User talk:EEMIV/Archive11

This is a talk page archive. Please do not edit its contents.
If you'd like to get in touch with me, please leave a new message on my current talk page --EEMIV

Enterprise-E

The number of decks on a fictional ship is not irrelevant trivia! The fact that it is fictional to begin with means that you could extend "irrelevant trivia" to any information about it whatsoever! I happen to be an architecture major with specialty in drafting and design. That makes it interesting for me. Any individual interested in Star Trek beyond simple entertainment value is going to be interested in how many decks a ship has. If there were no one out there who cared about little details, for instance, the Star Trek Technical Manual would never have been published. Secondly, stating how it is "not clear how many decks exist" does not make it not-neutral. Anyone watching the movies can clearly see this discrepancy. There is nothing wrong with my change; it only adds to the completeness of the article.

It is not for you to decide who will find a piece of trivia relevant or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logman7585 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll parse out my response

The number of decks on a fictional ship is not irrelevant trivia! The fact that it is fictional to begin with means that you could extend "irrelevant trivia" to any information about it whatsoever!

Fortunately, we have the notability of/in fiction (revisions in progress) guideline and writing-about-fiction guideline to help us ascertain, respectively, what elements of fiction are worth having an article about, and what about those notable elements to include in their articles. "The fact that it is mere fiction" does not mean one can extend the "irrelevant trivia" label any more or less than one call elements of the real world "irrelevant trivia." That is to say, yes, there is irrelevant trivia about the world around us and the fantastical ones we make up.

I happen to be an architecture major with specialty in drafting and design. That makes it interesting for me. Any individual interested in Star Trek beyond simple entertainment value is going to be interested in how many decks a ship has.

Your credentials and interests are irrelevant; we are guided not by a desire to include things that are "neat" or "interesting" or "useful" but that are notable, with information that is verified by reliable sources.

If there were no one out there who cared about little details, for instance, the Star Trek Technical Manual would never have been published.

Well, that and Pocket Books/Paramount saw a money-making opportunity -- after all, if fan interest were sufficient to get material published, the Star Trek Encyclopedia would have been updated long ago. More relevant, however, is the fact that not everything printed in the tech. manual or encyclopedia or chronology or whatnot is worth including here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Secondly, stating how it is "not clear how many decks exist" does not make it not-neutral. Anyone watching the movies can clearly see this discrepancy.

The number of decks is clear to me: Picard gives a number, and that's what I'm sticking with. Yes, I heard another character give a deck number higher than the one Picard made. But maybe Starfleet doesn't order its decks sequentially, an attempt to fool boarders in the same way L'Enfante designed DC to be difficult for invaders to navigate. Maybe "deck" has both a strict denotation but also connotations (i.e. technically refers just to habitable levels, but others just use it for open space) and the two characters were making different implications. Maybe the security officer who gave the other number was so addled he gets his number wrong, and our touching, caring group of officers on the bridge don't want to point out his error. Or maybe Picard's irimodic(sp?) syndrome is kicking in and he (and I!) are mistaken about the number of decks! But, hey, I'm sticking with Picard's figure as a clear, concrete description of the ship. And as for Nemesis: hey, a few years have gone by; maybe they've tacked something on. Or maybe the viceroy didn't drop, but instead was pulled really hard to the side because, yeah, every ship needs a giant shaft where gravity is rotated 90 degrees (or 180?!). Your claim that the figure is "not clear" line reflects your own (i.e. a non-neutral) point of view; "anyone watching the movies can clearly see" a discrepancy, but then coming to Wikipedia to add it to the article would constitute inserting original research.

it only adds to the completeness of the article.

Again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The absence of citations to reliable sources is problematic enough -- but, more compelling, is the fact that the number of decks has marginal relevance within the franchise, has no (cited/claimed) relevance to the real world . . . i.e., it's just trivia.

It is not for you to decide who will find a piece of trivia relevant or not.

Absolutely it is. And it's yours, and everyone else's who contributes to Wikipedia.

Anyhow, happy editing! --EEMIV (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional governments

For your attention, a recent AFD you were involved in has gone up for a deletion review here. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. ~~I don't think I have much to add, and don't want to risk re-hasing the AfD itself. --EEMIV (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Yeay, okay, I weighed in. :-) --EEMIV (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jediism

Hi I appreciate your efforts to remove the spammy regional church links, however I have noticed you removed the thejediismway.org link. It is not a temple/church/whatever and used to have the largest and most active jedi forum. The forum is gone however the website still gives a lot of imformation about jediism (it needs to be accessed through a menu though). Basically I want it back :D

Also, I would like to get rid of all the 'church' websites, unless they actually have a section that includes more information than the article. I find that all these sites tend to claim a lot of things (being the first, the largest, etc...). The holyhead jedi church is not even being taken seriously by anyone I have ever met. (these guys consider that playing with plastic lightsabers, wearing Jedi robes or dark clothes like luke Skywalker is part of their religion. They believe in midichlorians too :O ).Ren ✉ 17:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be keeping a closer eye on the article -- and know more about the topic -- than I do. I'll leave it to you to take a closer look at, add to, and/or remove links as appropriate. I removed the regional links simply because I didn't want that section to become a directory; by leaving some links behind, I wasn't necessarily endorsing their inclusion, and I'm open to have my removals restored if there's a good reason for their inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already made some changes (removed quite a few links) before, according to wikipedia policies, but they seem to come back constantly. I only want quality links. Ren ✉ 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor (Star Trek edit)

Actually if you look up the doctors article on Memory Alpha this fact is mentioned. Thank you for listening BluePhoenix12 5:54 (PST) 22 December 2008

Memory Alpha does not meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source -- and, regardless, sources must be cited. Perhaps the Memory Alpha includes an appropriate citation that can be integrated with Wikipedia's article? --EEMIV (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ridley

In response to this

Thank you. That is exactly the information I needed. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --EEMIV (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Dark Forces

Hello EEMIV. I've been looking through the history of Star Wars: Dark Forces and I've noticed you've got a few edits on that page so I'm contacting you to get your opinion on something. The article was tagged for cleanup in a few areas and was suffering from various guideline violations, so I did quite a large scale rewrite of it. However it was reverted because I didn't have a consensus to do such a change. I'd appreciate if you'd come give your opinion on the changes. Here's the new version and the version that is currently in place. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page. I took this article and the various Dark Forces spin-offs off my watchlist when I saw how well they'd been rewritten; I'm...surprised such a lackluster version was restored. --EEMIV (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response, and the approval of my edits :) Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

How so? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A banned user making a incomplete and probably baseless accusation of sockpuppetry. Given an overlapping edit and Satipo's other socks, I'm in fact more inclined to believe KillerCroc is a Satipo sock. --EEMIV (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A better tag for that would have been vandalism, with a note about the indef block instead of nonsense. It would have required less legwork for me to figure it all out. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Khor-Ru

Please do not replace CSD tags removed by a user other than the creator. CSD is inappropriate as there is sufficient content to identify subject. This is more suitable for a prod. Redirect is inappropriate as there is no content about the subject at the redirect target. Prod will provide time for the article to be salvaged, however remotely possible. There is a page at the Goosebumps wiki, so maybe reliable sourcing exists somewhere other than online. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace CSD tags removed by a user other than the creator. That's just silly -- your removal of the tag failed to address, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, the underlying prompt for CSD. It would have been better for you to do your search and post that most recent comment on the talk page and *then* removed the tag. --EEMIV (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism - Petals Around the Rose

Please stop vandalizing the Petals Around the Rose Page. The talk page has an active section on the changes you have made.

The "Title of the Link" represents the information between the HTML in a link. For example, <a href="URL Here">Title of Link Here</a> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trenchant (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tendentious and single-minded editing promoting a particular site is becoming obnoxious, as is the suggestion that my editing, while abrasive, is vandalism. Get a grip and/or go away. --EEMIV (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you two have locked horns before. As an uninvolved third party, I have removed the link. Y'all might want to seek another consensus process on the article talk. Happy New Year. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no written anything with a "single-minded" intent. You however have vandalized the Petals Around the Rose page. You continue to remove the valid external link on the page. You do this based on your own opinion. You labeled the change as "spam". The particular link has been carelessly removed for more then a year now. It would be a good idea to actually visit the websites before removing them. I can't think of a better example to represent the wiki article then the one you removed as spam! You did this without consulting anyone else. I cannot see how your motives could be considered constructive. If you still believe the link is "spam" feel free to reply on the talk page. I've already stated that I have no desire to gain advertising through wikipedia. I noticed the current external link(which you removed) and I decided to add my site as well because it adds to the example. You have been carelessly removing content without any second opinions, consent, or logic.

Please refer to the discussion page before making these changes. I'm more then willing to participate in a constructive discussion.

Trenchant (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've again accused me of vandalism and "cannot see how [my] motives could be considered constructive" -- you can't see that editors object to what appears to be self-promotion? That Wikipedia is not a directory of, for example, arbitrary examples of a barely notable game? If you can't at least assume good faith or make an attempt to examine a topic from another editor's perspective, you really should just go away. Please do not post on my talk page any more; I find you obnoxious. --EEMIV (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars - The Queen's Gambit

I've emailed the original author asking him to add information to support notability, no telling if he'll receive the message. I figure by mid-month this article will be clearly keepable or be ready for its spirit to join The Force at the hands of WP:AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; much obliged. --EEMIV (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Rogue Squadron

I've noticed on this article's talk page that you had some previous involvement with the article and I was hoping you could give it a look over and a bit of copyediting! I've greatly expanded the article and I plan on nominating it for GA status and FA status soon after that. I would really appreciate any help (big or small) you could give the article before I take any further action, however. Thanks! --Torsodog^Talk 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it more tomorrow. Similar to the note above about Dark Forces, I removed the article from my watchlist when I saw someone paying proper attention to it; I'm happy to help move it along to GA/FA status. --EEMIV (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I saw that you quickly reverted my inclusion of the game's Japanese title. The only reason I added it was because it was in the article prominently before I started editing it and I completely removed it. I found this solution in another video game article (Super Mario 64 DS) and decided to employ it here. I could see it going either way, so before we remove it, can we see what kind of opinions we get at the small blurb I added about it on the Video Game Project talk? --Torsodog^Talk 05:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Mario article probably because the game's development is so strongly rooted with the Japanese developer's identity/brand. There's no such translation for the FA Halo 3 article or GA Star Wars: The Force Unleashed article. --EEMIV (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrordrome Deletion Request

The article does need help, yes, but contradictory to the deletion request it does have references. Lots42 (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References for plot summary; nothing that asserts/substantiates notability. --EEMIV (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Sounds like you were caught in the autoblock that's automatically put in place when the account was blocked. It looks, however, like you're back editing again, in which case either (a) you're editing from a different location, and thus a different IP address, or (b) the autoblock has expired. Are you still experiencing problems when logging in from the IP in question? _Gb^T/c 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem not to be *knock on wood*. There are three of four IPs from our site, though; we'll see if I get tangled up again. --EEMIV (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You on the ANI!

See [1]/ dougweller (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, another Wikilandmark! Is there a userbox? ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old republic

my source for the novel was actually from the star wars wikia (wookiepeida), and i used the souce used on that page, and as it is good enough for star wars wikia (as they have strict guidelines) i thought it would be good enough for here, to be honist i didnt look at the refrence, but as it remained on the star wars wikia page i thought the source must have been true enough. Sorry i didnt mean to look as if i was may be 'vandalising' but as the talk page hadnt changed for a while, i will consult the talk page in future :) Alexsau1991 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia can be a good starting point for sources, and I give a thumbs up for citing their source rather than Wookieepedia itself (which others have errantly done). It's nice to see recently that Wookieepedia is tightening its sourcing standards, but Wikipedia's are tighter still. --EEMIV (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kirk edit

Regarding your edit, I think its fairly logical to add that while other folk have portrayed Kirk in web-based media, only Cawley has been written about - and when I say written about, I am referring to multiple RS of appropriate suitability where Cawley's participation is noted prominently. If you feel that other non-Shatner portrayals are equally or more notable, I would be eager to see them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an issue of phrasing. Yes, he's been written about -- but that doesn't make him the "most notable"; such a claim also needs to be substantiated by a reliable source. --EEMIV (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am willing (and happy) to work with you on this, as opposed to acting at odds, as some seem intent upon doing. I've also commented on this stuff on the article discussion page, but the sum of it is, I think Cawley deserves to be noted by name for the portrayal; lumping him with all the other (barely) notable portrayals seems less than neutral, almost like its an attempt to conceal any but Shatner's and Pine's portrayals. I am sure I am overstating matters, but that's what it seems like. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- and, in response to this edit summary, No; I think/hope you got the picture. --EEMIV (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Additionally, commenting on my usertalk page that I am acting obnoxiously - do you imagine that somehow calling me names is going to solve even the teensiest bit of disagreement? If so, I think you need to seriously re-examine that particular tactic. I choose to disagree with your undiscussed changes to the article, it doesn't make me rude - it should be stressing the importance of edits by consensus. While I am at my three edits for the day, understand that I don't intend the edit to remain, at least not until we have discussed to consensus the material you want to edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With what trimming of plot dreck can you possibly and reasonably object? Anyway, take it up on the article talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to take the time to discuss the edits before making them, EEMIV; otherwise you will find your efforts to be wasted tomorrow. I disagree with them, and mightily so. I would also urge you to look at some FA media for comparison. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly copyedits, tightening phrasing, and adding citations. The idea that any editors contributions are "wasted" is egotistical, and suggests your own close-mindedness on improving this article. But, if you need me to handhold you through my changes on the talk page, I will. --EEMIV (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sweetheart, please do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You at first claim to be "willing (and happy) to work with you on this, as opposed to acting at odds", but then suggest that my time editing will be "wasted" -- and then that dumb shit above? Please don't post on my talk page any more. I raised several topics on the article talk page, and asked for comment from the folks on the Star Trek wikiproject. You're welcome to respond there. --EEMIV (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I was - note the past tense. It was offered before you happily reverted and made at least a half-dozen edits that you knew were going to draw criticism. You repeated lack of polielness and civility was a bit more than was necessary, and the shitty little bit about holding my hands through the changes was uncalled for. Consider my response quite restrained.

Yeah, I can see how much actually trying to communicate with you was worth, so I won't be wasting my time bothering with that anymore. Like I said, some of those edits probably won't be surviving after 24 hours. Net time, use the article discussion page a bit more. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to wait for you to actually point out on the article talk page which edits are questionable or otherwise problematic. Hope springs eternal. --EEMIV (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trek plot trimmings

No problem - I've no problem with doing one or two plot trimmings every once in a while. My guy feeling tells me we're going to be moving a lot of these episodes in per-season episode lists, so getting each down to 2-3 para will be helpful. --MASEM 21:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice collage

I like it. Should we run it past the good folk at NFC, to make sure that it is a solid fait-use? I think yours if fine, but it's better to be safe than sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I'm going to drop a line there later today when I have my wits back (I walkted to DC for the inauguration, and then my gf got sick and we wound up walking back; she's napping between puking, while I'm attentively playing with Photoshop). --EEMIV (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a derivative work (as EEMIV notes on the info page), so it shouldn't be PD-self. So long as it has some compelling fair use rationale written and (this is the more important part), some article commentary exists allowing this to be more than merely decorative (in other words, sources have to cover the changing image of Kirk or something like that), it can stay. If not, it may be a bumpy ride through IfD. :( Protonk (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once we square that away, we might be ready for a GA review (or at the very least, a Peer Review). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Source

Just copied the url from the wrong browser window. The correct source is up now - I can't link directly to the file or it will 403 it. Its a publicity photo, but it was the best I could find off-hand. Rather than revert it to the version from the pilot, it would be more helpful to try to find another one that still shows the character in their most common costume (rather than a costume the character is in for one episode). I did say on the talk page that if this one was unsatisfactory or a better one in his common getup can be gotten hold of, that should be used. -- Sabre (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shmi Skywalker

There's more than just plotline in that article. There's also information on concept creation, appearances, and portrayl. They might be undetectable to the unwatchful eye, but they are there. I'm afraid Shmi Skywalker is not a very in-depth character when it comes to concept creation or costumes, nor is she a very old character in the original script. As far as my research extends Lucas didn't say much about her. Something about Shmi Warka. That's all. But Shmi is definitely a vital character for the reasons listed here.

1) She is the oldest member on the Skywalker family tree

2) She is the mother of Anakin Skywalker, a very notable Skywalker

3) Her virgin birth of Anakin led to the belief of him being the Chosen One

4) Her marriage to Cliegg Lars explains why Luke was raised at the Lars Homestead

5) Her death brought Anakin close to the dark side

6) Her death caused Anakin to fret so much about Padme dying in his dreams he became Darth Vader

I'm asking you to pray for patience. I NEED to find more research, but it may take a while. Love Linda Mancia (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is in-universe trivia; as you admit, there's not much/insufficient real-world information. If you want to develop an article, start it in userspace, i.e. User:Linda Mancia/Shmi Skywalker. --EEMIV (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note about articles in userspace: Only do this if there's a realistic chance the article can be moved to the main article space when it's done. If it will never be able to withstand a challenge at WP:AFD, then don't bother. Userspace is not for drafting articles that will never be articles. Userspace drafts give you a few weeks to put an article together without having to worry about other editors changing things or slapping deletion tags on it. After a few weeks though, it's subject to deletion through the user-space deletion process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large amount of information about religion in star wars- the parallels between Shmi and the Blessed Virgin Mary are very noteworthy. Gavin (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk

The article looks pretty good now, I'm trying to follow your lead with the McCoy article, but I only have "Inside Star Trek" to work on. If you pop by, please lend a hand (and leave a cite!) Alastairward (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I found Google Books pretty useful, although winnowing in on the right search terms was kind of a bear. Memory Alpha, too, had some third-party real-world sources at the end of their Kirk article; maybe also for McCoy. --EEMIV (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Before I was blocked I asked for hep form someone but I resived nothing could you Help I plan on adding some proper addition info to IG-88 but could you tell me everything i need to know lik who ias a reliable source and what i was doing wrong previously reply asap--Mattini (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Mattini[reply]

Take a look at the following:

WP:RS - reliable sources
WP:FICT - how to tell, more or less, whether an element of fiction is notable enough to include at Wikipedia
WP:WAF - writing about elements of fiction (e.g. characters)

--EEMIV (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IG-72

Is everything to do with IG-72 ok.--Mattini (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Mattini[reply]

No. IG-72 is a non-notable character; content about that droid is more appropriate at the Wookieepedia wiki project. --EEMIV (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!!!!

THE ARTICLES YOU ARE REDIRECTING TO, THEY WERE HARD WORK!!!!!!!!!!I WORKED VERY, VERY VERY, VERY VERY VERY VERY, VERY HARD ON THOSE HORRORLAND ARTICLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)HORRIFCOWelcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrifico (talk • contribs)

This edit

Hello! Not sure why you reverted that? I thanked two editors for answering a question. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I was checking the response on my iphone and I must've tapped the wrong thing on the tiny screen. --EEMIV (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. No big deal. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Companion (Firefly)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Companion (Firefly). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spock changes

Please don't change the citation templates in Spock. I'm putting these back into {{Harvard citation}} format, which seems to be what was intended, and probably was in use until someone substituted templates that don't support this type of referencing. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the other Star Trek character articles consistently use {{cite ref}}, even for references scattered in a text. I think consistency within the StarTrekproject is a good thing. Anyhow, take it up on the article talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated star trek sources (From this conversation)

I finally pulled an old essay from my computer with some sources related to trek/kirk/etc. Some of them are pointy-headed, some are interesting. Here goes:

Bernardi, Daniel. Star Trek and History: Race-ing Toward a White Future. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers, University Press, 1998.

It seems polemical but it is a good, long view of TOS and some social issues. Lots of text is web available from google books, but you should be able to get it from interlibrary loan.

Booker, M. Keith. “The Politics of Star Trek.” The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader. Ed. J. P. Telotte. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2008

Straightforward. Clear. A good read. Again, IIRC parts are web available from google.

Weldes, Jutta. “Going Cultural: Star Trek, State Action, and Popular Culture.” Journal of International Studies. 28:1 (1999): 117-134

Not web available, I'm afraid. Less about characters and more about the series and its relationship to the problems of the time. TOS to China/Russia. DS9 to the newly independent states and TNG to...I forget. :) If you can't find a copy I can get one and email you a PDF.

So there you go. :) Protonk (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)

Why would you remove the section on the 1701-E having the ability to rectify a shield grid around the warp core. it is clearly an attribute shown in the movie and is most def. a design feature unique to the 1701-e. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.204.211 (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is in-universe, inane trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder on the Orient Express (1974 film)

Hi there. In regards to this revert, I ask that you do not use tools such as WP:TW to perform reverts when involved in a content dispute especialy when you mark the other edits as vandalism, when they clearly are not. Instead try using the undo button and provide a useful edit summary describing why you made the edit/revert you did. Let me also take this time to remind you of WP:EDITWAR. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing is vandalism, and failing even to discuss content disputes crosses that line. I'll continue to use TW as I did with the Orient Express, and the reminder about edit warring isn't necessary. But thanks anyway. --EEMIV (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me make myself a bit more clear. Continuing to revert another users edits whom you are involved in a content dispute with and claiming they are "vandalism" will result in a loss of Twinkle privileges. It is really not that hard to use the undo button; you are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Tiptoety ^talk 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right. Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:S@bre RfA

I find the whole episode ironic considering that my original comments were asking everyone not to reply to him and suddenly he attacks the person attempting to defend him. Hilarious. And yeah, I'm done there. Oh, and don't worry about the RfA regulars agreeing with him. They're very, very discerning of crackpot opposes like that. *sigh* It almost makes me wish he would run for RfA. That would be a laugh ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you could have asked people to ignore me in a manner that didn't include insults that seemed baiting. And why would I possibly want to be an admin? Seeing deleted contribs would be okay, but I changed names to avoid the attention I would get as an admin. Just remember, the old fable about honey attracting more flies than vinegar. If you took a more friendly approach with me, maybe we'd get along. I am always open to reconciliation with people. Also, please note [2]. Thanks. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but I changed names to avoid the attention I would get as an admin - I thought you changed names because you had some real-world/stalking issue somehow resolved with a new handle, yet persisting with habits and style in the same content venues. Anyhow, perhaps I misunderstood; please don't use my talk page to attempt to correct my impression, or for any other reason. --EEMIV (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I changed names to avoid real-world harassment issues and becoming an admin even under the current name would just put me in a much more likely to be identified spotlight than would be wise. Those people do NOT know about my interest in fictional subjects as it has nothing to do with my real world professions and a lot of the fictional articles I work on are for subjects I am not a fan of. The old username, however, is identifiable. In any event, I strongly urge you to check your email. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it, read it. Go away, please. --EEMIV (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is fine by me and as such please do the same and do not comment to or about me further. Have an enjoyable weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis in Murder on the Orient Express (1974 film)

Rules, Rules, Rules. One is born, one faces rules and one dies. There are times when I think that anarchy which, in its simplest form, calls for a society without any rules at all, is not such a bad idea after all.

There is a scene in this movie in which Bianchi (Balsam) refers to Beddoes the butler (Sir John Gielgud) as a "stuffed shirt" and quite frankly we are getting quite a lot of them here at Wikipedia. The fun is being taken out of this project. I simply want to add what I think are interesting and very amusing facts which only take up a couple of paragraphs and I am being threatened with exile.

Do you want Wikipedia to be a fun place where all sorts of information can be provided on all sorts of subjects from all over the world, or do you want it to be minimal, elitist, restrictive and narrow-minded?

The fun and the sharing of knowledge is being taken out of Wikipedia. I hope you are proud of being a contributor to this sad state of affairs. --Marktreut (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis in Murder on the Orient Express (1974 film)

Rules, Rules, Rules. One is born, one faces rules and one dies. There are times when I think that anarchy which, in its simplest form, calls for a society without any rules at all, is not such a bad idea after all.

There is a scene in this movie in which Bianchi (Balsam) refers to Beddoes the butler (Sir John Gielgud) as a "stuffed shirt" and quite frankly we are getting quite a lot of them here at Wikipedia. The fun is being taken out of this project. I simply want to add what I think are interesting and very amusing facts which only take up a couple of paragraphs and I am being threatened with exile.

Do you want Wikipedia to be a fun place where all sorts of information can be provided on all sorts of subjects from all over the world, or do you want it to be minimal, elitist, restrictive and narrow-minded?

The fun and the sharing of knowledge is being taken out of Wikipedia. I hope you are proud of being a contributor to this sad state of affairs. --Marktreut (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I have no interest in seeing Wikipedia as being a "place where all sorts of information". I have hearty fun following the policies and guidelines of WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:OR, and WP:RS. If you can cite the "ironic" nature of this casting trivia or otherwise cite a source other than your own beliefs indicating it's something more than indiscriminate information, then all the power to you. Anyhow, conversation about the topic (and not trolling) is more appropriate on the article talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EEMIV, I'll let you answer for the both of us since repetition seems to be ineffective. Thanks. Thanks for your contributions.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prod on Citidel Station

Proposed deletion of Citadel Station

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Citadel Station, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

it is a dab page that attempts to disambiguate between pages that do not exist, and are not likely to.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Geoff Capp (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]