User talk:EEMIV/Archive6

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

Worf

Since you seem to be sort of the Star Trek master around this place, what in the world is going on with the Worf article? I've had to restore it twice from what looks like deliberate vandalism blanking. There is also some strange stuff going on with possibly the same user using many accounts. A lot of red links and new users making the same edits together. Star Trek isn't really my area, but whats going on over on that article just seems wrong. Your expertise would seem to be needed. -OberRanks 02:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaForge and Data articles also hit by the same people. User:Anton Mravcek and User:ShutterBugTrekker also appear to be the same person or at least act very much alike. Administrators may be needed here. -OberRanks 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to put it here again. I am very curious what those guys are doing over there and I didnt know if you saw it before the archiving. Thanks for your time. -OberRanks 13:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I missed it; thanks for the heads up.

As for stub-ifying, in general I don't particularly mind it. The articles are mostly in-universe plot summary. I haven't looked, though, at what's been added and removed; if they're yanking significant real-world material and leaving plot summary dreck, then it should be reverted. I agree that a better solution is for someone familiar with the material to sit down and rework the article(s), but in the absence of that expertise/willingness, stub-ifying is fine with me. No, it doesn't help that those two editors are not especially civil. --EEMeltonIV 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies

Your eventual trimming of Shinzon was good, but until you were ready to solve the larger problem, it would have been nice to allow Kittysmith123's edits to remain. The section in its state at that point was basically a plot summary of the movie, and that user was only trying to make it a better plot summary -- which s/he did accomplish. You're correct that the section needed to be changed significantly from that state, but the user's edit didn't compound the problem in any significant way, and reverting it hardly solved anything.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:21, 10/3/2007

I don't keep track of how many edits someone has. It was an unnecessary (even if good-faith) addition, so I deleted it. --EEMeltonIV 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a red user link is somewhat an indicator. Just something to keep in mind. The article looks good now though.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:33, 10/3/2007

74.46.56.200

Some annomyous user at 74.46.56.200 is making random changes to Transformers articles. Do you know how to block an ISP? I can't figure out how to. Mathewignash 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a similar question before. Now, as then, Wikipedia has a procedure for doling out blocks. See WP:VANDAL for information on what vandalism is and the steps to warn and, if necessary, eventually request a block. --EEMeltonIV 06:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural influence of Star Trek

Thanks for the laund prompt; I've been meaning to get round to that. Hope my edit looks about right to you. Thanks for all your work on this franchise. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walker

I took the liberty of removing the Walker reference on Deckiller's talk page. I am assuming that his removal on the user page but not on the user talk page was an oversight. hbdragon88 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a liberty, considering that it was something he actively added to his talk page. I'm sure you know that editing another user's talk page beyond simply leaving comment is generally considered rude -- did I miss a note somewhere where Deckiller indicated that he doesn't plan to continue editing that piece? --EEMeltonIV 02:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took his removal from the user page as a note. hbdragon88 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you wish I could email him to confirm/deny this. hbdragon88 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am an editor whose primary interest is video games (Deckiller, as his user page notes, is huge on Final Fantasy), and have run into him frequently on WT:CVG. I also occasionally comment on WT:WPFF. (on the September roll call, he mentioned "depressing real-life stuff" [1].) I think I shall email him because clarification is good. hbdragon88 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't check the edit history to see whether he removed the Walker article from his main page; I trust you. Sorry for biting your head off, or at least nibbling at it. --EEMeltonIV 02:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I was hoping nobody would work on it and put it in namespace...I had that page reserved for something quite special (namely WP:DYK). But whatever; I don't really care about Wikipedia anymore except for a personal request to work on Derek Sherinian. — Deckill er 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not your fault...— Deckill er 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Rand - in-universe?

Hi, can you please have a look at Talk:Janice Rand? Thank you. --The very model of a minor general 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-wing

Just couldn't wait, could you :P I'm sorry its taking so long to pull it all together, but I've had a lit on my mind university and work -wise recently, and I need to access The Making of Star Wars by J.W. Rinzler, because there's some material in there that I think will tie off all the design stuff. -- saberwyn 09:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I got bored, and it was kind of sticking out since the other articles have been spruced up. I really need to get my hands on that Inside the Model Shop book; it sounds amazing. --EEMeltonIV 11:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend it... it has some real good material in it. -- saberwyn 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnaught

In response to this and subsequent notes

The dreadnaught is a verifiable ship in the star wars EU. It is mentioned on the star wars website, dreadnaughts play a large part in the delopment of the Timothy Zahn trilogies and makes numormous appearences in other publications in the star wars EU. Also, dreadnaughts make up an important part of the plot in Star Wars Republic: The Dreadnaughts of Rendili. A depiction of the dreadnaughts is even available in the Dark Force Rising graphic novel. As such, the Dreadnaught is a well know and widely used ship in Star Wars and deserves a mention in a List of Starwars Spacecraft. Thank you. Radstrike 13:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a problem with the Dreadnaught because it didn't appear in the movie? IS That What It is? WHat is wrong with you? The dreadnaught is a well used ship in the star wars EU. What else do you need? I gave you your refrences, I shortened the article! What's it going to take? Radstrike 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreadnought article is fiction. It is logical therefore that there be no real-world anything to compare it with. However, in the Star Wars Universe, the ship is well supplied with canonical refrences. Links to the Star Wars Databank (reliable Third-party refrence) and to the Wookieepedia were included. Please refrain from deleting fictional article on the basis that it is not "True". Fiction is fiction. There does not need to be an appearance in a movie or a game for a ship to be canon in the Star Wars Universe. Radstrike 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet ranks and insignia

There doesn't seem to be an extended edit war going on with only a few reverts today and not much over the past few days. Let me know if it continues and I'll address it further - or if I'm missing something in the history... Dreadstar † 04:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roslin.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Roslin.jpg does not have an article name. You might want to refer to WP:NONFREE. - Sp0

No, not really. I just uploaded a smaller version since the first one was a large PNG; I don't care whether it gets put into an article or is deleted. And rather than looking through my logs to leave wise-ass responses, how about you actually familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy? Now go away. --EEMeltonIV 11:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit posting remarks on my page that are without merit, like "A better use of your time." It was reciprocal behavior. Quit being rash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod of Tremayne (Star Wars)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Tremayne (Star Wars), which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Cynical 15:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Procyon V

Your information about the ship(s) appearing outside the Enterprise-J in "Azati Prime" is wrong. No Sovereign-class ship appears in that episode. The ships that DO appear are: Nova-, Prometheus-, Dauntless-, and Vor'cha-class, a Vissian ship and a Devore ship. Perhaps you should verify your information before including it in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.176.235 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the wrong talk page; I removed as original research references to these ships appearing outside the windows. --EEMIV 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia removal

Are you on a quest to remove all trivial information from every Wikipedia article? I see plenty of other articles (and Star Trek: Enterprise articles in particular) with trivia sections, but you haven't bothered to alter them yet. Johnskeller 14:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "on a quest" for Wikipedia articles to follow guidelines such as WP:TRIVIA. Just because the material is in other articles doesn't mean it should be. I work primarily on other articles these days; the ones I axed stuff from just happened still to be on my watchlist. Would appreciate your help in removing this uncited in-universe stuff. --EEMIV 15:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

Did I do something wrong concerning the article about Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes?--Padawan Animator 23:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You marked as "minor" a non-minor edits, and you seem to do it quite frequently. ----EEMIV (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It's become a bit of a habit. I'll not do that anymore. Way before I edit anything more on Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia I'll be sure to finish reading all necessary material about the online communities I have joined.--Padawan Animator 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous content in WAIS article

I would like to report the entry of ridiculous content in the article about Westchester Academy for International Studies (WAIS). The culprits seem to have been users 168.69.134.240 and 76.31.38.147. There have been not one, but several instances of this, as you can see in the history section of the page. This wouldn't even be allowed at Uncyclopedia, since it's just plain stupid and not funny. I think someone ought to do something about this. Maybe ban them?

EDIT: I just now looked at the user talk of 168.69.134.240. This user has been trouble-making right and left throughout Wikipedia and warned many times about the concept of banishment, and has even been given a last warning. I think it's just about time.--Padawan Animator 23:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent history of the WAIS article tells me that it should be locked for everyone accept sincere registered users such as myself. I also suggest that every user who posts any ridiculous information be banned on sight while the stupid information is deleted on sight. Once I finally have a lot of free time to myself I definitely need to learn how to do things like ban people and lock articles.--Padawan Animator 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB redirect

Rename complete. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin question

How does a Wikipedestrian become an administrator?--Padawan Animator 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, ha; nevermind.--Padawan Animator 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism template

I noticed on a vandal's talk page you used a vandalism template that provided a link to the problematic edit. Can you point me toward the template one subst:s in that supports an argument for the vandalism dif? Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because as far as I'm aware there isn't one. I could be wrong, though, and in any case you're welcome to create one – Gurch 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your casual and comment-free reversion of "Linkspam" on KOTOR 2

So, why do you consider a link to those KOTOR 2 updates "linkspam"? It took me quite a while to find those, and it wasn't through a search engine. I found them by looking up a post on the Obsidian company forum. I figured it would be beneficial to players of the game for the link to be on the Wiki article. They are official game upgrades. Considering that they are so hard to find, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a large number of people completely unaware of their existence. --Swaaye (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, looked like a fan site. The article's gotten crap links from modders and whatnot. --EEMIV (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query

You seem to be an avid Star Wars fan. After a while of reading the novelization of Attack of the Clones I began to wonder: usually people just say "Padawan," but are we supposed to use the term "Jedi Padawan" or "Padawan Jedi" as a lengthier synonym? Or maybe both? And did I kind of screw up my screen name?

May the Force be with you,--Padawan Animator (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read much from the prequel era, but I think "padawan" generally doesn't come before someone's name; someone might refer to "My padawan, Joe" in the same way that they'd talk about "My student, Joe." And just like people don't say "Student Joe," I don't remember seeing anything along the lines of "Padawan Joe." But I've got nothing I can cite to substantiate this claim. --EEMIV (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't think I mentioned the concept of a name being placed before the term, though. Unless "Jedi" is a name. Ha ha ha.

Um, Animator isn't a name. It's a type of artist. Ha ha ha. Just to make sure you weren't misinterpreting anything.

May the Force be with you,--Padawan Animator (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use images

In response to this

Just as the allops.jpg image was inappropriate at a disambiguation page, the Primes image you're adding to the Category: namespace is in violation of Wikipedia's policy for non-free content. Non-free images are permitted only in the article namespace. --EEMIV (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad analogy, the allops.jpg image was never inapproriate --The Matrix Prime (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruption

Hey, why don't you actually put some effort into saving information rather than destroying it? Copy it into other wikis and then turn the articles into redirects.--Alertother (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, people like you are the scum of the earth. Censoring Wikipedia and deleting highly notable information... Why don't you do everyone a favor and just jump off a very high bridge?--Alertother (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petulant child later blocked indefinitely

It is useful

Regarding ur comment here, if u had read WP:USEFUL you will know that it actually says "But just saying something is useful or useless without providing context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies."

I think my words "I actually came to this article to find out what else Jan Ors was in." cover this sufficiently. Please in future try to read the policies, not their catchy titles, thankyou. Ryan4314 19:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Hey, I am sorry but I feel that many of your recent edits have not been helping. Some I have tried to fix but then get changed. For example, the Imperial Pilot which was being linked to the Imperial Navy (star Wars) which didn't have much to do, it is now linkied to the Imperial Army (Star Wars) but I think it should be redone. I also made a topic called 10.5.1 which you redirected although it should not have been redirected since it talked about 10.5.1.... Can we try to fix some of this? thanks! --Stealth500! 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution I think is for you to pause and take a look around at Wikipedia's standards for style and content. Not every single concept or thing deserves a page; the project has certain guidelines for notability. You might want to slow down and make sure you're paying attention to the fine details -- such as making sure you're leaving talk-page comments on an editor's talk page rather than their user page. --EEMIV (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Work

Responding to this

Could you please make a thing that asks for more sources since this will delete more than half of the topic, I am undoing it and please ask in the discussion topic. Thanks, --Stealth500! (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Elite Force

I've responded to your comment, i do apologies. SKYNET X3000 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about the confusion with the Dark Trooper I think this should be a good place now :) --Stealth500! (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

usage of /references

Howdy. I was wondering what your reasoning was behind [2]. --Rockfang (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Trooper

Hello, I was wondering if you would like to help make the dark trooper part in the Imperial Army (Star Wars) article. If not that is fine. Please respond on my user talk page, thanks! --Stealth500! (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance request

Hi, I saw your listing as available to help on the Editor assistance board and noticed you specified being able to assist with original research issues in particular. I'm embarrassed that I have come close to losing my cool with an editor who myself and one other primary contributing editor on Chris Crocker (a BLP) are dealing with over a content dispute.

I helped rescue the article from AfD and have since helped vet and reference every piece of information in the article, becoming familiar with this internet meme and how YouTube works, and have fought to keep the article from violating BLP. Having stated that I think I've also been careful about ownership issues; I'm simply stating I'm quite familiar with the article history and what various sources up until 6+ weeks ago have stated about the subject.

Around that time an editor somewhat newer to the article started deleting a sourced paragraph about a collaborative YouTube video that the subject of the article participated in. Crocker is a YouTube vlogger with all videos except this one being self-produced by him. The stated reason for the deletion was that the producer of the video, Michael Buckley, (different than the one we currently have an article on), had his article deleted ergo he is a non-notable source ergo this material should be removed. ("Buckley is not notable enough, neither can this be.") Several folks including myself reverted this deletion and the article was protected (without the paragraph) and the dispute has been dragging on the talk page (including RfC) with neither side for or against inclusion seemingly conceding to the other. I'm not a great wikilawyer so perhaps there was something simpler I could have done but I simply answered him point for point and the discussion seems to be going nowhere.

I'm now being (repeatedly) accused of OR and this whole situation is causing me stress so I've simply been focusing on other articles and walking away when I need to. I'm not looking for any quick fix but I do want to put to rest if I'm indeed violating OR as I feel that's a pretty serious accusation. if I am then what did I miss so I can indeed avoid doing it again. All help (and time to do so) greatly appreciated. Benjiboi 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a closer look this weekend, but at first blush it sounds like a disagreement as to where "notability" factors in. Notability is a guideline for content inclusion, e.g. whether the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. "Notability," however, doesn't really apply to sources -- there are lots of non-notable, even obscure source substantiating articles on notable subjects. What matters with a source is verifiability, which is tricky with online material. Anyhow, yeah, I'll take a gander in the next couple of days. :-) --EEMIV (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Benjiboi 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I let this slip my mind -- end of classes, traveling home, etc. I *will* look soon. Sorry again :-/ --EEMIV (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've been quite busy myself. Benjiboi 00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: SSD

hello you obvious know more about star wars then me. I was under the impression that the term “Star Dreadnought” is not actually used in Star Wars (New hope, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi) if i am wrong then please do correct me i was under the impression the term “Super Star Destroyer” is used on screen. I also suggest that you may want to read the wikipedia articles on Expanded Universe. Is their any evidence that the term Star Dreadnought refers to Super Star Destroyer and not a separate class of star ship that appears in the Star wars expanded universe and not the films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr noire (talk • contribs)

I've responded/am responding on the article talk page; let's keep the discussion there. --EEMIV (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Qo'noS

An article that you have been involved in editing, Qo'noS, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qo'noS. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User info boxes

Hey, how's it going? I've been meaning to ask you about something. On many user profile pages I've noticed lots of interesting user info boxes, and I was wondering where people get those and if there might be some sort of a big collection of those for users to pick and choose from. I was also thinking of having one that says "This user is a padawan animator." This sort of thing seems like lots of fun! Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're called "userboxes," and you can find info. about them at Wikipedia:Userboxes. --EEMIV (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Saga OR tag

There is no obvious way to handle self-referencing notability statements for the in-universe articles. The "most prominent" is in fact obviously "most prominent" once someone reads the novel. This is neither an original research nor an unverified claim; the tag is inaccurate. If you insist on keeping the tag in the article, please add a discussion section to the Talk page (as required by the OR tag template). Alex Pankratov (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "most promiment" to you may be different for other reads, hence the OR tag. Anyway, I'll put it on the talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]