User talk:EEMIV/Archive12 - Misplaced Pages

< User talk:EEMIV

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEMIV (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 12 March 2009 (→Abusive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:59, 12 March 2009 by EEMIV (talk | contribs) (→Abusive)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:EEMIV/activetalkpageheader

Orient Express

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)

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

RfA thanks

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)

Tarquin

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)

Jedi Code

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

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)

Regarding this

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 17:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI re. your evil impersonator

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

Another one for your scratchlist:

98.180.208.214 (talk · contribs) HalfShadow 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User space edits on User:Edgarde/tools

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)

Constitution-class and Enterprise-A

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)

Talkback

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)

Huh?

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)

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

re romulan/tal shiar

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

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)

Beat me to it

Drat, I wanted to follow through on my promise. Grrr. :) - Arcayne () 16:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) 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)

Abusive

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)

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 the fuck away. --EEMIV (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)