User talk:GimliDotNet/Archives/2013/March

Edit on Emeraude's page
I know that is not something your meant to do but I am absolutely does up of that man, a number of IP editors and log on's are! He has politicized wikipedia and he won't listen to reason!213.120.148.60 (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with him you should follow proper procedures like WP:RFC or WP:ARV GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  14:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He won't, since his own edits are so lacking in neutrality that he could never make a case, if there were one to make. It seems to me he is a suitable case for reference through those procedures himself. Emeraude (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Redheugh Gardens War Memorial
Hi. Just to let you know, that edit you reverted was by banned editor Peter Judge (he always uses an IP but always signs his name), so if you're watching that article, please do feel free to revert any edits from him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, wasn't sure that the user was banned so just reverted his rantings. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  10:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey GimliDotNet; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Gimli
To be picky: he does exist at that point (App. A says he was born in 2879). But I agree it doesn't belong. -- Elphion (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He doesn't exist as a character at that point I mean. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  19:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's why he doesn't belong. -- Elphion (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mithril talk refactor
I hope I correctly understood the guidelines of Refactoring. With the intention of improving the readability of the talk page as a whole:
 * I combined all of the Analogous real-world substances sections into sub-sections of one new section.
 * I combined all of the Outside of Tolkien's writings sections into sub-sections of another new section.
 * In each case, I added an introduction to explain the rearrangement.

Is that appropriate? I figured I'd be bold (particularly on a less-visible page like a talk page), but it never hurts to ask after the fact.

Additionally, I opened the question of whether discussion of analogous real-world substances belongs in the main article, and if so, what would constitute a sufficiently reliable source. Unless I've overlooked something in the standards, that seems like an appropriate call for discussion.

—Steve98052 (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Prince Harry
When did NBC become an unreliable source? Cresix (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)