User talk:EEMIV/Archive4

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

your Tryla Scott edit not supported[edit]

Please clarify why you say Tryla Scott was not the first black woman starfleet captain. And "ST4" is supposed to mean what series and episode in support?

Explain in more detail your position. If you can't, then take away your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpmno (talk • contribs)

The first black starship captain appears at the beginning of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. --EEMeltonIV 02:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems your editing pen is getting heavy as you make so many deletions.

I believe Wikipedia Policy is to not delete whole entries, but to compromise on content if possible.

Your contribution of fact on who was the first black woman captain actor to appear in all of Star Trek is noted, thank you.

But you deleted the entire Tryla Scott entry on technical grounds and also took out the contributing idea behind it at the same time.

The idea was recognition of the socially important milestone of the first black woman actor for Star Fleet captain.

While editing, you could have added a correction in the proper place of who it was, to preserve the contribution.

And as it was, I believe the Tryla Scott character WAS FIRST in the TV series, and her time was probably longer than the brief scene of Madge Sinclair in the Star Trek IV movie. And being the second such woman captain is still a significant noteworthy fact and milestone.

In the future, please check yourself and don't get carried away with too much editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpmno (talk • contribs)

Anonymous editor you previously warned[edit]

Hello, I warned an editor who you previously warned. The editor is User:71.252.64.50, who directly attacked you on your talk page. Anyway, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:71.252.64.50 if you have anything to add. Thanks! --164.107.222.23 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:project tag[edit]

Thanks alot.Really appriciated :) Thanks again!-Vmrgrsergr 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

star trek stuff[edit]

Yes - to be honest, I didn't realise that his grasp of basic policy was so weak,I checked and saw he's been editing for almost two years which is why I haven't been making much of an effort to explain things in great detail. I guess a few people must slip through the cracks and not pick it up - I've just never encountered it with someone who has done that level of editing who doesn't at least understand the broad sweeps of basic policy. Yes I saw his suggestions on his page about the audio - seems a sensible step. --Fredrick day 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh of the day[edit]

You're an editing Nazi, I get it. Deleting this comment from your talk page does not erase it from Wikipedia's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkit (talk • contribs)

(user is cleverly alluding to this --EEMeltonIV 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

AFDs[edit]

Just a heads up. When creating an AFD, it's customary to inform the article creator with {{AFDWarning|Article name here}}. I've already gone and done that for you, but just letting you know for the future. Happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, I tried to edit the tag so it say that you did and not me, but I couldn't see exactly where to make the changes. Sorry bout that. ^_^; -WarthogDemon 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

Thanks. Just for my edification, which policy or guideline governs this? Thanks. :-) Nightscream 04:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Images[edit]

not sure the site name but they were placed there since there are no DVD images available.They are only to help improve the articles.How do you get copyright permission anyway?-Vmrgrsergr 07:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the links I just left on your talk page. --EEMeltonIV 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i started to remove.I will remove the other ones as well when I return to wikipedia from my wiki break.-Vmrgrsergr 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Odyssey restored[edit]

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Star Trek Articles[edit]

Why are you so keen on deleting star trek articles that only deal with one episode. What gives you the right to delete peoples hard work because its your opinion that these articles belong on the main page of the episode. What differenctates an article from being on it's own according to YOU. I'm going to take this matter up with the WIKI folks; this is the second time you have taken it upon yourself to delete articles based on your opinions. It is because of people like you that editors give up trying to contribute to wiki. You are seriously doing WIKI a dis-service with your actions. FrankWilliams 21:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're talking about the character pages. These are one-shot characters with no real-world notability. Take it over to Memory Alpha's in-universe-friendly environment. --EEMeltonIV 21:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take exception to my redirecting, then undo them and I will take the articles through the AfD process, where the consensus will be for them to be redirected/merged into the respective episode articles. The latter is longer, but I am patient.

Wikipedia is overloaded with in-universe articles focused on background/non-notable characters, places, planets, races, and the result is that editors who aren't fans of Star Trek or Star Wars or whatnot have a kneejerk reaction against all material associated with those franchises -- which is unfortunate because there *are* aspects of those shows with real-world notability. --EEMeltonIV 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well so much for Wikipedia being the "Ultimate" encyclopedia. I think many editors are losing site of the long term *goal. If we start asking editors to go to places such as "Memory Alpha" for specialized information; what's the use in going to Wikipedia in the first place? It's suppose to be a one shop stop. The cross correlation abilities even within wiki leaves much to be desired. Even simple typos are not automatically corrected when searching; like google. This is getting really bad. FrankWilliams 12:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept the premise the wikipedia is supposed to be a one-stop shop. Memory Alpha is a good site to visit for in-universe, suspend-your-disbelief information about Star Trek. When I come to Wikipedia, ideally I'll find real-world information with tight controls over supposition, original research, and speculation -- I don't want 'em in my articles. I like MA, on the other hand, because it has looser standards and it's okay for editors to make a logical leap that seems like common sense to the fans but isn't necessarily cite-able. Different standards suit different media and perspectives, and I like that they are clearly differentiated on different sites. --EEMeltonIV 12:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete/redirect Star Trek planet pages you need to complete the rest. You still need to do:

Andoria
Bajor
Betazed
Cardassia Prime
Ceti Alpha V
Earth (Star Trek)
Ferenginar
Genesis Planet
Khitomer
Nerendra III
Qo'noS
Romulus and Remus (Star Trek)
Rura Penthe (Star Trek)

By your own rationale none of these planets should have their own pages. If the pages I started (Rigel VII) and (Delta Vega) which you redirected to a pathetic "List of Star Trek" planets list don't deserve their own pages then neither do the ones above. You are seriously doing a dis-service to Wiki by your actions; IMHO. FrankWilliams 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read the Wiki Foundation declaration:

“

The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge. The Wikimedia Foundation operates some of the largest collaboratively edited reference projects in the world, including Wikipedia, one of the 10 most visited websites in the world.

”

The key word there is "FULL CONTENT". It doesn't seem like this is being done when you are consciously reducing "Full Content" articles to mere sentences on some list. FrankWilliams 12:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list, but I've already got it. I'll start whacking at those in a while, but some of those have material worth integrating into larger articles. FYI, I redirected Rigel VII to the episode, not the list (at least the second time around).

You're completely missing the purpose of the phrase "full content" -- it's "full content *of these wiki-based projects*"; it does not mean it's trying to include the full content of human knowledge. Take a look at WP:NOT. --EEMeltonIV 12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --EEMeltonIV 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Live action" vs "live-action"[edit]

This is a minor point, but at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 5#Category:Live Action films based on Cartoons, you endorsed renaming the category with a hyphen. I checked a couple of style guides, and I think there's a slightly stronger case for omitting the hyphen. I would like to invite you to consider the evidence I provided and see if it affects your opinion. If it doesn't, that's ok too. Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 09:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redshirt (character) and WP:MOS[edit]

I'm only leaving that punctuation incorrect because the MOS dictates it so. Obviously, the people who made that rule never went to English class on punctuation day. Admiral Memo 05:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robots in disguise[edit]

Eh, probably more Alien's contributions. He's whipped that article into good shape, I only try and maintain what he established awhile ago. I appreciate the compliment though, but a larger portion is due to Alien. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Rogers (Star Trek)[edit]

Hiya. Is any info from this article being used in True Q, or was it all copyvio? — Deckill er 03:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was almost entirely copyvie, and I didn't do any copy-and-paste (with original redirect or more recently) since it was all mostly plot summary that's already covered in the episode article. --EEMeltonIV 03:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; I'll go ahead and delete the copyvio history and protect the redirect. — Deckill er 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup notice[edit]

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Virginia, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices $like this one$, you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tempting but, alas, I'll almost certainly be out of town. --EEMeltonIV 10:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space dock[edit]

Thanks for the prod that this section would need referencing. Still, please consider adding a tag instead in the future. It was easily referencable, and so not really OR, rather a standard referencing issue. Ingolfson 08:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek[edit]

Star Trek: Insurrection being a dissapointment grossing 70,000,000 and a US dissapointment has no bearing in fact (it is a matter opinion). The only way you can factual state this is if you base it on fact (example compared to the results of the previous movie). The two Star Trek movies RIGHT before that all grossed in the same 70 million something range so saying Insurrection was a dissapointment to most US fans is unsourced data and someones opinion. if you want to include that information, please reference the statement with some sort of poll or other major article. It does not match up to the facts of the other films results. The changes I made are all based on box office results (both domestic and worldwide). Now if you want to talk about a Star Trek movie that was a dissapontment, STAR TREK: NEMESIS is definatly that grossing only $43,254,409 and $67,312,826 worldwide. The budget was 60 million. But Insurrection was really not the case if your basing the claims on factual data and neutrality which Wikipedia is suppose to do.

Omega Glory[edit]

What is you deal? You've been constantly UNDOing or throw a monkey wrench everything I do like a editing nazi and I'm getting really sick of it. I'm working on making the article shorter so chill out. Cyberia23 23:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a maintenance tag that the article still needs. How about you try not deleting things like {{plot}} tags until, I dunno, the plot isn't ridiculously wrong. --EEMeltonIV 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I dunno, why don't you take the initiative of dealing with article maintenance yourself and rework the articles than mar them with stupid tags and impose your own policy of what should and shouldn't be here? You are definitely another example of why Wikipedia is really starting to suck. Cyberia23 23:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've knocked about 3000 bytes off the file. I don't think the tag is warranted anymore — really I never did since there are plenty of other episode plots that aren't tagged that are way longer than this. I'd remove the tag myself but you'd probably convulse and explode in fury if I didn't ask your consent. Cyberia23 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a make-believe series of events, MOS and looking at featured articles suggests that plot summaries should be no more than 700 words. Go count, remove the tag if you want, and please stop leaving uncivil notes on my talk page. You're not going to get me to stop leaving stupid tags or imposing my own policy of what should and shouldn't be here. --EEMeltonIV 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did it occur to you that all those other huge plot summaries probably should be tagged? --EEMeltonIV 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E.T. and Transformers copyedits[edit]

I appreciate all the work, but is it necessary to have a last=|first= style, all it adds are more kilobytes. Also, dates should be linked in references. Alientraveller 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this until just now (since Wikipedia scrolls to anchor when editing section-by-section; missed the yellow banner). I disagree that the first/last format adds kilobytes, and think the extra bytes are worth the more professional presentation. As for the dates -- you're probably right, they should be linked. I've just never looked that close, since most web sites I've cited don't have exact dates -- since Wikipedia formats the accessdate fine, I just assumed other dates are similarly tweakified. Errr. Oops. Oh, well. I won't change any more. --EEMeltonIV 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box art scources[edit]

What would the proper licensing be for a box art picture scan found on a fan web site? What would be the licensing for one I scanned myself? Thanks user:mathewignash

Quite honored[edit]

I see your quite busy watching the edits of the VPNs out of the UAE lab. While I'm quite honored, I have to wonder why. It strikes of Wiki-stalking actually. I guess if you have nothing better to do... -38.119.112.186 00:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I erased most of my watchlist a few weeks ago, but since the vast majority of your edits to obscure-corners-of-wikipedia Star Trek articles I generally disagree with, I put your contributions links down. No more wikistalking than your review of my own edit summary. --EEMeltonIV 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats an honest answer and fair enough. I am just hoping there is nothing personal going on here. I was surprised to find this page and it alarmed me that the VPN ranges were the only ones you were watching. The internet can be a scary place, you understand, and sometimes you dont know people's intentions. The admins dont seem too interested in looking into it, so I guess thats fine as long as it goes no further and doesnt spill off Wikipedia. Not that you would do that, just as said things on the internet can get out of control especially if personal feelings are involved. -38.119.112.186 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior[edit]

The discovery of your "watch list" has me a bit concerned. Do you have something personal against the people who are using those VPN accounts? Ive asked admins to take a look, hopefully they will be fair. I dont do this to upset you, only that I am actually becoming a little bit frightened by your behavior and your intense interest in the person or people who you think are operating out of these ip addresses. Come out and say whats bothering you or make a formal charge through channels. I'm sure it can be worked out. -38.119.112.186 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Track[edit]

Hello! I am the creator of "Star Track". I realize that all the references I just made refer to my site. There are other sites that showcase my work and I recently won an award at Shore Leave Con for my work. I'd love to have my article back on the Fan Film Wiki page, let me know what I need to put up so I can. I've put a lot of work into this and would love for more people to be able to watch it. Sincerely;

Christian Fauteux

You need to cite reliable, third-party sources that establish your project's real-world notability. --EEMeltonIV 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Wiki article with various 3rd party sources. Let me know if they comply.

Manual of Style for disambiguation pages[edit]

Exchange is in its entirety at User_talk:The Matrix Prime

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages) before once again reverting the Optimus Prime disambiguation page into a collection of multiple links and unnecessary "not to be confused as"es. --EEMeltonIV 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think some links need to be fixed, that is permissible, but please cease removing the image. Thank you. --The Matrix Prime 22:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore the disambiguation page to the properly formatted version. Rather than UNDOING my edit -- which would also screw up the links by giving multiple bluelinks per each bulleted item, in violation of the manual of style -- it would be more prudent for you to add by hand the Optimus Prime picture. That said, the image is inappropriate to include for two reasons:

The image you're trying to add does not have a fair-use rationale for use on the disambiguation page -- there is only a rationale for it's use on Optimus Prime itself. Please consider reviewing WP:FAIRUSE.
The disambiguation page manual of style linked above states that "Including images is discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles." Since the image is a jumble of different Optimus Primes, I don't see how it could help differentiate between the links there.

Even if you want to add the picture -- please explain why you reverted to a version with other blatant errors and problems with the MOS? Please be more considerate and less haphazard in your edits. Additionally, you STILL do not have a fair-use rationale for the image's use on the disambiguation page. Lastly, can you explain HOW the image aids "in selecting between articles"? --EEMeltonIV 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you're missing the point, if you want to fix links and such, that fine, just don't take out the image. I've got nothing against the links, so rather then weed them out, I'll simply revert to a save which includes the image. Edit without removing the image and I'll have no problem with it.--The Matrix Prime 02:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--EEMeltonIV 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationales[edit]

Exchange is in its entirety at User_talk:The Matrix Prime

A fair-use rationale must be provided for EVERY use of a copyrighted, fair-use image. There is no fair-use rationale for any of the pictures on the List of Beast Wars characters page. I've reverted the page to include the maintenance tags. Please add a fair-use rationale for those images you'd like to include on that list. --EEMeltonIV 22:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fair-use rationale you are looking for is provide on images pages themselves. I assume this is simply a missunderstanding - so that's why I reverted the page back. --The Matrix Prime 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the misunderstanding is yours. If you want to use a fair-use image on two articles, you need to provide two separate (but often nearly identical) fair-use rationales. For example, Image:Savage-Noble.JPG has a fair-use rationale for use on Savage/Noble -- but it does not have a fair-use rationale for use on List of Beast Machines characters. As such, it is okay to display the image on the Savage/Noble page but not the List of Beast Machines characters page. Yes, adding fair-use rationales for each use is laborious, but it is a necessary part of contribution toward Wikipedia. Indeed, if the article is just a LIST of Beast Machines characters, the inclusion of copyright images may be questioned. But the images may be deleted outright from the article if there isn't at least an initial fair-use rationale. --EEMeltonIV 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey[edit]

Related exchange at User_talk:SnakeEyesNinja

Who deleted the naming debate section? (SnakeEyesNinja 02:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think you're talking about my edits. I reverted your deletion because you erased material that was properly cited to a reliable, secondary source. Your assertion that the novels don't count is non-NPOV; best to present the information and let readers decide. --EEMeltonIV 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a section in Star Destroyer called "Naming Debate", it is now gone. That section presented both sides which is exactly what the article needed. The current configuration is shit. (SnakeEyesNinja 02:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I remember now. It was way too much space devoted to a trivial topic. There is brief mention of it in the Origin and design section. Regarding the configuration being "shit": please maintain a civil tone. --EEMeltonIV 02:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some version of it needs to come back its not trivial its a very relevant section. i'm gonna put it back but in limited fashion. All points of view need to be represented .(SnakeEyesNinja 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is entirely trivial insofar as Wikipedia content goes. You might be better off taking it over to Wookieepedia. --EEMeltonIV 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a very small inclusion of it. That will not take away from the article at all (SnakeEyesNinja 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I emailed Mandel a long time ago about this and he clearly told me via email that his Blueprints were never official nor did he ever work for Lucasfilm. I quote...."A fan effort". (SnakeEyesNinja 03:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Who is Mandel? You mean the geneticist monk? Pretty impressive. --EEMeltonIV 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Mandel, creator if the Imperator class fan blueprints from 1978, also the creator of various non canon Star Trek blueprints. (SnakeEyesNinja 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You actually left my stuff in there, I'm stunned I gotta lie down. *joking* :-) (SnakeEyesNinja 03:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Romulan starships[edit]

Afternoon, could I get a third opinion from you at Talk:Romulan starships#Split? Personally, on further thought, the D'deridex is probably best not having an article either. As it stands Romulan starships is in pretty bad shape, it needs a big overhaul. Matthew 11:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek[edit]

You'll just get all star trek slowly deleted wont you? -- Cat ^chi? 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

*rolling my eyes* Yes, I spend all this time editing Star Trek articles so I can delete them. Why don't you go change your sig or claim to leave Wikipedia or something rather than leave useless messages on my talk page? --EEMeltonIV 08:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISD[edit]

Now that the naming debate thing is gone completely who cares right. (SnakeEyesNinja 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This works better anyway, no debates no arguments.

Deleted articles[edit]

Re your comment on the Classical music in Star Trek AfD: there are a few admins who will retrieve deleted articles for you if you ask them. This page should be helpful. Totnesmartin 07:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying bot[edit]

You seem to like keeping the integrity of Wikipedia intact. Well, there seems to be a bot or something that comes in from 170.215.131.209 and randomly change words here and there in Transformers articles to nonsense or swapping them between articles. Any way to report or block this? I spend the last half hour going over all the nonsense it inputed and undoing it. I don't know many of the tricks of Wikipedia yet, but perhaps you do?user:mathewignash

The IP address you gave looks to have only made one edit -- are you talking about User:68.185.157.71? You made the right step to leave a message on the editor's talk page. You may find more useful the user-page template warnings here -- when I see people vandalizing or adding nonsense to pages, I usually subst: a uw-vandalism2, uw-vandalism3, uw-test2, or uw-test3 on the talk page. If their behavior persists, and it is clearly disruptive (like reversing "reading" and "punching" in that one character's page, or adding goofy voiced-bys), then you can list the editor at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism to request an administrator to step in. Note that administrators will step in only if the editor has received a "final" warning -- something like uw-vandalism4 or uw-test4. It can be a slow process and sometimes it means a lot of reverting, but it's fair and often works. All that said, although 68.185.157.71 added some nonsense material, some of it seemed to be good-faith material -- and assuming good faith is a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. You may even go back to the editor's talk page, invite him/her to register an account and work to improve the Transformers articles. --EEMeltonIV 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's not a bot, but an actual person, making those changes.

re:AfD[edit]

Although I admire your initiative now that all the rabid fanboys have left and the fiction policies are being cemented at WP:FICT and WP:NOT, I recommend you avoid the cookie-cutter AfD notices; they tend to be taken the wrong way or viewed as condecending (I used to use a few of them as well). I know that wasn't your intent; however, a generic notice might be more appropriate, especially if the user did not actually write the article. — Deckill er 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Someone earlier suggested the AFD template was a good idea, so figured, "okay, whatever." Ironically, I thought the same thing you do when I first took a gander at it. I'll just stick with a simpler note. --EEMeltonIV 01:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...[edit]

i never edit any wikipedia articles especially not one on Mary Jane. check ur info next time b4 u threaten me u asshat. respond if ya want idfc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.205.155 (talk • contribs)

You are logged in from an anonymous IP address. A previous user edited the Mary Jane article -- you can check your IP address' contributions at Special:Contributions/71.250.205.155. In the meantime, please maintain a civil tone on this site. --EEMeltonIV 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Reversion[edit]

Seriously, thanks for reverting 2 hours of typing completely in Star Trek Armada. I really appreciate how NOT ONE of my edits was preserved in it. You did an awesome thing. (end sarcasm) Arnabdas 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's wholly unnecessary detail and trivia. I appreciate that it was a good-faith effort, but it just doesn't fit with WP:PLOT. --EEMeltonIV 15:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Errant Venture[edit]

Sorry about the tense, I was thinking that since it was Star Wars (set to be in the past) it should be past tense, but didn't think about the fiction side of it. So, present tense should still be used? Thanks.

Yup, present tense is it. You can get a more precise explanation at WP:WAF, but the short version is, when I open a story about the Errant Venture, the ship (and characters, etc.) exist in that moment in the "present tense"; even though a book may be closed on the shelf, the story still exists(-again-present), so present tense is always most appropriate.
Yeah, go look at WAF, since it's 1:40am and I'm tired ;-) --EEMeltonIV 05:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]