User talk:EEMIV/Archive5

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

Enlisted Ranks[edit]

Sorry, I can't figure out how to respond on that page. As for not including the mcpo 2nd class, It was never used in the movies. It was done by the TNG wardrobe dept. The creator of the pins for all of the TOS movies only did what was in Fletcher's notes (I have been in contact with her to get the pins that I have pictured). It would at best fit in the conflicts section or maybe as a note in the 24th century spinoffs section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flans44 (talk • contribs)

I really like it better separated. Can we put it back in two different charts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flans44 (talk • contribs)

More charts is more clutter in an already clutter part of the article -- the fleet captain image, the different lt.cdr. pins, etc. The commodore/fleet captain pin, however, isn't presented elsewhere, nor are two of the lt. cdr. insignia. But a whole separate table for what amounts to minor color differences that stem from production inconsistencies in background costumes in a make-believe universe... I don't think it's necessary. --EEMeltonIV 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Image:Tieadvanced.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Image:Tieadvanced.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well-intentioned bot created edit-conflict when I was trying to enter FUR. FUR's all there. --EEMeltonIV 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tiebomber.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tiebomber.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot needs a parent; "no-fair-use-rationale" went right below . . . the fair-use rationale. --EEMeltonIV 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was using an older fair-use/copyright tag. All better now. --EEMeltonIV 06:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a violation[edit]

In response to this

What I said wasn't a violation of assuming good faith, it was just my frustration at how some articles were destroyed because just one person decided it wasn't sourced enough, I have a current total of 4 pages on my watchlist that are for deleted pages, I will never take them off my watchlist though. BassxForte 00:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting links[edit]

For some reason, you keep deleting the UnOfficial NYPD Auxiliary Myspace Page Link off the NYPD Auxiliary Wikipedia page. Please stop doing this. Link are always welcome on Wikipedia and the link IS NOT spam. I am putting it back up. Thank You for all your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MOOOOOPS (talk • contribs)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:LINKS. Fan sites and personal sites are essentially spam and inappropriate for Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 04:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass RfD nomination[edit]

Hi, you might want to note next time that redirects without an existing target can be tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#R1 instead. Singu larity 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Since seeing your note, I've used the CSD to clear out some dead redirects left after other recent AfDs. Much appreciated! --EEMeltonIV 06:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name Citation[edit]

Responded to in full at Talk:Darth Nihilus

Darth Nihilus's name is derived from Nihilism. I'm re-adding the info now. BassxForte 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some caution[edit]

I would've given you some precaution earlier but now you're right in the middle of it. Try to avoid conflict(revert warring, etc) with BassxForte. Don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. You might have already seen a bit of his history, so I won't bother explaining. - Zero1328 _Talk? 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, but while there's been some quick back-and-forth on the Darth Nihilus talk page, he's only re-added the material once or twice. Based on his most recent post on the talk page, I think he really has gone back through the relevant bits about reliable sources and citations policies and recognized he needs to find a third-party source. I hope he does; I absolutely agree with the content he wants to add, but I also agree with Wikipedia's requirements when it comes to substantiating its assertions. --EEMeltonIV 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:SD/SSD[edit]

In response to this

No problem; I'm glad you liked the merges. I did some referencing and tweaking to the article to get it ready for a WP:GA, but I think we still need some info on critical reception (polls, critics' impressions, etc) to show broad coverage. I don't think we'll be able to find more real-world info on individual Star Destroyers though; any ideas? — Deckill er 04:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can think of would be to flip through some old print sources -- those coffee table making-of books that came out during the 20th anniversary and SE re-release. Alas, I left alllll of my Star Wars and Star Trek literature in my mother's attic when I left for college almost a decade ago. Whenever I do make it home, I spend some time sifting through for information (NB massive revisions to Starfleet ranks and insignia around New Years). Probably there's some stuff sitting on the shelves at Barnes & Noble that might be find-able. --EEMeltonIV 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your work jump-starting WP:FICT (especially the new version) and WP:WAF for Star Wars has been awesome; it's what the Star Wars articles needed. Now if we can only drag User:Dmoon1 from history articles... — Deckill er 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I hadn't realized the revised WP:FICT was up; I need to skim through it. In a lot of ways, this is me making up for infusing a fair amount of cruft into Star Trek-related materials when I started editing a couple of years ago. It's nice now to be familiar with policy and guidelines ;-) --EEMeltonIV 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

issue with Fredrick day[edit]

I saw you had an issue with Fredrick day over sourcing in Star Trek (Fan made productions). I now have an issue with his attempt to delete my new article Dumbest Decisions in Movie History. I would welcome your comments here: [[1]] Thank you. r3 19:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per my note on your talk page, please do not (you or anyone else skimming through my talk page) canvass me to chime in on an AfD simply because of previous overlap with someone involved with the AfD. I rarely comment on AfDs that I did not initiate or on articles that I have not edited. --EEMeltonIV 21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next target?[edit]

I say that, before we go for GAs/FAs, we just try to get things to meet WP:FICT first. Perhaps we should finish up the Star Wars ships. — Deckill er 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My plan has been to scoot through the vehicles listed on the various SW vehicle navigation templates, do a few merges (one per an AfD a while ago that I think was just dropped). The templates themselves I think can all probably be consolidated once the crufy material gets erased or consolidated elsewhere. I think Snowspeeder is next on my list . . . can't remember. I'm away from home now mooching a weak wireless connection connected to a satellite hookup -- not the most expeditious way to have a bunch of tabs open poking around for info. And, yeah, it's also summer break; taking things slowly for a bit. :-) --EEMeltonIV 06:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the SW craft infobox needs reworking -- many, but not all, articles cite in-universe units for shields and hull, and much of the info. is just trivia (who cares about shield and hull ratings, anyway?). Need to compare it to the fictional spacecraft template User:Matthew conjured up, which works pretty well, although it, too, I think includes too much trivia. --EEMeltonIV 06:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the infoboxes are fine for the major ships, since the major ships have real-world content and can take an out-of-universe perspective. I started working on Snowspeeder yesterday; it's going to be hard to find anymore information then what's already there, methinks. I agree that all the ship templates can be compressed. All those "lists of ships" that I merged from hundreds of small articles last year can be redirected to a general article entitled "ships of Star Wars" when it's completed. — Deckill er 12:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a "Walker (Star Wars)" article at User:Deckiller/Walker (Star Wars). — Deckill er 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: someone is already working on X-Wing in a user sandbox. — Deckill er 04:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll . . . scoot around somewhere else. In the morning; bed time. Oh, I like what you've put together so far for the walker amalgamation. --EEMeltonIV 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance template overload on Death Star[edit]

It seems back in June you added 3 maintenance templates in a row to the article Death Star above the opening paragraph. While maintenance templates have their place, they should not be more prominent than the article itself. This also seems to contravene WP:ASR. I have removed all three of them. If you wish to reinstate the maintenance templates, please put your specific complaints in the sections having problems, and/or use less prominent templates like {{fact}}, or better yet, just fix it. Thanks. —dgies^t_c 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxes[edit]

Just FYI, you accidentally created EEMeltonIV/Sandbox in the mainspace; I copied the contents over to User:EEMeltonIV/Sandbox and deleted EEMeltonIV/Sandbox. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, oops -- thanks :-] --EEMeltonIV 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Vehicles[edit]

Responding to this

Looks good. For all the cruft articles, it'll be a lot better to redirect them and avoid AfDs and fanboy debates. — Deckill er 01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.107.174.221 (talk · contribs)[edit]

You might be interested in checking out 71.107.174.221 (talk · contribs), who seems to disagree with how we are to handle fiction on Wikipedia. — Deckill er 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That established articles are not notable enough clearly violates WP:NPOV.--71.107.174.221 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err . . . can you cite a relevant policy or guideline to substantiate that dubious claim? --EEMeltonIV 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing droid ships and whatnot[edit]

One option for droid starfighters, control ships, landing ships, STAPs, etc. is to discuss it all in a "Droid army" article. We can have subarticles for Battle Droid/Droideka, etc. if necessary. I was also thinking of merging all the "Starships of the Rebel Alliance" (Y-Wing, etc. except X-Wing) into an encyclopedia article. This type of organization will show solid notability. — Deckill er 05:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way might be just Star Wars spacecraft, into which V-wing starfighter and Nebulon-B frigate would also fit. Are you thinking something akin to your Walker rewrite, somewhere between a more traditional article and a list -- Wookieepedia links for the truly minor ones (e.g. Missile Boat (Star Wars), {{Main}}s for the big ones (e.g. TIE fighter) and the actual relatively brief blurbs for the others (e.g. Nebulon-B frigate)? --EEMeltonIV 05:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm thinking along the lines of that article/list combo (like Star Destroyer or the walker rewrite). There are many ways we can toy around with this. Hmm... — Deckill er 05:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Destroyer[edit]

Trimming is good, of course, but you may have gone a tad too far with Star Destroyer. It's okay to provide in-universe context such as manufacturer, and some numbers to show relative size and major features/differences (especially in general articles). — Deckill er 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KotOR 2[edit]

Responding to this

No, I am not involved with "Team Gizka but appreciates their effort. I have been checking out their sites and the their forums for last year or so. Given the fact that KOTOR 2 is widely accepted as incomplete game with an seemingly uneven ending. Also to be noted that no more official patches will be forthcoming. I believe their effort is very sincere, so will continue supporting them irrespective of your personal opinion which seems very negative to fan mods. Since all the mods will be available free of cost and will and add improve the content and game-play not to mention all the crash and bug fixes. I hope that you at least checkout their credentials before hijacking this page like you did to terminate "Team Gizka Wikipedia page". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.106.168 (talk) 21:21, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

What i have seen thus far that you are very much involved with wikipedia with tons of entries. Compared to you I am just a newbie from India regarding wikipedia. The main difference between us is our perception of what an editable encyclopedia should be. You seem to adhere to very strict guidelines. I on the other hand believes that an encyclopedia is about providing best possible information to a user who would gain something from reading it. This wikipedia rules i believe were intend to weed-out / protect-against malicious content like defamation etc. For constructive information these rules should bend a little.

Now let me get into specifics regarding this. I agree with you that there could be lack of notability and reliability where sources are concerned. But you have to be aware of the fact that this game is old now (almost forgotten except for fans) and no new information regarding it will be released from official and other sources like game sites and gaming magazines. But should that be the end of it?

I have already explained to you in my last post the reasons I want modding information to be there on KOTOR2 page. There is no point is repeating that again.

You seem to believe that everyone was against merging Team Gizka information, this I disagree with you as "discussion page" has arguments on both sides. From what I have read, there was editing war on this issue already sometime back.

Final thought - I believe that that when you delete an entire section of information just because your strict adherence to wikipedia rules. You seems to disregard other people effort on your whims. This is WRONG and downright rude in my opinion. You could have tagged these information instead as an alternative to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.106.168 (talk • contribs)

KOTOR 2 followup[edit]

The IP editor has been blocked for 3RR, so the article should be stable for the moment if you want to attempt another cleanup. Regards. --Muchness 01:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd gone through and collected diffs to post at 3RR, and then had an edit-conflict with you posting the same thing :-] --EEMeltonIV 01:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Looks like I spoke too soon about the article being stable :) --Muchness —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

Checking for double redirects[edit]

When one redirects an article to another article (such as here) one should also fixup any double redirects that one may have created. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 04:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know; I regularly do that. Sorry if I missed some. --EEMeltonIV 04:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movieguy[edit]

I have now reported an incident involving the removal of reaction information by Movieguy999 at WP:ANI. Any comments there should be very much appreciated. Greg Jones II 17:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathewignash[edit]

Thanks for double-checking. You never know when I might miss something like that :) Shell ^babelfish 19:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picard reverts[edit]

Wondering if you would care to add to the discussion that another user keeps reverting the article and saying our discussion has no bearing on the article. Anything I tell the user he refutes as I do not know what I'm talking about, and figured if others could inform him of the voting for consensus process he could see. I invited him to the discussion, but he hasn't commented, and is just reverting the good faith edits. Ejfetters 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Wars vehicle articles[edit]

I noticed you and Deckiller are working on the star wars vehicles articles, and I had a thought. You have the dual problem of no lead article, and a bunch of vehicle lists that are not that great. Perhaps you could merge them into a Star Wars vehicles list, make it a featured list, and then build a featured topic from there? It's a bit longer term, but it seems very possible based on what you guys have accomplished thus far. Judgesurreal777 21:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In recognition of trimming and deleting many unnecessary articles, and thus clearing the way for better articles to take their place, I hereby award you the Editor's Barnstar. Congratulations!!

Many thanks! Yes, once the notable(-ish) vehicles are more rounded out with real-world info., my next to-do list item is to move through the various List of...s, trimming plot summary, finding any real-world info., and otherwise linking over to the folks at Wookieepedia. Yeah, it's a bit longer-term, and I appreciate the encouragement. --EEMeltonIV 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

I created these article a while ago before I understood things like notability and writing in fiction. They aren't notable, and if you would merge them into Lone Wolf (gamebooks), I would be thankful; I love the series, and after all the work I did on it, I just don't have the heart to :) Judgesurreal777 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dukat[edit]

I thought I had done a fairly good job rewriting Dukat (Star Trek) out-of-universe. I'm guessing you've tagged it again because all it's down to is a plot summary? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You did an admirable job paring down the trivia and giving good citations to episodes, but it is still in-universe plot summary. --EEMeltonIV 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garak Article[edit]

I just wanted to tell you that you are doing good work on the Garak article (even though my "anal" edits suggest otherwise). I apologize if I seem a bit pushy, I simply try to make articles "imitate" fictional articles that have made GA or even FA. Keep it up! :) --VorangorTheDemon 09:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image help[edit]

Hi, since you have been involved a lot in the Star Trek articles, I was wondering if you could help "police" the actor pages for non-free images. I have seen users placing the character screencaps on the actor/actress pages. I am trying to help notify users why it's not permitted and reverse the changes, but though I would try to recruit some extra help. The article that as of late this has been going on with is [[Terry Farrell (actress) with Image:JadziaDax.jpg. I have been trying to find some images of the actors that have missing pictures. Terry is one of a handful that we need to get some images for. Terry Farrell, Nicole de Boer, Avery Brooks, Colm Meaney, Robert Duncan McNeill, Jennifer Lien - all have no images, so if you could help me make sure the images that anyone places are free? Thanks for your help. Ejfetters 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add those actors' articles to my watchlist and keep an eye out for people placing screencaps. --EEMeltonIV 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Force edits[edit]

Thanks for the assist, and for cleaning up/moving off those bits I screw up or miss. If I make an edit that you really don't agree with, shoot me a note and we'll talk about it. I really hope tis makes SW contributors fight like hell to cite all the material so it can come back in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I might ask, is there a secondary source for your observation of this edit? While I do not doubt for a moment your observations, WP considers this primary sourcing and insists on secondary - or external sourcing. I think that a review of the games might work perfectly as a source for a citation. What do you think?

Yes, it should be cited -- either to a review or, if they're still up, maybe LucasArts' info. sites. --EEMeltonIV 02:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I was thinkiong that the picture of Palapatine using the force lightning might be better served by using it to replace the Yoda picture in the Force abilities section (as the picture is demonstrative of a force ability, whereas Yoda speaking to a crowd is not). As well, I was wondering if you think the article might not benefit from a image of a Darth Maul/Kenobi, Kenobi/Vader or Windu/Palpatine image, as it serves as a metaphor for the conflict between these two views of the Force. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty ambivalent about it. So long as the images have thorough fair-use rationales, just about anything will suffice. --EEMeltonIV 02:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. I'll swap it out tomorrow morning, and float some pics in Discussion and we can all choose/decide. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson Aliens[edit]

I put this article back, as you had no right to destroy it (see the discussion page for more details). Please call for a vote before you take this kind of action. I don't know the traditions on WP:EN, but on the WP I come from, any administrator mediation would ultimately prove you wrong on this matter. 160.92.7.68 09:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your contributions and it would seem that you are used to this kind of things. If you think a page needs to become a redirect, you HAVE TO call for a vote. This gives time to editors to think about the relevance of the page, and update/merge it, in order not to lose any (sometimes interesting) information. Think of it that way : what would YOU do, if an article you liked, or even created or helped create, was unilaterally (i.e. without warning, and without asking anyone) removed or redirected by some user who thought it was irrelevant to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.92.7.68 (talk • contribs)

Well, this is a different Wikipedia. When people have previously disagreed with my redirects, I've generally gone through the AfD process; the article is deleted, the redirect restored. Sometimes a sentence or two is incorporated into the redirected-to article, although I've gotten better about adding such relevant material and/or an external link. Sorry you disagree with me; as a newcomer(?) to this Wiki project, you might want to review pertinent writing-about-fiction and notability-in-fiction guidelines at WP:WAF and WP:FICT, respectively. --EEMeltonIV 18:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomer only to this one wikipedia. But I particularly dislike being treated as an ignorant fool by smug people like you. Aint you the know-it-all type? So you should know that it's your attitude that disrupts WP. You act like it's all your encyclopedia, I'd even say, you act like it's you own personal blog, erasing other-users-originated material that does not fit your own vision of the world. I could not say that I envy you. Your life must be sooo dull, so unhappy that you have to liberate all your frustrations here, where you seem to have a little power. Humility is not what I would use to qualify you, quite the contrary, actually.

I know the conventions, regulations, guidelines, not in detail, only the main parts (I do indeed have a life outside WP), but I know that every law is composed of two parts : The Text of the law, and the Spirit of the law : i.e. its sensible and common sense interpretation. Regulations, especially here, aint dogma. Period. Regulations may be good when they serve common sense, but I'll always fight Dogma.

So, is this a personal attack? You decide. I would joyfully have insulted you, but what purpose would it serve ? I leave you with your very productive life, wishing you the best, or not. Oh, and on your todo list, don't forget to buy a rope.

160.92.7.69 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surak External Links[edit]

Hi, EE -- Glad to see you retained the Stoicism link from the Surak Wikipedia page, which all should agree isn't linkspam. But I'm not sure the External Links you removed (9/14) are linkspam, either. Although I'm a member of circleofreason.org, I'm uninvolved in either surak.org or the independently-inserted mtseleya.org link -- and consider none of these three sites to be self-promoting as much as relevant real-world expressions or analogs of the philosophy of Surak. Although surak.org and mtseleya.org perhaps could be considered for deletion as "fan" sites or sites with an "in-universe" perspective, a true fan site seems different in purpose than these sites, which have a philanthropic function. Moreover, the circleofreason.org link isn't a fan site at all. So, are you willing to reconsider approving these external links? You are an unbiased third party editor -- do you believe the Surak site should ever link to inspired or related real-world philosophies or organizations, in keeping with the WP:FICT guideline that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot"? Should the historical impact of this character on the public be denoted (especially given the sorry state of world affairs since 9/11)? If you do believe in noting historical impact of the fictional character, what criteria would you accept for link inclusion, or for such a descrption of historical impact? And, if you don't believe the Surak site should link to referents of its historical impact, can you suggest an alternate way for Surak researchers or fans to link to analogous or related philosphies and organizations? Thanks -- Fhburton 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, EE -- How would you feel about a Cultural impact segment for the Surak character supported with relevant sourcing, which should abide by all WP guidelines? The text would read like so:

Cultural impact

The fictional Surak's philosophy of rationalism with emotional mastery and its role as a cornerstone of Vulcan and Starfleet mythos has contributed a philosophical component to the broader cultural influence of Star Trek. Similar to the anecdotal testimonies that Star Trek has inspired many of its viewers to become scientists or engineers (1), other viewers have adopted Starfleet- or Surak- inspired personal philosophies and lifestyles (1,2) and founded Starfleet- or Surak- fan-based (3,4) or Surak-inspired (5) rationalist or humanist charitable organizations. Later popular Sci-Fi television series such as Babylon 5 and Stargate are thought to have achieved their appeal in part by broadly emulating the optimistic rationalist and humanist world-view first embodied in the dramatis personae of Star Trek (6), suggesting this world-view is of continuing appeal.

References

1. Trekkies 1 and Trekkies 2, URLs accessed September 23, 2007.

2. The Philosophy of Surak, URL accessed September 23, 2007.

3. STARFLEET International, URL accessed September 23, 2007; See also STARFLEET International internal link.

4. Mount Seleya Institute, URL accessed September 23, 2007.

5. The Circle of Reason, URL accessed September 23, 2007.

6. Humanism: Gene Roddenberry, URL accessed September 23, 2007.

Fhburton 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IG-88 page[edit]

I have left a response on the "Complete IG-88 Page" that should explane some things. Please note that better references were already on the original page, however, you have deleted them, in addition the research of other users that has been present for some time on that page.

I understand the need to regulate information for verification and to avoid redundency; however, their are very clear differences between our new page and the older page. also note that the information we originally added to the IG-88 page was not out of place with the information already there, and our added information was written specifically to present as clear and precise as possible without repeating information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4loom (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interest in the topic, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. --EEMeltonIV 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Star Wars[edit]

You seem to edit a lot of Star Wars articles, would you like to join wikiproject Star Wars? Astroview120mm 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd already signed up a year or two ago. Errrr. I'll double-check. Thanks! :-) --EEMeltonIV 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tense[edit]

In response to this

fine, I have no problem (outside of the fact this is the most ignored style guideline on wikipedia as far as I have experienced), but you should make efforts to correct the tense throughout the article, as some of it was past tense before I showed up. Claytonian 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porthos (Star Trek)[edit]

I suppose this happened inadvertently. Would you mind restoring my comment? — aldebaer⁠ 10:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Back. --EEMeltonIV 13:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no prob. — aldebaer⁠ 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Wikiproject[edit]

Is there any way to create a wikiproject article rating template, like other ones have, you know, that list how many good articles, A,B, Featured, in a little box chart? Judgesurreal777 16:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is -- but I've never done it before. Would probably be as simple as finding an existing project's template, copy most of the code, replace with Trek-related material. --EEMeltonIV 04:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]