User talk:EEMIV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
SEMI-RETIRED

I'll check Wikipedia several times daily but don't have the time to remain engaged in more than a handful of articles. If there's a particular area where I can be useful -- mediating or weighing in, that kind of thing -- drop a line on my talk page and I'll head over. I'll still have sporadic bouts of time to edit heavily, and most of those will be Star Wars-related.
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.
  • If I left a message on your talk page, please respond there.
  • You may leave a new message here. Unless you request otherwise, I will respond on this page.


Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Support request with team editing experiment project[edit]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

What exactly was that "certain length"?[edit]

Especially when there are too few refs to warrant multiple columns. With regards to which policy was I "told many times". Policy should be given more weight in all situations.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure someone can give you some more specific input at Template_talk:Reflist. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The argument I have always followed is that columns are warranted when their use makes the reference section shorter from top to bottom, which is most of the time when we are talking about more than a handful citations. I don't think the template documentation or related policies specify an exact number of citations required/recommended for its use, but certainly once the article has 10 or so, columns are warranted, and most editors seem to use them that way. NadirAli, I know you like to keep ref sections at one column, but what how many citations are your threshold before you would consider 30em? The 18 citations in Jediism seem like a no-brainer to me, but I'm wondering when you would think using 30em is appropriate.— TAnthonyTalk 15:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony:, I don't like to keep things in one column. Heck I was the one who sought help in breaking Technology in Star Wars into two reference sections because the column was getting too long. What I disagree with is dividing short columns into sections. There are some articles that had only six refs split into two. That makes it a problem horizontally. And when that happens, we get WP:CLUTTER.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Darth Vader, again[edit]

Hello again, EEMIV. While I'm trying my best to copyedit the article so we can take it up to GA or FA status, do you have any ideas and suggestions on how we can streamline the depiction section with regards to plot details? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Didn't we just leave this party?" I'll try to take a gander tonight or this weekend. --EEMIV (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I just wanted to ask before I probably send this fo a possible peer review and while I agree with most of the recent changes, I wanted to ask about what to do with the depiction section especially with regards to the battle on Mustafar. Meanwhile, I'm also expanding on the Creation and development section with interviews from the cast and crew and adding some potentially useful sources on the talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

Also, just as a heads up, I've created a peer review here and I have contacted other users User:TAnthony to see if they could work on the article and I've already started some other discussions regarding different aspects as noted on the talk page. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, EEMIV. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:California[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:California. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)