User talk:EEMIV/Archive3

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

Picture of the Year contest[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your interest in the 2006 Picture of the Year contest. Please sign your vote and refer to your Commons username or IP address in your diff. For more information, please see commons:User:Bryan/diffmaking Bryan 12:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Ghostbusters Edit[edit]

Thank you fro deleting that content. I myself do as little deletion as possible to avoid aggravating people, but most of that trivia stuff really did need deletion, and I am glad there was somebody on hand to do so.TheGreenFaerae 00:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miles O'Brien[edit]

Coincidences are not necessarily OR. When enough of a coincidence, something might be deemed interesting enough for inclusion in an article just as we include trivia, etc. Your statement to me "There are lots of coincidences out there; they don't all need to be in wikipedia." is ~~noxious~~ amazing. Did you detect an attempt on my part to include all coincidences in Wikipedia? Of course not. You don't think this coincidence warrants inclusion. I do. You care way more about this than I do, so you can have your way. There’s a nice way to do things and there’s your way. I've dealt with you before and I think you are a great boss~~y prick~~ who wants to order everyone ~~around~~ a round like you do ~~your students and~~ your soldiers down in Virginia -- but of course not your underage students. Unlike them, I express my thoughts to you without any real repercussions. ~~Bitches~~ Bitchin' guys like you are the reason I scarcely contribute any more -- I just can't keep up. ~~You~~ I bore me. Now go ahead and leave a civility warning on my talk page or whatever makes you feel ~~tough~~ sinewy. You may write me some huffy response, or better yet, a hyper-professional sounding one most favored by the ~~jerkiest~~ juiciest Wikipedians. Either way, I won’t read it.~~--House of Scandal 07:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)~~ --EEMeltonIV 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is kind of funny. I actually thought my message didn't get posted to your talk page (I got a System Server Error message), but see that it did. Oh well, c'est la vie. Sorry for being so grumpy. --House of Scandal 07:38, 4 March 2007

Redirects[edit]

What can I say, I have no excuse. I'm not doing it improve performance. I'm doing it because I dislike redirects. In my defense, I'm not using Popups. AlistairMcMillan 14:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhura[edit]

Is there any particular reason why you object to my describing Uhura as a 'glorified telephonist' please? Some critics have called her that and it seems worthy of inclusion here to me. SmokeyTheCat 15:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a source. "Some critics" is a weasel word phrase and is unencyclopedic. --EEMeltonIV 16:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TNG navigation[edit]

Thanks for your help in removing the TNG navigation template from the episode articles. Koweja 03:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That/Which and DEFINITELY etc[edit]

Hullo. Can anyone create template boxes? I would like to create one "This user can spell definitely" as practically everyone in cyberspace gets it wrong. Is there a list of templates please? I would also like to get one on my user page saying that I can distinguish between THERE, THEIR and THEY'RE. Similarly YOU'RE/YOUR. Thanking you. SmokeyTheCat 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can. Many of the userbox templates sitting in the wikimainspace, however, seem to be moved to userspace. So, just create whatever userbox you'd like under SmokeyTheCat (e.g. "SmokeyTheCat/You'reYour"). I don't know whether there are any templates per se; just find a userbox you like, copy and paste the code and go from there. --EEMeltonIV

Cough cough[edit]

Is it possible to create a category of Wikipedians Who Smoke please? Thanks. SmokeyTheCat 11:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Basically the same setup as doing a userbox, and in fact some userboxes can be set up so that users who add the userbox to their userpage will automatically be listed in a certain category. That said, I'm pretty sure there's already a "Wikipedians who smoke" userbox and category. --EEMeltonIV 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your poll vote[edit]

It seems misplaced in 'neutral' - shouldn't it be in 'broad support'? Crum375 05:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- thanks! --EEMeltonIV 05:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ST[edit]

Hey. If you see any bad tensed articles just whack on {{cleanup-tense}} - this adds a cleanup tag and adds it into a tense cleanup category :-). Matthew 07:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frickin' awesome -- thanks! --EEMeltonIV 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling[edit]

Please stop calling me names like "wingnut", "fanboy", and "sockpuppet" in these discussions about the Starfleet articles. It is uncivil and violates WP:NPA. I am trying to have a professional conversation to improve these articles and we should work together. I have not written a single insulting or uncivil thing towards you yet you persist in this behavior. Please stop. -38.119.112.187 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits under this IP address, .190 and .189 are to "Husnock"'s old favorites: SS characters, Navy ranks, Star Trek rank material, and an obscure image that Husnock uploaded. I find it hard to believe that anyone would stumble upon the obscure image and the obscure Admiral Komack bit if it the material weren't on that person's watchlist. Save for the anonymous IP addresses*, "Husnock" -- who created the Komack article -- is the only user who contributed to that article who isn't still posting elsewhere. (*By itself, I could understand one IP address switching to another and you keeping the old IP's watchlist. And I could even buy into the idea that you saw that I removed the link to Admiral Komack from the Admiral (Star Trek) article and took a look at it. But taken in with other stuff, I don't buy it.)

Stylistically, you both have the same errors and style nuances. You both revert whole edits, overlooking worthwhile grammar and spelling tweaks, to restore material of dubious notability, verifiability and/or reliability that often crosses into original research. You demonstrate issues of ownership. As with Husnock's named-account sockpuppets (e.g. "Dan Rappaport"), you claim tenuous credentials (e.g. publishing two books) that have little to do with the rationale you offer for your edits. By the way, what are you: a published Star Trek author or "an administrator of a computer lab in Dubai"? Note that the latter was posted in, of all places, Husnock's RfA. You assert "plans" for articles and ask that uncited material be allowed to linger until it gets there.

Husnock's dishonesty and reluctance/inability to grasp the tenets of WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR came through in the RfA. While I don't see anything blatantly dishonest about what you've posted (although I don't believe your "credentials" or your "big plans" for Fleet captain (Star Trek)), you demonstrate the same inability to or disinterest in abiding by WP:NOR et al. Given that the articles on which you work are generally the same as Husnock's (insofar as where Husnock and I overlapped), I think you and Husnock are the same user. --EEMeltonIV 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Welcome back to Reston.

All of that which you said above has absolutely nothing to do with the articles we are discussing and still gives you no right to be uncivil in conversations and refer to me as a "fanboy". And you now have apparently exposed the fact of where I am editing from, something which I did not wish to even come into this. Can we focus on these articles instead of this? There is no way you can prove who I am without coming to where I am and catching me on the computer. Likewise, you could be telling lies about being an english teacher and an Army officer, since there really is no proof of this on Wikipedia. Yet, I would not stand here and call you a liar like you have done above. But, since you have stated you believe I am this other user, let me leave you then with this quote, directly out of Wikipedia policy:

It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Until next time. -38.119.112.188 07:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways."

Which you have not done. --EEMeltonIV 10:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that gives you the right to break WP:NPA, WP:CIV, call me a liar, and refuse to compromise about articles. Yes, I see how you operate. -38.119.112.187 11:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir- To answer your question, the ip addresses to which you are posting messages are used by a public computer lab in the city of Dubai. We use both American and Arab servers, with our Arab server counterpart under the several ips, among them User:195.229.242.84. Please be aware that messages you post are visible to many different people, including American service members. We are fully aware that this account has been used by people to cause problems on Wikipedia and monitor such activity very closely. We ask established Wikipedia users to avoid inflaming the situation by posting negative or harsh messages to these ip addresses. If you experience a policy violation or a threatening post from someone at this address, please alert us and we will investigate at once. Thank you! -38.119.112.187 04:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A post from your other commonly-used IP addressed? Yeah, okay.

Yes, it is a public lab. And just to prove that we're legit... -195.229.236.213 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another IP addresses -- 195.229.242.84 -- that posts material related to Husnock and SS goons' insignia. So what you're saying is, there's another one to keep an eye on. Got it. --EEMeltonIV 10:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this bullshit about “every single ip address posting from the Middle East who makes a change related to an article that Husnock once worked on must therefore be Husnock” is getting real old and real stupid. I’ve watched you and others bash into these ip addresses which are spread across the Middle East from Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia screaming that they are all Husnock and he has returned to disrupt Wikipedia. What nonsense. Are you really a United States Army officer? Yet you would harass someone who is stationed in the Middle East? What the fuck?!? If someone is a sockpuppet then report his ass. If you don’t have proof let it rest. And that goes for your friend 38.199 who keeps on talking about this. He might very well be Husnock, but the point is YOU WILL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE. So why make such a big deal? Let it go and lets all get back to editing. -213.42.21.79 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha[edit]

I was wonderng how much you know about this site. I looked around over there and didn't see near the amount of rules and regulations compared to Wikipedia. Thats also not really a good thing, since there doesnt seem to be controls on vandalism, threats, etc, that are dealt with sternly and quickly on Wikipedia, and also no system of administrators or an admin noticeboard. Any thoughts? -OberRanks 09:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Boxes[edit]

If you have 5 minutes to spare could have a quick look at my user page and tell me why two of userboxes are not working. "This user enjoys reggae" can't be impossible to do, please? Thanking you. SmokeyTheCat 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Wing[edit]

I noticed similar headings under the characters "D. Wire Newman" and "Arnold Vinick" comparing the first to Jimmy Carter and the second to John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Barry Goldwater. These articles cited no sources, so I didn't think that was an issue. The whole point of these these characters is that they're unspoken but understood associations with real life characters, which is why there's no credit in the episode saying, "Jimmy Carter, played as D. Wire Newman".

Toward(s)[edit]

Both "toward" and "towards" are acceptable in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.145.134 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but one uses an unnecessary character. I come from a journalism background; "towards" is sloppy writing. --EEMeltonIV 11:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Ranks[edit]

Mike Okuda was wrong about some of the designs and the pictures of the pins are actually more accurate as they are in exact accordance with Robert Fletcher's notes and they were done by the same person that did them for the movies. Okuda got the coloring off on some of the pins (ex. the "hats" of the enlisted were not gold), the Admiral graphic is WAY off, and the rank of Petty Officer 2nd class is missing entirely. Try looking at this page to see what I am talking about:

http://www.st-spike.org/pages/uniforms/2278-2350/ranks_comparison.htm

It mentions all of the inconsistencies out there. Then can we restore the pics?

Thanks, -Flans44

There's a section of the article set aside for apparent inconsistencies. However, all material needs to be cited and avoid editors making non-npov about what is "right" and "wrong" insofar as this fictional material, as such judgment calls are WP:OR. --EEMeltonIV 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Present tense in fiction ==[edit]

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Presentation_of_fictional_material --EEMeltonIV 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm, personally, not a fan of the MOS as some of it is very much contra correct English usage. In particular, detailing fictional elements in the present tense on the basis that this is how the story is experienced seems wholly wrong as it pulls the reader straight into the universe. Writing the article from a historical perspective maintains the distanced objectivity normally associated with the out-of-universe style. It seems like a significant stylistic contradiction, when the stated aim is to avoid the in-universe style, to be writing the article in such a way as to draw people straight into the fiction. Having said that, I'm not into trolling and I suppose this could be chalked up to just another difference in contemporary usage between British English and American English. Thanks AulaTPN 07:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot revert to Nitrium[edit]

Your recent edit to Nitrium (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrium[edit]

Was there a AfD on this? I thought it was considered for deletion (not sure if a formal AfD) but it was saved and vastly expanded.VK35 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any particular discussion on the talk page. It's a bit of treknobabble in a single episode, and not anything that can verifiably be expanded even to a significant in-universe article, let along anything to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Hence, redirect to that aforementioned episode. --EEMeltonIV 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] See this diff about a deletion warning but then the article was improved. See how short the stub was before improvment. Therefore, I think it should remain an article. How about if I worked on it some more? Is it your goal to delete the article? Let me know your thoughtsVK35 18:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the earlier flag that it is non-notable. Even Memory Alpha's blurb is just a couple of sentences; there is no real-world notability for this imaginary material, and I doubt an article would hold up under AfD. The length of the article/stub is generally insignificant if all it is is plot summary (and uncited in-universe extrapolations based on dialog). Probably best to focus energies on those aspects of Trek (and everything else) that are significant out-of-universe. --EEMeltonIV 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we give weight to the fact that there's a category for fictional materials. Also the possibility that people will look up Nitrium but often will not remember the episode title? What if they are intersted only in Nitrium and not the episode?VK35 18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I'm going to let this sit for a day. How about putting it on a back burner for now while we contemplate.VK35 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying-and-pasting (and continuing) this discussion on the article talk page. --EEMeltonIV 18:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

You need to cite proper rationale for deletion; which I did not see. BTW I didn't remove any user comments. Thank You FrankWilliams 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrium[edit]

I've said it and I'll repeat. I don't consider you "the other side" or that this is a true content dispute. How about taking down the AfD and I'll submit a Request for Comment regarding adding a moderate (not a sentence but not the whole thing) amount of nitrium information to the episode article then redirecting it.VK35 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no. I think you have ownership issues over this article and would like to square it away. The AfD's already begun and is faster than the RfC process. --EEMeltonIV 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ownership but deletion (not revision) of material edited. How about cancelling the AfD and letting me write an article about real Nitrium and you get the redirect? In fact, now I'm getting interested in the real nitrium!VK35 20:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call in the admin yet! See what I'm doing first (in progress). I assume that (and may change my vote to) a redirect will happen and I'll write the article on the real nitrium. The edit history will remain. Also careful what you vote for. We should consider deleting the AfD because you are calling for a delete, not a redirect. If deleted, there will be no redirect. I'm not there yet, but I am strongly considering backing your opinion (i.e. redirect and very, very short mention of nitrium in the episode article)VK35 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Remember what I said, i.e. I don't oppose you, my friend.VK35 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. What should we do? Speedy delete (except make let me make a disambiguation redirect)? I am willing to condense the nitrium article to around 2 sentences. If we act now, we can make it a redirect instead of the AfD admin not being familiar with this and just deleting it wholesale.VK35 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still early and the AfD is not crowded with others yet. You give me the consensus ok and I'll start the redirect process. I would like your advice on how to keep nitrium in the Category:Star Trek materials, though.VK35 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't redirect, how do we keep Nitrium in the Category:Star Trek materials list? If there is a redirect, then Nitrium will be listed in that category list.VK35 22:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M4[edit]

Because the data wasn't merged with the other article that you suppose to. And because the information is important enough to be in an encyclopedia; so either merge all of it or leave the article alone. FrankWilliams 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to delete, not to merge. And neither I nor anyone else said they would merge the material. This is plot summary with no establishment of the thing's real-world notability -- because there is one. Wikipedia operates under consensus; sometimes we all finds ourselves in the minority opinion, as you did -- if you can't abide by that, then this website may not be the place for you. Memory Alpha, I note, doesn't have an article on M4 -- they may appreciate the content over there. But the article now, and the article that was deleted, is unencyclopedic and does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --EEMeltonIV 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else has protected it from recreation, so no worries here. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 08:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EEMeltonIV since you hold yourself in such high regard as far as determining what is trivial information and what information is pertinent in articles; can I start calling on you for permission before all my edits to ensure you don't revert or changes them? Much appreciated. FrankWilliams 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't. Instead, consult Wikipedia's policies on what should and should not be included. That's what I base my additions and removals from; might work for you, too. If you take exception to another user's edits, consider using WP:RFC. --EEMeltonIV 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. Am I to assume that commas still stay inside quotation marks? The Wikipedia manual of style didn't comment on this. Bolt Vanderhuge 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, actually no, those stay outside, too. Basically, unless the punctuation is actually part of the quote, title, etc., leave it outside. --EEMeltonIV 04:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the Featured Article[edit]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great job fighting vandalism on today's Featured Article! —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars film title abbreviations[edit]

I removed these earlier, I see you have replaced them. I may have missed previous correspondence on this point, so sorry if this is going over old ground. But do these abbreviations really justify inclusion? I have never heard of any of the six films being referred to by these acronyms. Even if they are used by a niche group of fans, why does that warrant a mention at the start of each article? What some fans happen to call the films is a mere point of trivia, isn't it? 11:51, 26 May 2007 193.63.62.252

I'm a little chagrined -- I just saw that the citation for these bits is a fanboy site; hardly a reliable source. Still, the abbreviations show up at starwars.com and elsewhere; it's worth including Somewhere in the article (if a RS can be dug up, that is). If you were to axe 'em (again), I wouldn't restore it unless I also found a reliable source. --EEMeltonIV 11:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have just axed them again. I hadn't actually noticed how unreliably sourced they were, they just felt out of place. If the article on Tony Blair said in the first paragraph that 'close friends call him Big Tone', (!) it would clearly be inappropriate, and mentioning these fanboy acronyms so early on just has something of that feel to it - which is a shame, given that the Star Wars material is generally so well crafted now. 13:25, 26 May 2007 User:193.63.62.252

stretched exponential[edit]

Greetings - I'd like to understand why you removed the reference to the stretched exponential decay in stray bodies in the solar system? This is original research, and indeed there was a link (via doi) to a new paper in the peer reviewed journal Icarus, Journal of Solar System studies. The question of why the particles follow a stretched exponential decay is still under investigation. Nevertheless, it is another example (and there do not seem too be many) of Nature showing this type of behavior, so I'd argue the removed information strengthens the article.

stretched exponential, revisited[edit]

W.r.t. the last message: sorry EEMeltonIV...my bad. It looks like I was reading an earlier version of the article, never mind. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Changcho (talk • contribs)

"please do research before removing information"[edit]

Actually, I was referring to the fact that Star Wars canon was already linked in the sentence, and had you simply clicked on the link, you would have found out what G-canon was (as it was intended for you to do so). Instead you simply deleted the information because it was not implicitly stated and you disagreed with the source. That is what I meant by "research". The Filmaker 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers and Spelling[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the spoiler guidelines. I was unaware.

My spelling changes in The Velvet Underground are consistent with Wikipedia spelling guidelines. I can see how someone might justifiably take offence at changing correct national spelling in articles with subjects not specific to a particular nationality. However, I believe it is perfectly appropriate to favour American spelling in an article about an American band, just as British spelling is most appropriate in articles about J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Cheers. 75.87.109.190 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob and Ben[edit]

What are we going to do about this guy adding OR? Should we report him?--CyberGhostface 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heartened that he's entered into a discussion on the talk page but has not yet restored the material to the article. We'll see what happens. --EEMeltonIV 19:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon[edit]

Hello ... User 72.190.106.230 (talk · contribs) is getting to be a real problem ... they blanked the warnings that I left on their talk page, claiming that they were "libel" in their edit summary ... since you have dealt with their addition of OR to the Klingon article (again), would you please leave your mark on their talk page as well?

I mean, I'm willing to help bring them up to speed on using <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> for citations and such, as I am with other nuggets, but not if they're just going to act like a WikiTroll and remain silently in the shadows ... and thnx fer hanging {{fact}} tags on their last edit as replacements for the bogus blog references, because I noticed the addition, and was about to convert them to proper references to join the rest, but then I discovered what you had done instead ... faced with pure, weapons-grade balonium like that, my evil twin would have probably just done another UNDO and then posted another nasty-gram on their talk page. ;-)

Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. --EEMeltonIV 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maint. tags[edit]

I've reverted the removal of the tags by Ryu. Have a good evening, Matthew 19:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of C-3PO (er, shortly before being shot to pieces): Nice to see a familiar face. --EEMeltonIV 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eww... Star Wars! He's removed the tags again, and is seemingly claiming a fan sites section is good enough. I'm tempted to revert him :\. Matthew 19:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Janeway[edit]

Whoa! Close call there … we almost had an edit conflict on this article, because I didn't notice that you had started making changes while I was adding a comment to the talk page about my re-write before I copied what I'd edited in my sandbox to replace the intro paragraph … thnx fer the expansion of the Nemisis cameo reference, because I only saw it once, and didn't remember enough to describe what her orders were. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

Excellent work with the tags. By the way, you might be interested in something I'm working on the past few days (it's still in the draft stages): User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). — Deckill er 06:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely focused or tightned yet, but the general ideas should be clear enough. — Deckill er 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Star Destroyer[edit]

Holy mother... that article is bad. I had a brain waive: stubification. We have a lot of articles that can be written well... but are in a terrible state. It's often hard to fix these bad apples without a big rewrite. These articles should be stubified, this makes them more maintainable (and if people add junk, they can just be reverted). Matthew 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Years[edit]

You said to site my sources. I have two saying that Luke was 20, not 19, during Star Wars Episode IV. The first is a novelization of Empire Strikes Back by Donald F. Glut and is a 1999 reprint of a 1980 novelization. My second source is my Dad who claims that when Episode IV came out, he saw a poster saying Luke was 20. See A New Hope discussion. Emperor001 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style Advice[edit]

Hi, I have recently been editting the 'peer trainer' article that has been tagged with ~~blatant advertisement~~ the advert template. I have posted comments on the talk page, but no one has responded. I was wondering if you could take a look at the page and give me any suggestions on my talk page. Thanks! Crhwang 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it this weekend. --EEMeltonIV 13:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The page was tagged with the advert template. The page has since been rewritten, however the tag is still there. I believe the article is now written from a neutral point of view, but would like to ask you for your opinion, and also on how to have the template removed. Thanks again in advance! --Crhwang 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at and made some edits to the article. I hope you find them useful. --EEMeltonIV 07:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I really appreciate the help! The references were taken out mistakingly but have been added back in. I have added back in only the referenced statements and kept the 'claims' statements that you recommended. --Crhwang 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on James T. Kirk[edit]

Hi; I do not understand why you reverted my "minor edition" on the article above. Could you explain to me? Thanks. --Tonyjeff 10:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am still waiting for an answer. I would like to understand why did you revert my edition on the article above. Have I disrespect some procedure? Could you tell me, then? Thanks. --Tonyjeff 16:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the meaning of "minor edit". --EEMeltonIV 17:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, please wait more than six hours and ten minutes before "poking" someone to respond to a talk-page request. Few users are on Wikipedia all the time. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's annoying to see "New message" flash across the screen after I make my first edit of the day, and it's someone prodding me to hurry up and respond to them. Chill out. --EEMeltonIV 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lwaxana Troi article revisions[edit]

Since you took the trouble to leave a message on my talk page, would you mind terribly actually stating the article in question? I edit a lot of articles and it took me a while to determine exactly to which one you were referring. Forteblast 05:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]