User talk:EEMIV/Archive13

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorverse concepts and terminology

While I agree that most of that fancruft has no place here, deletion of this particular article creates a serious problem for the reader, as it was the target of multiple carried out mergers and redirects. Let's say that the reader searches for Coup de vitesse. I have just recently ensured that this article was transwikified, and that we had a redirect to the concepts... article to a section which direct reader to the honorverse wiki. Now, the redirect targets an article where information that this subject is discussed in detail is not present. I have no problem with merging and deleting a ton of fancruft - in fact I think there are plenty of HH articles (primarily bios) that need to go - but we need a way to direct the reader to a place where those issues are discussed, and I feel that a centralized "concepts and terminology" article was a good solution. PS. Now we have a bunch of redirects which instead to the Honorverse wiki point to a random Honorverse article (!), ex. Ellington Protocol redirects to List of Honorverse characters, and Cherwell Convention to List of locations in the Honorverse (the names of those two items were never explained in the Honorverse lore, as far as I know, so speculating that they are named after a person or a place is pure OR). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

couldnt agree more, with both parts. Deleting combination articles prevents compromise solutions. DGG (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect targets are unfortunate; I'd've preferred to {{db-redirnone}} them and let Wikia entries move up the Google search list. If the concepts are so minor that there isn't even an in-universe explanation, they strike me as (ideally) unlikely search terms at Wikipedia itself. --EEMIV (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor... consider that on average, 10 people found that page useful on a daily basis ([1]). Same for the list of regions. In other words, 10 (or more) Wikipedia users in the coming days will find it less helpful. Again, I am not asking for those articles to be restored as they were, but we need to work out a way to direct the editors to the correct article on Honorverse wiki. What about this solution: target all redirects into a single page that would say something along the lines: this subject is not notable for Wikipedia but you may find it discussed on Honorverse wiki." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. What do you think about the above proposal? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Watson's books

Rather than delete the articles, I think they should really just be redirected to him. Again, compromise solutions. DGG (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --EEMIV (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Clone Republic

This may get interesting;

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yowser. I wait with 'bated breath. --EEMIV (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And me about to go to sleep (near midnight on this side of the planet). I just commented re HMS Lydia at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacecraft in the Honorverse; with classics it's a safe bet that solid sources will exist. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there might be something for the Lydia -- if not enough from Forrester's work, then its appearance in a good movie might have garnered sufficient attention. Not so sure about the others, though; heck, I'm pretty sure Hornblower isn't even on the Crab for long at all in In the West Indies -- isn't that the one where he's trooping through the jungle? But, anyhow, the overall observation of Forrester's work compared to Weber's in an apt one. --EEMIV (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is a librarian and if he says there are more academic sources, I'd suggest listening; also see C. Northcote Parkinson and Parkinson's Law. The Crab was the one were they all got so sick, I think; it's been quite a while. Something to watch for is some source covering Weber as having looted Forrester — and thus getting the dross some cover. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, Dream Focus reminds me of what A Nother editor might be like if he were just an unadulterated id. --EEMIV (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see how the above comment is the least helpful. As for the issue, I think that the ones he did not serve on might not best be combined of into a "list of ships ..., and I'm even open to combining more widely if there would be a stable compromise about things like this in general. FWIW, though, I absolutely hate the films, its a fair bet that when there is both a book and a film, and the book is even remotely a classic, that there will be discussions of the differences in considerable detail. As Jack says, it's an obvious topic for academic work. DGG (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list would be fine -- and considering how few there are, Horatio_Hornblower#Hornblower.27s_ships is a fine place for it; no need even for something separate. That list might be more useful as a sortable table by name, book, tonnage/hull, armament, whatever. And while I have 0 doubt that the books -- even individuals, not just all 11 as a whole -- have been subject of academic research and commentary, I also have 0 doubt individual ships (discounting the ones that actually existed, obviously) have not been the subject of such commentary. These vessels don't meet WP:GNG for stand-alone articles (neither in their current plot summary state, nor potentially), and there's no technical reason to spin-off a separate List of... In my mind, the question is, where do the redirects point? If someone wants to amalgamate tonnage data and create a more robust table at Horatio Hornblower, great -- certainly for the Justianian et al., that's pretty much all the information sitting there at those "articles". Otherwise, they're best treated in the current book articles, which are mirrors of the plot detail in those four ship articles. --EEMIV (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that your assessment of the utility of my comment -- comments, even, in general -- is neither solicited nor desired. Please don't share them with me any more. Your comments about articles and policies are welcome; beyond that, I'm not in any way even remotely interested. --EEMIV (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You broke the rule you warned others about

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I find it odd that after only 2 reverts, you posted that warning on my talk page, clearly indicating you knew the rule existed, and then went ahead and did 4 reverts yourself thus far. You have broken the rule, and thus been reported here. Dream Focus 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hahah reported

first of all, u just got burned by the person above me. second, it's me, d00d, the podracing vandal, check the artical history been at it since the end of 04 beginning of 05 I AINT GOIN AWAY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.153.234 (talk • contribs)

Podracing? I have no idea what you're talking about; you probably have me confused with someone else. --EEMIV (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lawl yea whutever fag its just the artical you watch for every time i edit it to change it backl i can see iyts you changing it just look st the edit history u gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.141.30 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What artical? --EEMIV (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion notices

When you propose a page for deletion, as on Luis Fernando Duque, please take a moment to leave a message on the User talk page of the author. (The deletion template itself contains a suggested message format.) If a user's article disappears without any warning, they are likely to just post the same information again, since they do not know the reason for the deletion. In this case, in particular, I think a user could easily supply additional information showing notability if given the chance. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I left a notice. He removed it. --EEMIV (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right, I missed that. Sorry to bother you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bother. Ironically, I just PRODded something and forgot to leave a notice :-]. --EEMIV (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE Category Meesage

Thanks for the message. But remember the iphone os games cat is only a sub cat and the main iphone app is a direct/complete list/catagegory. I Smashed TALK! 10:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point but it is not redundant and there is no reason why the parent category can have the same items as the subcategory. I Smashed TALK! 11:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind request - please fill in edit summaries

Hi EEMIV,

I'm still quite new to all this editing and you seem to have been around around a bit longer, but could you please use edit summaries as per WP:FILLINEDITSUMMARY? It might not seem like a big deal at the time but they're a great help when tracking changes and trying to improve articles. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I usually do. When I don't, it's usually when doing a whole long string of edits, overhauling an article, and it just doesn't occur to me (or I don't feel like bothering; an edit summary for 15+ edits in a row making Boba Fett not suck just isn't worthwhile, since folks watchlisting it will just go into the history, and use the "cur" link to see it all at once with most edit summaries not shown). --EEMIV (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough, confused me a bit thought! Bigger digger (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for defusing both of us and stopping what could have degenerated into another nasty debate. Erikeltic (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have a quick enough trigger toward antagonism on Wikipedia that I sometimes try to balance out by playing peacemaker :-) --EEMIV (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent vandal

Wasnt even that creative! Stole it from a pretty well known line from Deep Cover [2]. And no, it wasn't me. -OberRanks (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what recent vandal? Or, rather, which one? *sigh* BTW, I wouldn't in a million years think you'd vandalize Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galactus Edit War Mediation

Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not do that again *please

reverting when i'm in the middle of working on an article is very bad manners; i don't think you would enjoy the experience. please do not do it again. Lx 121 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the {{Inuse}} tag at the top of the article. When you're done creating an article that meets WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:WAF please remove it. Unless I've missed a host of real-world Star Trek sources and it really does meet WP:GNG, I will likely nominate the topic for deletion shortly thereafter; the consensus will be to merge it to the appropriate List of... Star Trek characters. Your efforts would be better spent creating a more relevant blurb at the likely redirect target. --EEMIV (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting up the template; & sorry about blowing up, i restored the article, went off to update a trek template to reflect changes from the new film, & come back to find it gone; this is why i try to stay away from "popular" subjects with a strong fanbase arguing back & forth. the ironic thing is i don't really care about star trek, i got into this because it's messy & not done right as an encyclopedia. ha! also, you're behind the times; aside from her recurring appearances in previous novels, fanstuff, & films, amanda grayson dies tragically as a part of the destruction of the planet vulcan; she's going to be haunting spock's conscience from now on, there will be flashbacks & prequels about her, & sooner or later she will likely return from the dead (there are also deleted scenes with her; expect that to be on the dvd) :P Lx 121 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all behind the times -- although, FYI, dropping spoilers on someone's page is kind of annoying; fortunately, I've already seen the movie. Wikipedia, however, is not a crystal ball; assertions about flashbacks and hauntings are speculative original research, and insufficient to establish notability. The project's content must be cited to reliable third-party sources that offer a real-world perspective on the subject to establish its notability -- unfortunately, your expansion on this topic fails on all of these fronts. Judging by your edits at Red matter (Star Trek) and comments regarding List of actors who have played James Kirk, you and Wikipedia might be best served with you pausing for a moment to review WP:WAF and WP:GNG. Some of your energy might be better spent, and more clearly appreciated, at Memory Alpha, the in-universe Star Trek wiki. --EEMIV (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'll leave up the section in "minor characters" until the new page meets your satisfaction; it's badly misplaced there tho; she's turned up far more in subsequent material than she ever did in the original series. Lx 121 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Super Star Trek

An article that you have been involved in editing, Super Star Trek, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Star Trek. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alastairward (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably noticed, but I put up for full AfD the articles that were previously PRODed (by yourself I believe); Trek73, Begin 2, Begin (computer game) and the magnificently named Star Trek: The Next Generation Interactive VCR Board Game - A Klingon Challenge. Alastairward (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi EEMIV. I noticed that you have been granted the rollback tool and have been using it frequently. Just a friendly reminder, note that rollback is only to be used for "undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense"', and not good faith edits. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at my last 50 contributions, which go back to 14 May, and the only time I used rollback was to restore content on my user subpages to remove vandalism from someone upset with my removal of a dab hatnote pointing toward William F. Buckley from a page for some D-list rocker; his edits aped my edit summary: "Who would confuse [some guy who's last name is Buckley] with [William F. Buckley]". If that's what garnered this good-faith "warning" (which is annoying in and of itself; something about "don't template the regulars"), please strike it out as unnecessary and misguided. If I missed something else, please provide, I dunno, a diff or something. --EEMIV (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lx 121

hi; just saw your comment re: wikilawyering

reposting this follow-up comment from my talk page, since i'm not sure if you are still watching it

3 quick points: 1. those aren't google stats, those are wikimedia's traffic reports for hits on the ~~anamda~~ amanda grayson article page. 2. i disagree with your practice of unilaterally blanking & redirecting articles; i feel that you are the one in violation of WP on that point. 3. i admire your ability to deny that you are wikilawyering, & then invoke.... 4(!) items of WP (with links) to justify your position. you have a fine sense of irony! XD Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

also, with respect, if you go back & review your comments, not just to me, but in general as well, i think you will find that you are the one who is in danger of violating WP:NPA Lx 121 (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am watching your talk page. Please keep your comments there. --EEMIV (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARS

In response to this

thanks for the suggestion, can we keep it on the MfD page, even on the talk page? Thanks. Ikip (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tchuukthai.jpg

Where was the debate to delete File:Tchuukthai.jpg? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted for lack of an FUR and correct license. --EEMIV (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just saw the CSD tag says it applies only if there was a discussion. Oh, well. It probably qualifies for "Common Sense Deletion": it was re-uploaded by the same user, who is generally clueless and put the image only on his user page. --EEMIV (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Fortress, real life scenarios

On Apr 16 you put a "lacking in references" tag on this section (which I wrote). In fact it is full of references to other Wiki articles and it's not necessary to include original source because it is all stuff known to anyone in the field. Intentionally it doesn't contain any criticisms of the book because these are so volatile, but it's consequently stood the test of time.

I'm not sure why you deleted all the other sections containing criticisms of the book, tho I didn't contribute to them. There are a lot of technical errors. Chris55 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

contribution

Please let me know what i can contribute to star wars or any other subject -User:Halo 31887

Sources, sources, source! We've made a lot of progress the last ~year+ on trimming in-universe plot summary from Star Wars related articles (we're not as far along with Star Trek), but what the articles *really* need is information about their real-world development and third-party critical reaction. There are a ton of reference books, academic essays, etc. that discuss the franchises from a behind-the-scenes, real-world perspective -- we need that information, and we need it cited. Take a look at WP:WAF for a broader view of how coverage should work, then learn to master {{cite}} -- essential tools of the trade, both. --EEMIV (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How is it considered vandalism to note Xzibit's status as a meme when the wikipedia article on him also notes this fact? Hahayesreally (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Hahayesreally (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)hahayesreally[reply]

It is superfluoua and trivial; the dab item doesn't need to list his resume or other minute crap. --EEMIV (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tab does however say he's an actor and musician, and not to be rude, but i think the addition of that information could also be considered trivial. Also, I'd like to appologise for the edits my brother was making to the star trek page, that was silliness.Hahayesreally (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)hahayesreally[reply]

Star Trek 2009

EEMIV, I just posted a couple of things in WP:Star Trek. You'll probably be interested to read them. I don't know what my position is yet (entirely) but I was thinking some of that stuff was worth discussing. So what were your thoughts about the new film? Erikeltic (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Federation of Planets

I created a talk section about some edit on United Federation of Planets, could you please join. Thx, --RayYung (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Collage

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kirk collage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sharp962 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC) -Sharp962 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Minor edit war

Hey, would you mind stopping in over at Template: Star Trek? This guy just won't stop putting a whole bunch of extra formatting into the template that really doesn't need to be there. I've reverted his edits three times, but he keeps coming back. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it back on my watchlist and take a look. --EEMIV (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek

Hi,

It doesn't bother me if we do what you suggest, I thought that it's better to have all the people who contributed to Star Trek listed or at least have a link to them. The problem i had with it before was it didn't inculde all the movie directors and only had JJ Abrams and it had Gene Roddenberry at the end and no mention that he created Star Trek for people who are seeing Star Trek for the first time and may not know that he created it.

EEMIV thanks for serving our country in the Reserve, I wanted to join the military, but have Asthma.

B64 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor

Why say the Emperor looks like a chimpanzee when he clearly looks reptilian? i.e., green skin, wide slit eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.70.3 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating his overall appearance with the production technique used. I'm pretty sure -- and the article for a long time has asserted -- the simeon source. --EEMIV (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cawley Thing

Since you reverted, I'll stick by your editing. I just really think it doesn't belong in the article. Hopefully , it will be resolved soon. SChaos1701 (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuality

Hello, I'm just wondering why you reverted my edit to the Virtuality (TV series) article. I'm rather new to editing so I would appreciate knowing what I did wrong. If it's because there were no cites I just watched the show so there's no written cites available to my knowledge so you could have just added a citation needed note anyway. Thanks! Kentourian (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was an arbitrarily list of plot trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fail?

I've noticed you've done some recent reverts which are considered to be vandalism. Now I'm not trying to start a fight here but this has to stop. Plus with your past messages I've seen here, it seems you've had a history of somewaht vandalism. Note that even though you are a moderator, you are not above the rules. Also the term fail you used in your edit summary is a valid reason. From what I see, your reverts are of your perspective to which, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to show your version or views as that's being biased. Now I'm sure you can work something out here by refraiming from unnecissary vandalism but hopefully you could just hear out here. Hopefully by reading this or straight away deleting this, you understand the predicament and promise not to do it again.

Glad we've had this time.

Sincearly VitasV

--VitasV (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't know much about Wikipedia. Wikipedia has not "moderators" (nor am I am administrator). You don't understand what vandalism is, either. I appreciate your fervor for Star Wars, but you need to match it with fervor for WP:WAF and WP:GNG. Please don't post on my talk-page again until you garner some understanding of these basic guidelines. --EEMIV (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the AfD will have more lasting effect, blatant copyvio and OR that it is. I wanted you to know that i reverted after having read the notes at AfD. The issue is complicated by the effect that a redirect conceals the notice of the AfD discussion. The article shouldn't even be in the wiki - therefoe, AfD is the better course in this case. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the very top of WP:CP: "If there is a clean revision in the page history, revert to it." That's what the redirect is. But, what the hell, I went ahead and {{db}}ed it. --EEMIV (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the CSD is a better avenue. Good job. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heya

EEMIV, are you okay? A couple of your edits seemed a bit more, well, snarky and directed at me. Granted, the image rationale was a miss, but characterizing it as lazy wasn't all that civil, wouldn't you agree? Were that the only instance, I'd just chalk it up to a little bit of sour grapes at the IfD and move on. However, the edit summary provided for this edit, mere minutes earlier, suggest that it might be more than a little bitterness at the result:

"Then phrase it that way; and, again, let's try to avoid grammatical goofiness (and trivia -- who cares what the series used to be called?); further, in rving, don't undo other constructive fixes (e.g. ref formatting))"

That seems a little over the top. Are you okay? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boba Fett

EEMIV, you put me to shame with these edits. You did what I should have done, but was too lazy to do. I need to go find some penance to do now. Un school 04:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) No worries.

List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Original Series

The List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Original Series article seems to exist solely to address some very minor characters who carry out a supporting role in the series and are culturally signifigant. A propose merged with 1 talk page response and less than a few days to carry out the merge by yorself due to boredom shows a lack of care and understanding for the purpose of this page. Please restore the List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Original Series page as the character profiles have not at all been merged at this time just deleted. Need a reason other than boredom to merge or in this case delete as I wish to not create any type of misunderstanding in this matter. [[User:Bryankreutz 77 |Bryankreutz 77 ]] 12:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at the article talk page. No need to spam my talk page, too. --EEMIV (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter cruft

Hi EEMIV,

Rather than removing information from an article, just because YOU think it's irrelevant, try creating a new section for it within the article. Also, if a section contains original research, you SHOULD NOT remove it; try using "citation needed".

Some information is better than no information at all. And what you consider irrelevant/silly/whatever, might be important/interesting to someone else... After all, even the most respectable newspapers contain rumors sections.

Keep in mind that you're not editing Wikipedia just for yourself.

Jwmwalrus (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper; it's an encyclopedia. Rumors just don't belong. And this isn't an issue of "rumors" anyway: it's cruft, trivia, plot minutiae and original research. Anyhow, rather than rambling on my talk page, how about instead responding on the article talk page, which I pointed you toward? --EEMIV (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True Patch

I cannot see how my adding the "True Patch" to the Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines artical is either a "vanity" edit or a "trivial" one. The True Patch has an active development team -albeit not one from Tessmage as the founder of the new modders is not a freind of his- and has a large following that is actively reporting bugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.28 (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mods and "unofficial" patches from the fan community are generally presumed to be non-encyclopedic unless their inclusion is justified by citations to third-party sources indicating the real, professional world actually cares about them. A forum post and download site are not reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interrupting other user's work

hello, again;

when i'm in the middle of working on something, i'd really appreciate it, if you didn't erase my efforts.

k, thanx, bye

Lx 121 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm in the process of working on this set of articles; you are interrupting my work, for no legitimate reason, you were not actively working on the articles before i arrived, & good manners would dictact that you let me finish my work.

if you want to keep this edit war going; let's just save time & go to arbitration right now?

Lx 121 (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration? You really are thick. Just take a step back and compare what you've put up at the company article and what I've done to trim it down. Which one looks and reads better? Here's a hint: it's not the one you're restoring.

I'll wait for the 3RR window to lapse; if the company article continues to look like crap, I'll again restore the clean version. Or, you can swallow your pride and use the cleaned-up version as your starting point for your work.

My "legitimate reason", by the way, for "interrupting" you was that your work was restoring incoherent language and poor mark-up. You've been a Wikipedia editor for a couple of years now; time for you to Get With It. --EEMIV (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok; this is your final notice. i've told you repeatedly that i am in the process of working on this set of 3 interrelated articles.

if you do not stop vandalising my work; i will file a complaint for you actions.

i've tried be nice, & to asume good faith, but our previous interactions have shown that attempting to dialogue with you is unproductive.

it is now your choice whether to escalate our interpersonal problem to the next level, or not.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I've done the last few edits is correct section headings -- you keep using = rather than ==. Stop making such a silly error and I won't keep fixing them. If you construe this as vandalism, then you probably are as myopic as you seem. --EEMIV (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no you've repeatedly erased my work, removed categories, & continued to create edit conflicts on these 3 inter-related article pages, even after i clearly informed you that i was working on them. your last few "minor" edits continuously conflicted with my attempts to save work "in-progess", & you are more than experienced enough with mediawiki to have been aware of the problems you were causing. when i started, you were not actively involved in editing any of the 3 articles at the time & the record shows that you last edited Star Warped in march of this year, & don't seem to have edited either of the other 2 articles at any time in the recent past, before now. you simply swooped in & chose to deliberately disrupt my work, time after time,on all 3 articles. i've included a couple of links below, to relevant policy rules & guidelines on wikip. as i said the last time we had such "difficulties", i really don't think you would like it very much, if other people treated you, & your work on wikipedia, in this manner. Lx 121 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some links

consider these links to be meant as friendly advice on certain aspects of working on wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding

Wikipedia:Etiquette

actually, i intended it as a separate section, but it is your userpage, format it however you like. it seems i did forget to sign here tho, so i'll add that now Lx 121 (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know

If our friends VitasV and Triocular make another coordinated edit, please advise me; I had already advised them of not doing so; my patience with them is at an end. If it occurs again, I will make the time to file a sock report. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think he got the message pretty clearly from you the first time; he didn't deny it on the talk page, and they haven't jumped into each other's bandwagons since. Figured best, though, to give them a preemptive heads up since I've XfD something "each" of them created. It is fine for him to operate two accounts in parallel, though (although it seems like an awful waste of time to me, what with logging in and out), so long as he's not !vote-stacking, etc.--EEMIV (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the message was received, as I am not sure they are aware of how much of a break we cut them; most socks are tossed out as fast as they are discovered. The reason for my aggro was that I surmised from your comment that they were back at it; I hate when my good faith is abused.

I usually advise people using multiple accounts to edit nowhere near each other, so as to avoid the mere whiff of impropriety. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Provide me a link after you file, and I will add to it. No one can say that we didn't give them every chance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What

I'm sorry i am new. Did I do something wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff1 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what other 2 talk pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff1 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are part of an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation (1). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, EEMIV - once the SPI concludes with the result we already know, we can revisit the article's status in DRV. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping the closing admin will reverse himself so we don't need to deal with the hassle of DRV. --EEMIV (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the both of us weighing in was enough. Now, we really need to get some movement on the SPI. I'd like to be sure that they are all part of the same sock or meat set. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]