Jump to content

User talk:EEMIV/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

afd

[edit]

you were involved in a afd about this article before, so you might wanna read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (2nd nomination) thanks Starwarsdeathstar (talk) 4:54 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Merry Christmas

[edit]
  • Righto. Thanks. I'm overdue for my bi-annual blow-up at A Nobody. I think it's purged, for the time being. If I'd let this stand, I suppose a wikiquette thingy might've been okay. Anyhow, moving on. Thanks again. --EEMIV (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahm Kota

[edit]

After his edit summaries and his vandalism of your user page and mine, I posted it to AN/I. [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I think he's gone away, at least for the time being, and have removed ANI from my watchlist. Please give a holler if anything else interesting crops up in that ANI block, or if General Kota appears again. --EEMIV (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. For the record, I don't buy the drunk excuse. I suspect he has good intentions, just doesn't understand things like proper referencing and overlinking and takes it personally when corrected. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scatology

[edit]

Your language at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manon Batiste (2nd nomination) is offensive. Please rephrase it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have a lot of "language" on that page, and I'm not going to rake through it to find whatever nugget is bothersome. If you're referring specifically to the "annoying mimicry" comment to A Nobody: it's stale. --EEMIV (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of FTL (Battlestar Galactica)

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is FTL (Battlestar Galactica). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTL (Battlestar Galactica) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed

[edit]

Sorry about that, old habit. Sometimes when there's an article I want to get to from the article i'm reading, but I don't want to refresh the browser, I add a link in. With that one, there's probably a link somewhere for the ultimate sith edition, I just got sidetracked. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copying during AfD

[edit]

Hi. You copied content from Jennifer Mui while WP:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mui was in progress. Please don't do this – see WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion and the related discussion WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. If you copy content between articles, please include the articles' names in the edit summary per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I supplied the required information. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the copied content more carefully, and it can be attributed in an edit summary since only A Nobody and you edited it before it was moved. I have done so. Flatscan (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge + GDFL

[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me, I have been away from AFD for some time now and I have seen the term Merge + GDFL crop up a bit. Could you explain this to me please and help me understand this comment? [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, the general notion is that under GFDL, we need to maintain attribution/development history of our content. If 18 people work on one sentence in article 1, and that sentence gets merged into article 2, we need to keep the edit history of article 1 because the development/attribution history of that sentence is there. That's the gist of it.
That's also a simplified version, and I know A Nobody in particular has been known to overeagerly whip out the "keep per GFDL; it's illegal if we delete something" line, and a few more-experienced editors have pointed out there are Other Ways of maintaining edit history that make the "keep per GFDL line" subject to a few qualifications or caveats. I'm really not sure about the nuances.
The great irony is that I actually merged some content from this under-AfD article mid-AfD (see note above), and mid-AfD merges are a big no-no. Oops.
I think I've responded to your question as best I can; not sure if it's an actual answer. There's a bit more on it at WP:MAD, and there might be some other WP: links from there that focus on it more (WP:GFDL?). --EEMIV (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I think I get it, I'll read up on it. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EEMIV's information is pretty correct, except that Wikipedia is now dual CC-BY-SA/GFDL licensed. WP:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant guideline. Flatscan (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SW:TFU2

[edit]

Please meet at the dicussion page for Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P dump (talk • contribs) 20:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Force Unleashed & Ultimate Sith Edition

[edit]

Check discussion page for the force unleashed. Then we should more so include it into the force unleashed article. User:P dump|P dump]] (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fix this?

[edit]

The AFD link at Double or Nothing (2009 film) leads to a different and closed AFD. I was unable to find an AFD discussion for this film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message with the closing admin, asking him to address it. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess it was a leftover from a multiple nomination. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

[edit]

I saw that you undid my edits on the article The Offspring. Don't take it personal, but do you follow my contributes and check my edits? --P dump (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When your Star Wars-related edits crop up on my watchlist, I tend to look at your other recent contributions, too -- incomplete sentences and lapses in style, WP:RS/WP:OR and WP:NFCC requirements in one article tend to show up elsewhere, too. --EEMIV (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're like my own personal moderator. Just be reasonable please.--P dump (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for Wiki co-op

[edit]

It has recently come to my attention that the Star Wars: Battlefront page has multiple, unignoreable wiki format violations and currently is in need of extreme reconditioning. The page for Star Wars: Battlefront II is not beyond reproach, but is not in any real current violation of wiki format. I bring these pages to your attention in light of the fact of your knowlege of wiki rules and regulations. Thanks for any help you can give myself and the wiki/Star Wars community.--P dump (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa

[edit]

Uh, I just noticed that I broke a massive string of edits to Boba Fett with my little tweak. Fantastic work. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been keeping me sane while proctoring exams. :-] --EEMIV (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, whatever floats your boat. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much floatation as ballast against the weight of boredom. I got to hand students a passage and give them a pat on the head once every 20 minutes; otherwise, just waiting outside their assessor's room. Tick. Tock. --EEMIV (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jediism

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jediism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jediism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hethrir

[edit]

Sorry about reverting your redirecting of Hethrir to The Crystal Star the other day. I did not realize until checking my contributions just now that it hadn't been Hetrir's article on Wookieepedia, through which I was browsing through at the same time as Wikipedia, the one I had edited. --Ace ETP (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redshirts

[edit]

Hi there, just wanted to say thank you for your support on the Redshirts issue. Very frustrating to have removal of -unsourced- (whether it's notable or not notwithstanding) material undone, especially when the section's been tagged at this point. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

[edit]

Do not use rollback in content disputes, like you've been doing on Template:Star Wars. Doing so is grounds for having your rollback and/or Twinkle access removed. --Carnildo (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent changes by a single user to content for which the local consensus is to keep it is disruptive. I'm sure I've been using the script correctly. But anyway, thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "editing against consensus" on the list of things considered vandalism. --[[User:Carni

ldo|Carnildo]] (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a content dispute. The next time I see you use rollback in a content dispute, I'll revoke it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where it says the middle Twinkle Rollback button isn't appropriate to use when restoring local consensus for article content. --EEMIV (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the one you've been using. --Carnildo (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save for one edit several days ago -- when I did use the Rollback link -- this is EXACTLY the tool I use for all vandalism reversion AND toe-just-short-of-3RR :-) content reversion: bold, blue, middle button that read "rollback" and brings up the user's talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, yeah, never mind -- yeah, I used the vandalism button. He's being disruptive on that page. It's a pain in the ass; I clicked it out of frustration. If you want a "sorrrrrrrry" for an errant click amid dozens of other totally above-board uses, then I offer it, although with only marginal sincerity. The notion of removing a long-standing editor's rollback use, with a long history of using it correctly but a few slips with a tendentious editor (who fails to offer sincere talk-page discussion, removes appropriate content, and occasionally slips into IP editing), is frankly stupid. You don't have much edit activity recently -- don't you have something better to do on Wikipedia? --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like a genuine content dispute: between the recent history of the template and the talk page, it looks like there are about five people in favor of keeping the link, and about four people in favor of removing it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only folks who've removed the link in the last month or two are a) a registered editor and some IP addresses that coincidentally share the former's interest in this template and the Afghan war and b) a block-evading sock. There are a few extra voices on the talk page who've challenged the link's presence, but they haven't removed the link (or even edited the template in many months, if at all). The consensus among non-obnoxious editors is that the content is appropriate -- or, at least, that there is a rationale for maintaining it. There isn't any real content dispute; it's a "dispute" over whether an annoying editor will take a hint at go away. --EEMIV (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in reference to Klingon page dispute

[edit]

I am familiar with the OR policy that you are citing, but I think that you are mis-using it, albeit with obvious good intention. Your explicitly stated issue is with my word "implied," but I do not use the word to connote an interpretation on my part, and I wonder if you would still dispute the edit if I hadn't used that word. At worst, my use of the word "implied" was a poor choice of diction, but it does not change the objective nature of the information I'm citing. My statement in the original edit I made is supported by both visuals and dialogue in the episode I've cited. Minaker (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a secondary source that substantiates your interpretation. --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

death star

[edit]

why did you revert? the subject is a ball, and it is fictional, hence membership of category> fictional balls is only logical. maybe you can enlighten me. be seeing you, - riffic (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a "ball" is generally as a play-thing. Category:Fictional spheres or Category:Fictional round things would be more apt. --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My IP's mother is a fish

[edit]

NO MY EDIT WAS CONSTRUCTIVE HOW DARE YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.238.67 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



The above is not in any way related to the below... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.123.79 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page on Klingons, specifically

[edit]

15:24, 28 February 2010 EEMIV (talk | contribs) (32,249 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 75.183.123.79. (TW)) (undo),

Thank you for seeing that it was a good faith effort, as have been all of my contributions to date, but in that case why summarily revert it? It does rather discourage volunteerism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.123.79 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sources

[edit]

Hi, much as I agree with your edits on the articles created by User:SerdechnyG, I don't think that it is correct to remove sources that are not in English. The "en WP" is worldwide and although articles have to be in English, sources can be in any language. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't sources I removed, but rather a laundry list of [already dubious] Further reading suggestions. --EEMIV (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, so I didn't revert. It's more the edit summary that made me post the above remark on your talk page. It's too bad that SerdechnyG's contributions are such low quality (sourcing, grammar, general lack of content, etc) because WP can use more coverage of all things Russian... --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleagues, both of you. Your nomination for deletion a nine articles in my edition, together with deletion of reliable sources, instead of editing it will be considered as vandalism and treated correspondingly. It has nothing to deal with good will. I recommend you to remove all of deletion templates and cross out all your nomination in deletion discussions. Otherwise I will request for administrator attention. Your current intention are clear. I rely on your common sense. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to 30th, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at In the high attention area, you will be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at In the high attention area 2, you will be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hit Back, you will be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at El Shaitan, you will be blocked from editing. SerdechnyG (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--EEMIV (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How should I treat this? As repentance, ignorance, mockery or what? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly embarrassment on your behalf. Really, I do appreciate your knowledge of Russia-related content; as Crusio points out above, Russia-related [and, really, most non-English] topics on English Wikipedia are weak. However, language issues aside, your misunderstanding of [English] Wikipedia policies, coupled by unflagging zeal, are [inadvertently] amusing. I feel guilty about my reaction -- but not about my edits to and deletion nominations for some of your content. --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me please, what [English] Wikipedia policies I am misunderstanding? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. There's also the WP:GNG guideline, to say nothing of the WP:MOS. --EEMIV (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG - you read it? If "yes", why you nominated that two articles of characters, and two voted for deletion of two more articles, which are absolutely clearly corresponding to: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage. Significant. Passing references != significant. Anyhow, this isn't the forum for discussing the actual articles; take it to the AfDs. --EEMIV (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed significant. Books by authors described in wiki articles, and even some books which are described in wikipedia. Or, maybe, you do not consider them sighnificant?? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Calvera (Character). 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Adams (Character). 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.

Ah, WP:3RR -- another policy about which you are apparently half-informed. Like Crusio, I'm finding you increasingly obnoxious. Please stop posting on my talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, EEMIV realized that every time SerdechnyG said "As you wish", he actually meant... err, never mind, strike that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SerdechnyG

[edit]

Well, I've started talking with SerdechnyG. He seems receptive to my explanations, and is keeping his cool. I explained to him why referring to yours and Crusio's actions as persecution would seem excessive here, and also stated that I felt that the two of you could have been more patient with him. In particular, it would have been worth explaining policies to him, rather than just directing him to them. Also, while some of the comments I saw would generally be seen as constructive criticism, he may not have understood them as such, given that English isn't his first language. In short, I think you bit a newcomer, but that's just my opinion. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Rising (film) and Xnacional

[edit]

Hey, I could use some helpful eyes on Hannibal Rising (film) - Xnacional is bound and determined to force his preferred text on the page, disregarding the compromise version. Thanks! MikeWazowski (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's acting up again on Operation Together and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi - same crap as before... >sigh< MikeWazowski (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATHF Wiki Pages

[edit]

Why are you deleting the Mooninites, the Plutonians and MC Pee Pants wiki pages? I making them as the main characters instead of recurring characters. It's like I'm aware of making the fansites! Cabutchikas (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the note I left on your talk page: these topics are non-notable, and the content you are creating lacks reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think you are, anyway? This is the ATHF wiki pages I alway to wanted to create, not the misunderstanding trivia. Cabutchikas (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of message is that? I sign my name and time clock on the message I send. Are you some kind of Wikipedia expert or something? Cabutchikas (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to do something, but I was trying to make the Mooninites, the Plutonians and MC Pee Pants the best main characters instead of recurring characters by making the best articles! Cabutchikas (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Tannhauser Gate

[edit]

A discussion requesting the input of this project is occurring at Talk:Tannhauser Gate#Keep or merge and redirect. For reference, see the previous AfD. Thanks. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Graffiti

[edit]

You called my edit "vandalism" first, you hypocrite. Xnacional (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your ongoing raft of unexplained reverts and content removal, it was understandable to interpret your edits as vandalism. And at least I don't have to degenerate to namecalling. So -- yeah, please go away. --EEMIV (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Star Wars: Battlefront III

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Star Wars: Battlefront III. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars: Battlefront III. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

[edit]
  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rogue squadron

[edit]

actually, Luke was blue five during the battle of Yavin, so rogue squadron is actually descended from Blue squadron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared456 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you...

[edit]

Of course: order, and the end credits order (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086190/). Xnacional (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you choose to ignore the very clear note to editors that the majority of sources cite the main actors list as presented in the article? You've also failed to address your pedantic violation of MOS. --EEMIV (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful...

[edit]

...when reverting. This reversion reinstated incorrect capitalization in a photo caption. It's not a big deal, but please do double-check that whatever you're reverting does, in fact, consist of bad edits. Lots of us IP editors know what we're doing. -68.185.201.26 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at WikiProject Star Trek

[edit]

Hi EEMIV, I have made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Proposal and thought you might be interested. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

[edit]

You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II on the PC

[edit]

The reliable source is here. And on Wookieepedia they tell that the PC version will be developed by Aspyr. 84.86.199.99 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This trailer is at least officially, at the end of this trailer, all announced platforms. 84.86.199.99 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For you work on Empire Strikes Back and bringing it too FA Status Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) --EEMIV (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi realism

[edit]

You put a g4 on this article but I can find no deletion discussion. I harvested a basic introduction from a now deceased article which had failed to prove notability. I have included a reference on this article, and would like to use it to prevent pileup of unrelated garbage on Jediism Ren ✉ 02:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other article had been PROD-deleted, therefore your tag is not applicable in this situation, so I'll remove it until... something is done.Ren ✉ 02:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added another ref.Ren ✉ 02:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, why delete it? Two secondary sources proving notability (as this was the main concern), and the actual page had been a redirect for quite some time. It could have simply been reverted back into the redirect. Ren ✉ 10:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for the related article, and the poking for sources involved, made pretty clear that "Jedi Realism" is in no way notable, and merely some hackneyed niche interest that garners neither passing or insignificant mention in the real world. Neither the subject nor its practitioners warrant coverage here. --EEMIV (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Timothy W. Lynch

[edit]

I've removed your prod of the article, as the article has survived a previous AfD and is thus unsuitable for Prod. Feel free to nominate it for deletion at AfD if you're so inclined - the previous AfD was a long time ago, and notability standards have changed a good bit since then. Best, RayTalk 19:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP Star Trek in the Signpost

[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Star Trek for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and remember to sign your name. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 11

[edit]

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anakin image

[edit]

I think I prefer the older image of Anakin even though I am sure you did the newer image to distunguish the difference between the cast. But the older one had the same one the last one did and even though the same cast there is a differece in look between Anakin in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith that needs to be revealed. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I wanted the majority of images still maintaned in Wikipedia. That's why I moved the majority of images that I removed. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR or WP:BLUE

[edit]

We seem to be disagreeing with how obvious certain information is and what should be removed. Nonetheless, while I consider an expert in astronomy, I have changed the statement that you removed in Galactic to be devoid of opinion and to be purely-observational. —CodeHydro 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Your self-proclaimed expertise on a subject, ostensibly bolstered by WP:BLUE, does not trump WP:OR. To assert that a make-believe system of Whatever has some parallels or more/less validity than something in the real world requires a citation. Glad you've come around and realized it was inappropriate to leave it hanging out there without a third-party reference. --EEMIV (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out. I admit the validity statement was a careless mistake and that I'm distracted by fixing a friend's virally-damaged computer at the moment. Speaking of distraction, wow, my post above omits so many words... Anyhow, sorry if I sounded flustered earlier; it's not you, it's that bloody frustrating computer. —CodeHydro 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, that's no fun. Isn't it nice to be the tech. guy in one's group of friends? :-) --EEMIV (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Anakin&vader.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Anakin&vader.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BWTF.com

[edit]

Benson Yee is a writer who specializes in children's television. His opionions on toys on his web site are as professional as a movie critic writing a movie review blog. Mathewignash (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence from a major third-party institution or publication that asserts such a claim about his reviews. --EEMIV (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benson Yee is cited as a source here for instance: http://books.google.com/books?id=wCLuAAAAMAAJ&q=benson+yee&dq=benson+yee&hl=en&ei=Mn6FTJiHKtKHnQfjltXfAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw Mathewignash (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC does an article on Benson Yee and his web site http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19251314/ Mathewignash (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
benson Yee sited as an expert by Toy Collectors Magazine. http://www.toycollectormagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52:transformers-old-new-and-on-the-big-screen&catid=34:features&Itemid=62 Mathewignash (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of these identify him as an expert -- more as an super-duper fan with a web site. He is visible and perhaps a popular "voice" of fandom, but being a loud fan with lots of fans himself doesn't make him a reliable source. --EEMIV (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benson Yee, asked to do commentary on Beast Wars DVD set. http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/785549 Mathewignash (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this phrase -- "series authority" -- just on the web site or actually on the jacket from the distributor? If the latter, then okie doke; I'm okay tossing him in, but suggest you first run it by the central discussion at WT:RS about Transformers sources. --EEMIV (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The web site for the DVD distributor called him an "authority" on their web site, which listed the DVD extras. He's an officially cited "authority". Archive of the page here http://web.archive.org/web/20080124061956/http://www.madman.com.au/actions/catalogue.do?releaseId=5766&method=view Mathewignash (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its removed because you asked!

[edit]

My concern is if I remove or edit any of the Transformers articles sources such as such with poor sources. It will be be reinstated SEE [3] Dwanyewest (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Vader article

[edit]

I understand your desire to keep the article concise, but unfortunately much of the writing in the plot section was of very poor quality, omitting several details that were very important to the understanding of the article. If you want to trim down the article, I would suggest cutting the "cultural references" section, and/or the section about borderline personality disorder, which frankly has no reason to be there. Treybien 18:08 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles about make-believe people is not "story time" -- the flowery language you adopt is inappropriate for the article. Furthermore, please revisit WP:WAF; although sloppy, cultural references are relevant, as is real-world analysis of the character. That you suggest removing real-world treatment and adding trivial details framed within flowery language is entirely contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding the treatment of elements of fiction. --EEMIV (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup #12

[edit]

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

spam

[edit]

maybe you can explain how the jedi faith website is spam? you must then remove all external links as they are not actively involved in the spread of the Jedi Faith. --Peter Lee 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupisha (talk • contribs)

DV improvements

[edit]

You might want to look at this peer review. Good luck. Jhenderson 777 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. --EEMIV (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention it. Also there's another review. You might want to check it out. Jhenderson 777 14:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it; it's watchlisted. Thanks again. --EEMIV (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. I didn't know. I also decided to do a little bit of fixing on the article. Expanding lead and removing images. I recommend you be involved with the sources if needing to be improved. I am sure you are better than that I am and searching sources is probably my least favorite job in Wikipedia. Happy editing. :)Jhenderson 777 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptonomicon

[edit]

I've Google translated the plot from ru Cryptonomicon article. It looks readable to me ;) I've added draft to article talk page. Would proper copy edit help? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Fisto

[edit]

My friend, why have you set a deletion tag on Kit Fisto? He is indeed a Star Wars character as I can prove,and he is also potrayed by Kiefer Sutherland. Could you please explain? =) KitFisto435 (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Twinkle

[edit]

Your use of Twinkle just reverted two good faith edits I made on the Jean-Luc Picard page. I had left comments on the discussion page why I thought these changes were needed. Your use of this automated script simply reverted the changes as if they were vandalism, and of course there was no discussion as to why. Please take a look at your use of this tool, it may need re-evaluating. I don't mean to sound too condescending, its one thing to have an editor revert your edits because you disagree with them, but its totally another to have it done automatically for no apparent reason. Akuvar (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle reverts that the user thinks are vandalism have the edit summary "reverted vandalism" or some such; I merely reverted your edits because the phrasing and ideas lacked appropriate substantiation. I acknowledge they were in good faith, but regardless they failed to meet WP:BURDEN and generally weren't well written (at least the bit about McCoy; there may've been other, less consequential stuff I reverted). Nothing happens "automatically" with Twinkle; there are eyeballs and an evaluation behind every revert. --EEMIV (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that you objected to my addition of the word "the" to correct syntax? Akuvar (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I objected to something or other about sawbones and whatnot. I do a lot of reverting of useless or incorrect edits, and yours have faded to memory along with the others. I use Twinkle appropriately. If you disagree with my reversal of your edits, take it up on the talk page (I think you have) and wait for me to get around to it. I notice most of the folks who chimed in at ANI pointed out that generally my edits were correct. But, if I errantly removed the word "the" or something in a sentence correction, then it was just a simple accident -- put it back in and move on. --EEMIV (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Smile, you're on candid ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus prime image

[edit]

Confused, what do you mean? It's not a statue or something like that; it's a functional object meant for playing with. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that 3D art isn't just statues, but other functional objects such as automobiles aren't copyrightable; I fail to see the difference from a copyright perspective between the subject of this image and a car. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I'm not that familiar with the subject either; virtually all of the photos I take are of non-copyrightable things such as landscapes or old buildings. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accurate "redirect" edit summaries

[edit]

Thanks for using accurate "redirect" edit summaries when redirecting, such as [4]. Some users write "merged", which is misleading when no content has been {{Copied}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yer welcome. --EEMIV (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23

[edit]

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13

[edit]

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starkiller

[edit]

I've recently thought about an article for Galen Marek, better known as Starkiller. I thought you might be interested in it, and I'd like to know what your opinions on it were. Discussion's here. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solo family

[edit]

I was about to suggest merging the articles about the Solos (save Leia and Han, since they clearly are more notable than their relatives) into Solo family, since there seems to be no assertion of notability other than that they're related to Han Solo. However, while I am a Star Wars fan, I do not have the time to get EU novels and the like, so I know little about them.

So I wondered if you have a second opinion about merging them. I'd prefer to have a second opinion before I start up a merger discussion and have thrown out the window by Star Wars lovers. Even if you know nothing about the Expanded Universe, I'd feel its important to have your opinion. After all, being notable to Star Wars is not the same as real-world notability.

For the record, the articles I'm talking about are: Anakin Solo; Jacen Solo; Jaina Solo. Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jediism

[edit]

Hey, had to log in to add a comment here. I left one on the Jediism as anon which you criticized.... I used to work on that page, used to talk to you too... And, well, i took some time off, you didn't maybe that's why you don't see it, but the state of that page is outrageous. Really. I just can't believe how far down it has gone. Now there's a point I'd like to make once and for all: The UK Jedi church, which goes also by "holyhead church" and "International Jedi church" or "church of Jediism", probably some other names too, is not representative of Jediism. It just isn't. What it most definitely is, is a limited company that sells its "material" which is headed by one and only one person, Daniel Jones, not a religious charity. Removing all external links to keep his organization only just isn't right, especially when the other links predate his organization and do not represent a company but Jedi religious charities at best.

Many external links have gone to leave place to garbage news supporting Jones' views. All that was in the article to explain what Jediism is and what its core principles are is simply gone.

I've had to do so much work for this article. I had to find various sources from websites and books which are not freely published on the internet. Had to write about things I disapprove of, had to read through the enormous amount of wikipedia policies. What for? this? Maybe you think I'm going over my head with this, but yes, I definitely call this vandalism. In fact, I don't remember which rule on which page it is, but I'm pretty sure there is one that prevents companies from interfering with wikipedia.

PS: I think it is more than time to put the UK church of Jediism where it belongs: On the Jedi census phenomenon page.Ren ✉ 19:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

core encyclopedia stuff....

[edit]

EEMIV, I see you're a teacher on your user page - I thought you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Okay_-_bombs_away....I am looking at ways of promoting the improvement of core encyclopedia content over trivia with the wikicup next year (and I always prefer carrots to sticks - personally I love the trivia stuff too :) ). The wikicup rewards audited content such as DYKs, GAs and FAs. I have proposed bonus multipliers for subjects related to core content. The trick is trying to come up with a category that can be checked quickly (yes/no) to see if the article qualifies...and one that can't be gamed. I thought you may be intrigued at the proposal and comment on the categories proposed thus far. (of course you may think the whole idea's silly...but I am mindful this is an active and fun competition for many so is at least a good place to start from rather than creat something from scratch) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up -- I'll take a gander this weekend (...or during a training session tomorrow). --EEMIV (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Jedi

[edit]

I see why you were defensive over that section judging by the history of the Gray Jedi redirection page which I haven't noticed for now. You are right that it's a original research article that didn't prove it's notability. But a little detail or section of it never hurts and is serves it's purpose to still have a redirection title of it. − Jhenderson 777 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm - Milk!
A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy!


Spread the goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Give milk}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!

[edit]
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

  • Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
  • Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
  • Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
  • Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Anakin Skywalker.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pull quote

[edit]

Please help me figure out how best to present a quote in the article about Japan's Emperor Uda. Your edit summary left me somewhat puzzled. If there is a better way forward, let's work together. --Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The {{quote}} template is appropriate, and the margin spacing provides sufficient emphasis. The WP:MOS calls for using {{cquote}} only for a pull quote, i.e. quoting/emphasizing material already on the page (most people who appropriately use {{cquote}} would generally be better off using {{rquote}}. --EEMIV (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the problem isn't really with the enclosing template, but rather with the quote itself: it is simply plopped on there, with commentary or context; it's there, really, because it's "neat", and seems not to serve an encyclopedic purpose. Please either restore the proper {{quote}} template or just remove the quote entirely. --EEMIV (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precepts on the secret of success in life drafted by Tokugawa Ieyasu from the collection of Nikkō Tōshō-gū.
Please review what the small contextual edit I have made here. In order to understand this better, I will need a couple of days ... but perhaps this represents a constructive step? Please understand that I don't recall that I added this specific quote, but I did construe the significance of Uda's precepts in a context of pre-Meiji historiography, e.g. compare Precepts of Tokugawa Ieyasu

Please look over another recent edit with possible templating mistakes — see George Macartney, 1st Earl Macartney#Selected quotes. Although the substance of excerpts from this diplomat's journal have been the subject of slow-motion edit wars, the format was not disputed. Is there a problem in the current version of this article? --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jediism

[edit]

You undid my corrections for no valid reason. Wikipedia bases the information in articles on references. As such, a wikipedia article reflects its refs. the references used do not show who or what popularized Jediism, but claim that Jediism is also known as "Temple of the Jedi Order". If you (or wikipedia policies) do not approve of the use of tabloid news as refs for an article, they should ALL go, a move that I would support. Ren ✉ 23:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. It was an errant reversion. It happens. --EEMIV (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to be something of a habit with you. --Red Heron (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calm. But this article is plagued with inaccurate references which are in turn used in inaccurate ways. Which amounts to OR. Ren ✉ 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is pretty much shit. The subject itself is wonky and barely notable, hence few eyes to work on it and few sources to try to improve it. --EEMIV (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And those that do try to improve the article get edited right out, I get it. --Red Heron (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the only two sources that mention Jediism only mention it, and the other sources only acertain the notability (sort of) of church of Jediism ltd (under their various names). Some events reported in the article seem unrelated to jediism.Ren ✉ 02:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckparade

[edit]

I considered I owed this article an expansion since I essentially swiped half of it when I created Techno Viking and since the German article is huge. So what I was going to do was translate and condense the German article and then look for additional refs - de.wikipedia is much less demanding in that regard and Der Speigel has further articles that they haven't referenced. But I don't have enough uninterrupted time to do it all in one session. I believe it still needs considerable expansion by any standard. So let me know if you want me to go back to working on it, otherwise I'll butt out :-) I'm not sure whether you can read the German entry and German sources yourself, but yes, I was going to add more refs. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jediism (RedHeron)

[edit]

Okay, so... in Jediism, you seem to assume several things:

  1. That I haven't actually READ the policies.
  2. That I haven't actually READ the talk page.
  3. That I'm reverting just to tick you off (or whatever).

I assure you that I've read both the talk page and the relevant policies (including those you've so helpfully pointed out), but the issue here seems to be one of clearly preventing any kind of additional points of reference. Some things you might find helpful:

  • The encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia depends on its being useful as a source of verifiable information. Thus, adding links to support the limited information on the page (which I am attempting to add) would clearly show that there aren't just two organizations... the page is about Jediism, and thus what has been added is CLEARLY not linkspam.

--Red Heron (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion of content. If you disagree with what several editors who keep an eye on the page believe is the best threshold for inclusion of External Link, please engage in that section of the talk page. That you have read the talk page, didn't discuss the proposed (and current) consensus for inclusion, but then added a directory of links is kind of annoying. It didn't even occur to me to think that you were being a jerk. Thank you for not again blanketly restoring the links. --EEMIV (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, I hope we can both agree that the article sucks. Completely and awfully. Massively. I am running to a meeting that'll run into the evening; if you have spare time, perhaps you can help spruce up the article by integrating some of the observations here. --EEMIV (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEMIV/Archive_15&oldid=1150000991"