I write this after the couple reverted edits on Orient Express and I get this back? Wonder what that means? lol.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks like he's admitting to deliberate needling. -- EEMIV ( talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which closed with 83 ayes to the right, one no to left and five abstaining users! Sabre ( talk) 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem removing the Tarquin link on Grand Moff's page. I was simply repeating what was on the page for the real King Tarquin. It seems logical that the name would be reused like this, but I agree there's no reference as such. Incidentally, since you like Star Wars, have you seen the current New Yorker (with Rodriguez on steroids on the cover)? It has an interesting article about digging at sites in Tunisia and California where the films were made, looking for relics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Weil ( talk • contribs)

How was that edit "Self-published unreliable source, essentially regurgitation/summary; still non-notable original research." ? Ren ✉ 01:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, there are no specific citations. There's no evidence the Jedi Code actually matters either in the real or fake world. There's no cited third-party commentary at all. The single item in the references list is some quasi-religion thing that doesn't seem to qualify as independent. Basically, same issues and benchmarks I put on the talk page two+ months ago remain unaddressed. -- EEMIV ( talk) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Please note that sources do attest to its notability, i.e. " the story most familiar with US audiences" and that is verifiable in published books. Best, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 17:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.-- Sloane ( talk) 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

ANI report Mfield ( talk) 05:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

98.180.208.214 ( talk · contribs) Half Shadow 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

whack-a-moled him too. Mfield ( talk) 17:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reverting this edit. Generally I like to revert my own vandalism, so generally a talk page comment is preferable. In this case, my sub-page was protected because of the revert war that occurred while I was AFK. That said, I still very much appreciate your intervention. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

How much more specific do I have to be? That screenshot from Best of Both Worlds is OBVIOUSLY A CONSTITUTION REFIT! CLEAR AND PLAIN. Do I need to post a side-by-side comparison with a screenshot of the 1701 from the movies?

You're a goddamn page Nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambaryer ( talk • contribs)

I invite useful comments. However, Nazi epithets from someone who doesn't understand that inferences/interpretations of primary sources constitutes original research don't fall in that category. I do, however, appreciate a new addition to my list of funny edits. -- EEMIV ( talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, EEMIV. You have new messages at GLFan151's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GLFan151 ( talk) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you translate your last message to English for Idiots, and I was posting that the History Channel Dogfight video stating that the HMS Hood fired her last salvo vertically sinking President Cole Herrington ( talk) 00:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You did not cite a source. -- EEMIV ( talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

why did you redirect and merge even though I removed the tags?  rdunn PLIB  10:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks like you removed the tags because they were stale/no one had acted upon them. Seeing them come up in my watchlist reminded me the Tal Shiar is, in fact, a non-notable group that should be merged, similar to the Obsidian Order. -- EEMIV ( talk) 10:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Drat, I wanted to follow through on my promise. Grrr. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

:-) Hey, maybe he'll be back tomorrow -- same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel. If necessary, you can whack the mole then. -- EEMIV ( talk) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You are being an abusive and should likewise assume "good faith." Jimmy Bennett is listed in IMDB as playing James T. Kirk & Carol Burnett did indeed play Kirk on her show. It's not enough that you deleted multiple edits, made revision after revision, but now you're actually deleting my contributions in the discussion page?! Be warned that YOU will be the one that gets blocked for that, not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.150.16 ( talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure you're the same annoying dick who's account was just blocked. And if you're not, your useless sarcasm and asinine "Wiki nazi" comments fall in his same category of "annoying, with no basis on which to assume good faith." If you can ditch the useless Carol Burnett and child actor performances for which there is no third-party commentary (really, can you get it through your head that commentary is a requisite for inclusion?), then I'd be happy to converse with you. Otherwise, go away. -- EEMIV ( talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi EEMIV, whilst I can understand your annoyance, it may be best just to remove this whole section from your talkpage (you're allowed to remove whatever you wish without archiving per WP:USER) and just to let it go. WP:RBI would be a great policy to follow :-) And if you feel yourself bubbling over; just take a break. Wikipedia isn't important enough to allow your blood pressure to skyrocket! If you require any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Meh. Thanks. This guy is annoying. -- EEMIV ( talk) 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your vulgar language has already been captured and reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.228.121 ( talk • contribs)

Be sure also to "report" your block evasion. -- EEMIV ( talk) 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

rolls eyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrandAmanin ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Imperial Academy (Star Wars), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Academy (Star Wars) (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish ( talk) 21:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish ( talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Trek War, Tek War, get it? Pfft... I was just reading through the discussion history on Kirk and I'm trying to understand when and where your change or heart took place on vanity productions. Just curious. Marfoir ( talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I've gone through two :-). I initially opposed including extensive coverage of Cawley and his inclusion in the infobox because I didn't see evidence that his portrayal was notable. The Wired review, however, that talked specifically about his performance was enough of a tipping point that I decided it was worth including in the article -- and because his portrayal is a big-enough deal to be subject of third-party commentary, that seemed sufficient for Le Box. It was also an easy point of compromise for that article, which I beat the crap out of and largely rewrote with a lot of help from Arcayne -- but, we did have some other disagreements, and this is one I was happy to tip over to him. (For a good chunk of that time, we seemed to be the only ones whacking at it; we probably scared off everyone else.)

Still, every time I saw it I thought it was odd. I kept restoring the deletion the other day more because Erik[stuff] didn't follow WP:BRD than a heartfelt desire to keep the content. The sarcasm on the talk page, though, just really pissed me off -- so, I've decided to sit out this conversation. That said, while I agree with Arcayne's observation that Cawley is in a different bin than Carrey/Belushi -- he correctly points out those spoofs are of Shatner hamming as Kirk, and not as much of the underlying character -- Bignole and Sgeureka's comment that, on balance, studio-sanctioned performances make the most sense for a portrayals section of the infobox seems a reasonable cut-off to avoid indiscriminate infobox clutter. (It helps that those two editors are consistently cool-headed; I know I sometimes have trouble around here because I'm quick to pop, and Arcayne of course has that going "for" him, too -- it was a real mess when we first smashed into each other at the article.) I'm receptive to the inclusion criterion being "portrayals that have garnered significant third-party coverage" . . . but, even as I type that, I'm imagining dealing with need to answer the often-divisive "is this significant coverage?" question. Studio-sanctioned performances seem a clear-cut, rationale cut-off; the article itself, unencumbered by space issues with plenty of room to explore ideas, can more thoroughly and clearly explain where fan performances and spoofs and whatever else fit in. I think the consensus is firming up around studio-only, and Arcayne eventually will Get It. I hope. -- EEMIV ( talk) 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that and I agree with your assessment. Until now, I've been a Wikipedia reader and not much more than an anonymous contributor for very small tidbits. You could be one of the peacemakers in this whole thing, but either way I hope Arcayne does eventually "get it". Marfoir ( talk) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You were in the history of the discussion, so I had to include you on this notice. I noted on the filing that you've removed yourself from the discussion.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/James_T_Kirk, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Marfoir ( talk) 11:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/James T Kirk. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 06:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. Per your user page, you're quite the Star Wars and Star Trek guy, and I need advice from one. :-) I am currently looking through free images on flickr for a possible re-use in wikipedia fiction articles. Although my fiction franchise of interest is not as big as ST or SW, there are a few images of props and costumes, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. I could also ask some fans to re-license their pictures from set visits. But I've noticed that the major ST and SW wikipedia articles don't have such images ( R2D2, Imperial stormtrooper, Borg (Star Trek)). Are you aware of a (legal) reason for that? – sgeureka ^{t• c} 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

EEMIV, I'd like to help you with this if you're willing to have me do some of the grunt work for you. I'm sure we could find some pictures to include on the pages that are legal. Erikeltic ( talk) 15:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

SG, I'll take a gander at this early this week. -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Erm, this clearly didn't happen. Last week was nuts, and it's bleeding into this weekend. Hopefully, some time *next* week. -- EEMIV ( talk) 21:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Ship of Lights, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Year Zero is a concept ( talk) 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I've AfDed it. In the off chance you again de-prod something I've prodded, there's no need for Template:Deprod; I keep articles I prod on my watchlist, and in general it isn't necessary to template the regulars, lest this appear on your talk page ;-). -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hiya. You tagged Grace (Apocalyptica song) for A9 speedy. This is incorrect; A9 is only appropriate when the article for the artist has never existed, has been deleted, or is likewise eligible for speedy deletion. Apocalyptica clearly passes WP:MUSIC. If you still think the article should be deleted, you need to go to AFD. Cheers. // roux   19:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I hadn't used Twinkle's CSD for A9 before, and never A9ed something before, so didn't see/realize that was the litmus test. I'll prod/AfD it later. -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Protip: when you mouse over the little question marks next to Twinkle rationales (after you click the CSD tab), the criteria are shown for you. Has helped me tons. // roux   19:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I know. I do most of my editing on fiction topics; it wasn't a matter of me not knowing about the mouseover (not much a "pro"tip, though :-p) but rather making the errant assumption that notability for music was more along the lines of the "significant third-party coverage" bit; didn't occur to me there was a lower bar insofar as CSD eligibilty is concerned. Anyway. Moot point; thanks anyway. -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Have you considered taking this article to FAC? — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 11:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes. I'm not sure it's quite ready: some of the critical reaction stuff transitions awkwardly, and I need firmer FURs for the images. I'll get around to it, though -- maybe while my students are on spring break :-). -- EEMIV ( talk) 13:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, you recently expressed an interest in merging the article for Chase Meridian. There is a proposal for this here. Ryan4314 ( talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks; I've commented there. -- EEMIV ( talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Fighting Chance is a registered 501(3)(c) charity that has been in place since 2002 (thus preceding the song, which also has no references). Several notable third-party sources were sighted in external links section of the post. Can you be more specific about which part you feel reads as an advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimlej ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

(Conversation returned to other editor's talk page)

You might wanna hold off on removing it from your watchlist - seems we've got someone persistent about inserting their film, and I won't always be around... :) TheRealFennShysa ( talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, EEMIV. You have new messages at Lightbound's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, EEMIV. You have new messages at Lightbound's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the support. Any way we can find an image? ☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 01:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

See here. If you help us transwikify the articles, I will support removal of most of them from Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the info, but I know not a lot about Honorverse and what's worth migrating. I'll continue to create redirects for insignificant groups and people, but will keep their Honorvese categories so folks can go through and dig up their complete edit histories. -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Simple. Anything you believe doesn't belong here - which you obviously can judge, as you are prodding/redirecting/AFDing it - should be migrated to Honorverse wiki. At that point, I believe that the opposition to such actions (and the disputes caused by it) will significantly vanish. It is really simple: you can go to the Hwiki, copy/update the article there (or simply note that it has all of our content), and note that in your edit summary. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have no interest in trans-wikiing any of this material, although encourage anyone interested in the topic to hop onto it. My focus is on Wikipedia's content, not ancillary content at other projects. -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have trawikified Elysian Space Navy and House of Winton but I don't have time to transwiify other articles. Again, I hope that you could help with this. If we work together we should be able to significantly improve the quality of articles in Category:Honorverse. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Chipping in here; I, too, have no issue with such stuff going over to wikia-wherever, but have no interest in supporting a commercial site. The burden of squirting things to wherever has to fall on those who know the target site and care to do the work. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, EEMIV. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Have another look.

Apart from that I would like to ask you, have you read Wikipedia:Merge#Performing_the_merger? It seemed to me you skipped a step or two in one or several of the merges. Debresser ( talk) 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

If you're referring to my exclusion of the vast majority of the cruft being excluded from the merge, no, that was deliberate. Most of the targets already cover the content sufficiently. -- EEMIV ( talk) 11:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

As I understand, it is preferable to first paste all of it, and then rework it. Which I did today. I hope you don't mind I redid part of your work. I tried to keep as much as possible, but not too much. Debresser ( talk) 12:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

And yes, I noticed you've cut down a little again, but that's ok with me, as long as it's not too much. Debresser ( talk) 12:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added a lot of merger proposals. Both in articles that had not been tagged at all, as well as in most of the articles you and others have tagged for deletion. Perhaps I can persuade you to support these merger proposals. I've now made up for not doing my homework before (see what I wrote you previously on my talk page), and are ready to make the merges. Which will be effectively the best solution in most cases anyway, I think. Debresser ( talk) 12:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi - is there where you wanted me to respond? I would really appreciate your help with this entry, as I obviously do not understand why the references I have included are not reliable third party sources. I have read all of the information and am still confused. I would really like to make sure that I do this right and any other advice you can give me would be amazingly wonderful. I do have other sources, but wanted to make sure they were not too "local," for example newspaper articles written by local newspapers, etc. The references I used in the original entry were all national organizations and I thought that would be best. I do not want to violate terms, but really don't understand the mistakes I have made. It sounds as though the first step would be to gather more third-party sources. Can you let me know what specifically I should look for? THANKS AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR HELP!!! -- 24.189.110.45 ( talk) 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Beyond the feedback given at the "new articles" talk page to which you also posted, you need to take a gander at the difference between external links and third-party sources. Some of what you had listed in the EL section might function as appropriate RSes. You also need to focus on establishing a netural point of view in your article draft. -- EEMIV ( talk) 00:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply