suggested "not worrying about it", and restated what MA policy is regarding licensed materials. He did not accuse someone of "hitting the forum button one too many times and getting whiny", or write a long sarcastic comment essentially calling someone incompetent. So, to be fair, I do not have to tell him anything, as he did nothing remotely similar to what you did twice. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Ionstorm.jpg Edit

moved to File talk:Ionstorm.jpg

You didn't have to do that... Edit

You know, you did not have to move my question about fair use and cropping to the ion storm image talk page. It was a simply an observation, directed to you, that had nothing to do with debate over that image.
Watching... listening... 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A) Check the edit history, I didn't move it, Sulfur did. B) Moving it was the right decision, as it was still in regards to the existing conversation, which should be held in one place, not 5. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Will riker imageEdit

Oh, sorry. I thought, that a Riker image, with the DS9-VOYAGER-GENERATIONS style uniform, would be useful for the page. Here is a link for the picture, add it to Will T RIKER'S page, please. [1] I look forward to being part of MA. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dilkid2000 (talk • contribs).

I wish I could add it, but to do so would be a copyright violation. That is a promo still, to use it in our articles would not fall under fair use. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Signing comments Edit

Please sign your comments by typing --~~~~. This both identifies who wrote a post, and the date/time it was made. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Guess next time I want to leave a post unsigned, I'll logout and sign using my IP. And I did use ~~~~~, so the date stamp should have been a non-issue. Unless you are referring to a comment I didn't even realize I made. I really wish comments were automatically signed in the Talk: domain...

ETA: speak of the devil --Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 14:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Starfleet Marines Edit

You obviously didn't read my posts clearly at all on the Starfleet Marines discussion, please take another look, any assault force in Science-Fiction movies and TV shows that operate mostly on land but sometimes on Starships are called Space Marines, the MACO are the Marines, there are many other things that I have proven so look at the discussion page for Starfleet Marines. The preceding unsigned comment was added by General Mannino (talk • contribs).

Actually, from what I have seen you haven't "proven" anything, just shouted a lot that you have. Secondly, I don't really care what other sci-fi shows do, they aren't Star Trek. Thirdly, even in the REAL WORLD your premise does not hold. Those guys at D-Day, you know, the ones that came off of ships and on to land? They were Army, not Marines. There is absolutely no in-universe evidence that they were Starfleet (in fact all evidence says they were not Starfleet), therefore you are wrong and cannot call them Starfleet "anything". They aren't Starfleet, get over it all ready. Second off, there is absolutely zero evidence in-universe that they are Marines. I don't care if you want some personal belief in your own head, but that does not constitute "proof". --OuroborosCobra talk 00:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

formatting fixes Edit

Explorer, 1024/768. How is adding a blank line causing problems? The problem I keep seeing is certain pages have the Coding for the category box immediately following the article text. This sometimes causes the box to cover part of the article's text or images. After a little trial and error I've found that adding a blank line as a seperator fixes it nicely.--Marhawkman 07:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding one blank line is all nice and good, but there should never (yes, I know that reality and browsers rarely agree) be a need to add more than one. What browser are you using that still can't properly show the Unnamed Remans page without several blank lines at the end? -- Sulfur 10:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding only one seems to work fine.--Marhawkman 07:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek (2008) Edit

I don't want to sound belligerent, but you could have checked the official news links I posted along with the two actors before reverting my addition. Happy wiki-ing and look carefully in the future! Radagast83 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't see the links. I goofed. Happens. That article is one that I tend to be faster with the revert button than most, given the repetitive amounts of rumor that gets posted as fact. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem! After I posted on your talk page I looked at the article's history and realized how it's gone back and forth the last few days (or longer). Completely understandable on your part. Radagast83 04:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The cast of the new Star Trek film is not a spoiler, it's fact. Don't tell me actually think there are going to be Trek fans out there who won't know who will portray Kirk and McCoy until the movie comes out. -- Krevaner 03:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Consultations Edit

Hello OuroborosCobra. I wanted to consult with you on two matters. First, what is your opinion on the paragraph I added to Kirk’s article about Kirk's ancestry, I started the discussion on the talk page. And second, and maybe more important, am I allowed to write an article about Star Trek: New Voyages? Salut. Mak Trek 13:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New Voyages is a fan film. It would be more suited to ST:EU. We only have a minor blurb about it here (which is all we want about it). -- Sulfur 11:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Article of the weekEdit

Hi, It's a new week, and i have proposed a new Aotw. Nobody said anything against it. so could you do me the favor of changing it? the old one is Way of the warrior, and the new one that i nominated is Dominion War. I can't do the change myself because the template is protected, and a non-admin-user, like I, can't edit that page. Thanks!-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 08:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) ooh...I just found out that you are not an admin, sorry about my request above. I didn't mean to impose anything or to be mean. or..just that you are making a good job that I think about you as an admin.-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 08:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Dude... we may have had our differences... but... Boston Redsox in 5. Go sox!Hossrex 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Geez... guess either Boston is better then the good team I assumed they are, or the Rockies were actually as bad as they seemed. Oh well. Congrats to us both on Bostons sweep!Hossrex 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed :) One hell of a week! --OuroborosCobra talk 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize Edit

Okay. I shouldn't have called that guy what I did. Clearly he isn't out for the best intentions of MA. Hundreds of edits in an hour?Hossrex 07:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lonely Edit

What the hell happened? One second the IRC channel for MA is full, the next I am alone. Literally, no one else is present! --OuroborosCobra talk 07:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Gotta love net-splits. -- Sulfur 10:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. We had at least three over the night. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Spock Vulcan/Human Hybrid Edit

Hybrid or not, he is what everybody thinks of on hearing the word 'Vulcan'. Heck, he and Kirk are what everybody thinks of on hearing the words 'Star Trek'. And hybrid or not, he was, in upbringing and appearance, Vulcan through and through. He must be included in any sidebar of images of Vulcans, as he is now, with a note of his hybrid nature.
Watching... listening... 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We aren't here to cater to what everyone "thinks", we are here to present factual information. Placing him above actual Vulcans does not make factual sense when he wasn't one. Even placing him in that article is somewhat questionable. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Shran saw it fit to move it down the sidebar, but not delete it, as you can see in the article's history. Take it up with him. Geez... – Watching... listening... 23:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would I take up with him what he did that is essentially what I just said here needed to be done, not place him before actual Vulcans? I suggest you re-read my statement. Irregardless, You still are the initial adder of the photo, I'm not going to take it up with everyone that has done edits since then. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And I am telling you that I saw what he did long before you sent me a message about it and I agree. Furthur, I have noticed that you seem to need to get in the last word. I am not going to play that game. This discussion is closed.– Watching... listening... 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you didn't tell me any such thing until just now. You told me to go take it up with Shran, and I explained why I wasn't going to. Your last message is the only one where you tell you agree. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"MA rank" Edit

I see that your "MA rank" is lieutenant junior grade. Is this official? If it is, how can I find my rank? Thanks.

It's completely unofficial, and you assign it yourself based on how you think you compare to other editors. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Species Mentioned/Seen Edit

I made those articles so that people would know what species were seen without mixing up the other articles. --Homesun talk 06:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, you didn't "make" any articles, you added sections to existing ones. Second off, you didn't include any information that wasn't already there, and in the proper section. All of that information is already in the agreed upon references section. We've been going through this with you for more than a year now, whether in the form of Homesun or the IP address you used before creating an account. Having your edits reverted every time since roughly August 2006 should be getting a message across by now. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are people putting the Species Mentioned/Seen on the episode pages? --Homesun talk

bio-mimetic gel isn’t at illegal per se Edit

It is also possible that bio-mimetic gel isn’t at illegal per se. Dr. Bashir is quoted as saying “Bio-mimetic gel is a restricted substance. Its sale is strictly prohibited by Federation law.” and goes on to explain that it can be hazardous if handled incorrectly. I submit that just because it has illegal applications it dose not make it an illegal substance. I would imagine a similar reaction from a Starfleet Tactical Officer if they were approached by someone attempting to purchase quantum torpedoes. One would image why Starfleet Medical Officers would stockpile illegal goods? The USS Fleming a Federation medical transport was transporting Bio-mimetic gel (TNG: Force of Nature). Dr. Bashir was able to provide Captain Sisko with 85 liters of Bio-mimetic gel (DS9: In the Pale Moonlight) and Tom Paris (presumably at the request of the Doctor and with the permission or under the orders of Captain Janeway) was preparing to transport some from Bahrat’s trade station near the Nekrit Expanse in the Delta Quadrant (VOY: Fair Trade). It clearly also has some legitimate medicinal value. I further submit that it seems likely since “attempting to obtain bio-mimetic gel is a felony under Federation law.” that their may be some sort of governmental licencing involved in possessing and transporting the gel. This is my first contribution I'd like to hear your thoughts.

See Talk:Bio-mimetic gel. Please keep conversations in one place. Thanks – Cleanse 05:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is defiantly not a personal attack. Edit

I’ve seen comments like that all over the site, why am I being singled out? I know I’m new here and I’ve got to learn the ropes I don’t want to ruffle any feathers but it seems like everyone is on my case. What's the deal?? Captain Chris 23:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are not seeing accusations of being "the image police" all over the site. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think he was referring Talk:Commando. Comments like that are at several places on the site – but Captainchris, you're not being singled out. We explain the policy to everyone who violates it because they are new. We try to anyway. Either that, or we delete the talk page altogether. --From Andoria with Love 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ration merger Edit

There's simply no reason to separate two articles on rations. The Bashir candybar was mentioned in both of them! --Captain Covington 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe so. But do it properly. [Use the "merge with" template]. And bring up on the talk page there. -- Sulfur 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I should add that simple mention of the Bashir candy bar in both of what are lengthy articles (with much more than the candy bar) is not grounds for merger. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Here, here, lol. --Icesyckel 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Tholian Edit

Thanks for the revert; I hadn't read that guideline. Cheers! Captain Infinity 01:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's one of our "weirder" policies, to be sure. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Juniors Party Species Edit

Can you please add these please. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homesun (talk • contribs).

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
He's referring to the various aliens seen during Q (Junior)'s party (rave in main engineering) in "Q2". --Jörg 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My editing Edit

Look, I'm just confused, chief.

Overloaded Titles? Edit

Seven of Nine was Voyager's head of astrometrics, with sensor analysts such as Tal Celes working under her. I.e. Chief of Astrometrics. I.e. Chief Astrometrician. It is understood what the term means. True, the series never used the term, but her position sometimes needs to be stated and this is as good a name as any. As for Harry Kim, he was Operations Manager. It is, as I saw you say in a discussion once, about completeness.– Watching... listening... 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was never used by the series, why in hell are we using it here? -- Sulfur 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This is the type of over personalizing of the articles that is getting everything Voyager in trouble on MA at the moment. There is also a good reason why "Chief Astrometrician" was never used. It sounds lousy! A best, they would have said "Chief of Astrometrics". --OuroborosCobra talk 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I should add that the practice at MA for titles has been pretty much rank and name only, position and other details only if relevant to the statement in question. Not anywhere and everywhere. Even when applicable, we don't o it the way it has been done on the Voyager episode articles, and now getting into the in-universe articles. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well,if I had been told that before, then I would have not done so. A simple note on my talk page would have sufficed. As for your other comments, on "over personalizing of the articles that is getting everything Voyager in trouble on MA at the moment"...if this is a reference to my style of writing summaries... I have said this to Shran and now I am telling you. It is my conviction that a reader of a summary enjoys reading it more with some life in it. I have been told by some, including an admin, that they like it. If that is a problem, if all that is desired is a flat-out report, then I am definitely the wrong guy to do it and shall not anymore. And since episode summaries constitute the bulk of my contributions, then if it is a problem, I'll leave MA, because I'd be serving no purpose here.
Watching... listening... 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Chief Astrometician" doesn't bring life, it makes it difficult to read. Same with many of these overloaded titles. Which admin threw support behind this? It isn't my goal to make you leave, but if your editing practices are so inflexible that you are unwilling to work with the community and accept some constructive criticism, and your decision is to leave, I wish you well. That said I hope you are flexible. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that. No Chief Astrometrician. No 'Overloaded titles'. Fine. OK. That is not a problem. Anyway, I will most likely not be seen here again until Jan.7th 2008. Christmas Vacation with family. Little or no online time. So Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Signing off.– Watching... listening... 04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The titles really do sound clunky. If there is no canon source for a title, it clearly doesn't belong (and there could be no debate). If the title is canon, and provides no exposition relevant to the article, it doesn't belong. As far as I can tell, it isn't intended to be insulting to say this, its just stating MA policy/practice. Chief Astrometrician... ugh...– Hossrex 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to argue about Seven's title. But i agree on one point; writing the whole title on every page is... frankly a little overkill. Some titles are canon, and some titles are acceptable if you follow naval-tradition (which is mostly what starfleet has done, and also mentioned that they do (DS9: "Behind the Lines")).
but writing the entire title is to much, especially if we have a reader that looks on one thing, follows a link to another page (and so on), it is getting boring to see that long title everywhere. Unless that knowing the title is crucial to the article/reader itself, then we should write Operations manager instead of just Harry Kim or Ensign Kim.--Rom UlanHail 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The admin Eyes Only is referring to is probably me, but I never said I liked the style being used; I personally find it cumbersome and non-encyclopedic. What I said was that he could go ahead and keep writing episode summaries since he enjoys it, and that someone can always come in a revise his work. That's what the wiki's about, after all. In a lot of cases, Eyes Only gives the summaries much-needed expansion. The problem is, there is such a thing as too much expansion, but someone else can always come in later and file it down. --From Andoria with Love 04:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Checking in. Didn't plan to, but I see I have been a hot topic. OK. First of all, it was not Shran I was referring to, but Enzo. He has read my summaries such as Year of Hell and likes my style (at least, he has told me I'm doing a good job). Secondly, in terms of titles: let us reach a consensus: for Seven, when I call her something, instead of Chief Astrometrician (for the life of me I cannnot understand why this title is so bad), I'll just say Seven of Nine, astrometrics officer (using common letters to indicate astrometrics officer is non-official). And for official titles, like Harry Kim's: Ops Manager Kim or Ensign Kim, Operations Manager. How about it? I think that is reasonable?– Watching... listening... 13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't really reasonable. It doesn't match what they did on the show, it doesn't match what we have done on MA for a good long time now, and it doesn't match what they even do in the military. Let's take modern military, I am in Civil Air Patrol (USAF auxiliary), where we follow military practice. I am a captain, but my position is Deputy Commander for Cadets. For the sake of this exercise we will use "Ouroboros Cobra" as my name. I am not referred to as "Deputy Commander for Cadets Ouroboros Cobra". I am not referred to as "Ouroboros Cobra, Deputy Commander for Cadets". I am referred to as "Captain Ouroboros Cobra". That is how we have done it on MA. Use the rank and name in the first reference in the article, then name from then on. Naming them with the position should only be done if the position is of vital importance to the article in question. If we are talking about how Geordi La Forge handled himself during the core breach of the Enterprise-D, we might say something like "...the Enterprise Chief Engineer, Lieutenant Commander Geordi La Forge...", but if we are talking about most any of the adventures we see them on, like Geordi's transformation into a member of the Tarchannen III species, rank and name is fine. By the way, the really big problem with Chief Astrometician was that the term was quite simply never used. It does not exist as a title, and in the military they are pretty keen on using proper titles. That is partly where the accusation of getting too personal or familiar comes in, when we are getting to the point of making our own titles. Using lower case to designate non-official titles is even worse. Then we open the door to simply making up whatever we like. If she was never called Astrometrics Officer, don't call her that, and don't call her "astrometrics officer" either, because it is just as bad, and in this case non-canon if she was never called that on the show. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't want to sign off again until this is settled. OK. Your explanation about titles in the military is fair enough. But the second part...what about Borg cutting beams? I never heard that term used in the show. (Or has it been?).– Watching... listening... 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It was used, in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II". --Jörg 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. Now, what about the list of Voyager personnel on MA? Seven is on that list under 'enlisted personnel'. She used to be listed as 'Astrometrics lab supervisor', before I chamged it to Chief Astrometrician. Neither of these titles were ever used on the show. So then, on a list like that... what do you do? You have to call her something? What?– Watching... listening... 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The whole thing really boils down to canon, and tradition/policy. If a title was never said on screen, it violates our mandate to use it. We have a fairly consistent practice in dealing with titles, which was put in place... in my opinion... not because it gets "boring" to read the same long titles over, and over again... but simply because its more difficult to read, and provides absolutely nothing of substance. If someone doesn't know what position Harry Kim held on Voyager, they can click one of the blue links that takes them to his page, and find out. Otherwise, its just not relevant to a page about Captain Proton, and as any good writer knows, you don't bog down your writing with extraneous information, or people will lose interest, and start skimming. – Hossrex 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK... that does make sense. I shall thus edit the Voyager manifest list, together with all the episode summaries I have done, to suit.

*S* However, that will have to when my vacation is over. My girlfriend is watching me, as we say in Trinidad, 'cut-eye' (meaning 'with hostility')...I ain't supposed to be on no computer online now! I promised!

So, thank you Cobra, Jorg and Hossrex. I understand, and we can now consider the matter closed. A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all, and yours.

God bless. Cheers!
Watching... listening... 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

copyright infringement Edit

Are those redirect pages copyright infringements? Only the template and category name space item I added were copied from Wikipedia. Jecowa 06:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the redirects aren't copyvios, and I did not mark them as such. I marked them for deletion because they are entirely unnecessary. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki