User talk:EEMIV/Archive8

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

---

• Archive 1 - 17 July 05 to 22 Oct 06
• Archive 2 - 24 Oct 06 to 26 Feb 07
• Archive 3 - 28 Feb 07 to 21 June 07
• Archive 4 - 25 June 07 to 1 Aug 07
• Archive 5 - 6 Aug 07 to 2 Oct 07
• Archive 6 - 2 Oct 07 to 30 Dec 07
• Archive 7 - 1 Jan 08 to 25 Apr 08
• Archive 8 - 30 Apr 08 to 28 Jul 08
• Archive 9 - 29 July 08 to 15 Sep 08
• Archive 10 - 17 Sep 08 to 14 Dec 08
• Archive 11 - 16 Dec 08 to 16 Feb 09
• Archive 12 - 16 Feb 09 to 16 Apr 09
• Archive 13 - 21 Apr 09 to 9 July 09
• Archive 14 - 18 July 09 to 13 Dec 09
• Archive 15 - 24 Dec 09 to 21 Feb 11
• Archive 16 - 29 Mar 11 to 23 Feb 13
• Archive 17 - 1 Mar 13 to 4 Nov 13
• Archive 18 - 11 Nov 13 to 3 Mar 14
• Archive 19 - 10 Mar 14 to 21 Jun 14
• Archive 20 - 23 Jun 14 to 5 Oct 14
• Archive 21 - 13 Oct 14 to 16 Mar 15
• Archive 22 - 19 Mar 15 to 1 Feb 16
• Archive 23 - 8 Feb 16 to ...

---

Okay

Seriously, edit warring is a very, very bad thing. It would have been much better to leave me a note on my talk page rather than simply revert back to the redirect. I'm gonna be honest, I'm somewhat pissed by it, even though I understand why you thought it was okay. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see it as edit warring: I see it as you missing that I opened and was withdrawing the AfD and that there was a consensus at the previous AfD (which wasn't flagged on the List of...'s talk page -- which is why I opened a second and unnecessary AfD). It's not something to get even a little bit pissed about. --EEMIV (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's still better to leave a talk message than to just up and do it; like I said, I understand why, but there was still a "what the hell?" moment when I first saw it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

deprodding

I have deprodded some of your star wards universe characters & suggested changing them to a redirect instead, as the name might well be looked for. since I dont know just where in those pages to redirect to--not being much of a fan--I leave that to you. Or maybe there's a good merge. DGG (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nightmares

In response to this

Anakin tell Padme in episode II that when he is outside meditating that "jedi don't have nightmares" --Vertigo315 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Force Lightning

Please be careful when removing backlinks. That is a redirect and so should be deleted itself not just have the link unwikified. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, my bad -- I hadn't seen a redirect fired up, but I should have anticipated one. :-/ --EEMIV (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Honorverse stuff

Yes, I agree some of them cant hold up as independent articles. But since the terms are likely to be searched for, wouldn't a merge or redirect be more appropriate than deletion? You're more likely to know the right places than I, so perhaps you should do it. DGG (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

In response (I think) to this

My bad on the content, I have an assignment for one of my classes going right now to edit a wikipedia article, so I figured I would add a bit. I figured it would be gone soon, but I thought it would last more than 8 minutes.... :-(

Not a bad call on the edit though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skavvchill007 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Honorverse cleanup

Thanks for cleaning up this mess. I don't have time to fix it all, but I'd highly suggested a series of mergers instead of outright deletions. For example, the recently deleted ship-classes should have been merged into their a single list or added to the list of ships in Honorverse. I will clean up a few articles today, but I'd appreciate it if you could do some mergers, too. Also, please notify User:Dotz Holiday of deletions, he maintains User:Dotz Holiday/deleted honorverse articles with the intent of transferring deleted stuff to dedicated honorverse wiki. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Church Software etc

Hi, I have no objections to the prod of church software, EasyWorship and MediaShout. All three articles were created by others and I only worked on them as my recent editing of contemporary worship included some cleanup of related articles. I have updated worship presentation program to include a link to a survey that gave EasyWorship and MediaShout as the two most popular packages. I don't know if that would be considered as a WP:RS but it's certainly my personal experience as well. Whilst they are notable (IMO), I don't feel that a separate article on each is necessary. Sidefall (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New Star Wars Encyclopedia On The Way?

Hey, a new source will be coming out that you may want to check out. See here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

twinkle

Could indeed be an odd bug though, you may have done some unusual sequence of clicks, even a mouse gesture they haven't caught. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:70.178.56.123

In response to this

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your revert of the blanking of User talk:70.178.56.123, since as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages from their own talk page at will. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that applied for IP pages, since by virtue of being an IP no single user is guaranteed to always connect to that IP. (Although, yes, I know this particular IP seems to be used by the same editor.) --EEMIV (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; just looked at WP:USER and saw the relevant line. --EEMIV (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect on Mysteries of the Sith

OK, I feel sorry for my "rvv" comment but I don't think that it is a good idea to redirect an article what is well described. Volkov ^talk 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Well described" is insufficient for retention on Wikipedia. See WP:WAF and visit the Video Game wikiproject page for content guidelines. --EEMIV (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

70.178.xxx.xxx

Do you think it's time to think about proposing a range block for our friend? That's what an admin suggested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection before semi-protecting one of the page-redirects anyway. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post something at ANI -- the archived my discussion without comment when I brought it up earlier. --EEMIV (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See this. --EEMIV (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

www.transformers.com pictures

I fixed links to all the articles you mentioned in your posts to the exact pages the images came from. Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure the exact page within the web site is sited in the future. Mathewignash (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey buddy, talk to me here. The pages you are marking as lacking source are pictures of Transformers that are no longer at www.transformers.com, so I removed that info from the page. How do I properly site a page that no longer has the image on it, but once did? Mathewignash (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocking issues

OK, now that the block is off we should talk. When I edited the star Trek page I offered that page the same respect Ioffer any other pages I edit. That is, I didn't remove anyone else's material and use an explanatory heading and made references available (footnotes). I interpreted the blanket reverts by two editors as vandalism. To be fair to you, maybe a better way to handle it would have been to leave it alone (since the two editors were obviously quite passionate about what they thought) and go the diplomacy route, since they weren't willing to initiate that.

However, I do not consider your deciding to invoke a block to be appropriate either, given the context of wha I was trying to do. Had I wanted to engage in an edit war, I would have done things like remove others' material (which they put time and effort into creating) or (other things none of us like?). So I'm doing two things now: First, I placed a discussion section in the Star Trek area regarding what is a fan film, exactly, and what isn't it? Perhaps this will result in all of us understanding that a little better. The other thing I have to do is take your blocking to dispute resolution and admin abuse. I'm not expecting any "satisfaction" per se; however, I've noticed from reading your talk page that others have expressed some dissatisfactio with your judgment. I do not offer an opinion on that; that is between you and them. If my complaint/appeal (whatever it might be called) is simply another data point in that process, that will, I hope, in the long run, get you to reconsider your decision-making. 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel

I'm not an admin.; even if I wanted to block you, I couldn't. User:Seicer blocked you. And although the technicalities of 3RR may have made the block a little hazy, your obstinate and/or clueless edit summaries make me fully support that admin.'s decision. For example, you wrote "personal value judgment by you" as your reason to revert my restoration of the article -- however "personal value judgment by you" is exactly your reason for adding this fan film material. Please take a look at your own decision-making. --EEMIV (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for mischaracterizing you as admin. However, adding material without destroying others' material is justifisaable; merely reverting based on personal value is not. Is noy Wikipedia a consensus-driven entity? Raryel (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Personal value" based on Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources and avoiding undue weight are entirely justifiable. Indeed, Wikipedia operates on consensus -- and note that you are the only person attempting to add the Gods-of-something stuff to the article. --EEMIV (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And per the unblock request that was denied, another administrator has validated the block on the merit of edit warring. Raryel, your block has been lifted; please do something more constructive than to take Abd's comments and run with it. seicer | talk | contribs 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am. I've sent you a reasonable request. I am waiting to see what you do with it. Raryel (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Coruscant

Hi, I seen you've been involved in the last few days in some Star Wars clean-up - if you have a moment, want to lend a hand at Coruscant. I'll take a stab but it's such a large article filled with details about fictional tourist attractions that I could do with some help. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How to build a bolt gun

I...I.. you could BUILD a bolt gun after reading this, there are even lavish diagrams about bullet construction --Allemandtando (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jungle Thunder

In response to this

Hi, yes I was counting the vandalism of his talk page as the inappropriate and misleading tags he had added. I thought those tags were only allowed to be implemented by administrators and therefore thought his edits were vandalism. I am sorry if I was mistaken. Artichoker^[talk] 00:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just fixing stuff.

In response to this

Mostly just fixing vandalism, making revert to versions of the pages from yesterday. -68.46.118.76 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've motioned for the article to be locked until consensus can be found.

Frankly, it's a bit silly, especially given that the article is given in context of a fictional universe. It's certainly not hurting anything as it is, and does tend to fall into Wikipedia standards otherwise. Any argument against such articles can be applied to a hundred Star Wars or Star Trek articles as well, they are here because this is an encyclopaedia, and should be encyclopedic. GameJunkieJim (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"It doesn't hurt" is not a compelling reason substantiated by policy to add or retain material. Simply identifying a topic as being fictional is insufficient; see WP:WAF for information on how to appropriately address a fictional topic. "Other articles suck, too" isn't a compelling reason to let cruft sit unaddressed -- it's a reminder that there's plenty work left to be done. Allemantendo(sp?) and I and many other editors work all the time to try to cut the cruft; we'd appreciate your help in culling the trivia and plot regurgitation from the project. --EEMIV (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Such is well and good, but I get it from other avenues during this whole thing. At least leave the article in it's original form until a simple consensus is known, then at least warning is given and people have time to update their links and whatnot. 24 hours, can you please? -- GameJunkieJim (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Any material cited to reliable sources people want to restore, then go for it. The project's consensus is already clearly articulated at WP:RS and WP:WAF with regard to requirements for sourcing and treatment of fictional topics from an out-of-universe perspective. Simply restoring 75 kilobytes of cruft in the hopes that someone will swoop in and transmogrify it into something worth retaining seems a fruitless hope, considering how long the material has sat in such a subpar condition. --EEMIV (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Subpar is a matter of opinion. Perhaps it simply sat in that 'condition' because it had done what it was supposed to, id est provide detailed and speculative knowledge on the subject. Speculation is allowed, else the articles on Relativity and Evolution would certainly be disallowed. In any case, I agree that the article needs cleaning, but I've got to say the sniping of the article without so much as a notice on the Talk page was a bit out of line. -- GameJunkieJim (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Speculation cited to an expert source is allowed; fanboy editors' inferences are original research and have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Yes, the editors' removal of content was abrupt and ruffled feathers, but blithely restoring it when the trimmed material clearly doesn't meet WP:RS, WP:WAF (and, as you point out, WP:OR) is just plain contrary to policy. --EEMIV (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminator (Warhammer 40,000)

In response to this and this

The sources on the 'Terminator Page' were YOUR references that I saved from the last edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't made and "references" (or other edits) to that article. I put a warning on your talk page because you restored to the article a large chunk of unsubstantiated in-universe plot summary/trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you threatening me?

Your profile says you're a teacher, so why don't you do the appropriate thing and stop raging over the internet. Grow up. Tomorrow night, delete it all for all I care. But I'll sit here until then and report you if you so much as twitch the article before that. Remember one of Wikipedia's oldest rules. DRINK YOUR TEA AND CALM YERSELF SON! It's a nerdy game article, not something to get so worked up over. 68.46.118.76 (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC) <--Have some delicious rotating IP.

Ditto, I guess. Enjoy your tea. --EEMIV (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. The version that exists per before your reverts (And remember, no more for another 22 hours) will remain there. Thank you! -- 68.46.118.76 (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very cute. You'll notice I stopped reverting the restoration of fancruft already -- despite your earlier accusation that I had already violated it. But thanks for caring. --EEMIV (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

*ahem* Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. You'll note of course that this is what a couple of us tried to do while you raged and kept reverting. Please read the templates you use in the future. - User:Me Time:Can't sleep, clowns'll eat me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.118.76 (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

*ahem* You'll see I created a section on that article's talk page about the content changes. Feel free to post something there. --EEMIV (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, after the section by Gamejunkerjim that basically asked for the same thing. It's a moot point now, protection has gone through and the article is safe from you and the others. 68.46.118.76 (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain all that cruft will once again soon be swept out. There are policies and guidelines to justify its removal, whereas the folks endorsing 100KB of summary and trivia are standing on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. --EEMIV (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly so, but there's a right way to go about it and a wrong way. You guys went with the wrong way. It's fixed now. -- 68.46.118.76 (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course. --EEMIV (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bwahahah

That was fun. Protonk (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

wow! - I go to bed and... --Allemandtando (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, figured that'd be your reaction this morning. ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh you joker - see you at the cabal clubhouse on friday (the warning at the top of my page sorta sums it up - plus this. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [1]

Not necessarily you, but time and time again, I see "apples and oranges" comments in AfDs from a variety of editors. I'd rather not single people out with diffs, but if you look through enough AfDs you'll see that quite frequently people will say things about how some other totally unrelated and different article that no one is arguing we should have is comparable to the one under discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 1: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Although the practices of other editors can be frustrating at times, it's important to assume good faith and be civil. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, fuck all. His contributions warrant it. --EEMIV (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Even the actions of vandals don't warrant personal attacks, and it's clear that he means well even if he's misguided. I can see that you worked late into the night and started first thing this morning, and you've been swearing up and down. Do yourself a favor and take a break. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DISCUSSCRUFT

I wrote a new essay with the shortcut WP:DISCUSSCRUFT. This is an essay that is supposed to explain the word "cruft" in neutral terms and promote intelligent discussion about the cruft problem on wikipedia. I know there are already many essays about cruft on wikipedia. But I hope you might be able to give it a read. Perhaps it can be copy-edited or improved in some way. I hope you find it useful. Thank you! Problemchildlsd (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

bout tag slamming for Delta Flyer

Not even half as counterproductive as tagging. If you honestly want to see that article improve, you'd do better by it nominating it for deletion. Then people would actually start doing something to improve it.

Let's say for a minute it really has all that many different things wrong with it. Of so many things to choose from, you couldn't be bothered to do anything to address even a single problem. Tagging doesn't count, esp. if its not accompanied by any comment whatsoever on the talk page. After shutterbug ruthlessly hacked away at it, would it really be so difficult to actually do something instead of just slamming every single tag you can halfway justify?

Wait, I just remembered something. You actually used a robot to slam the tags on! Because manual tagging is just too difficult. I'm already exhausted just thinking about it. Slappywag42 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

you couldn't be bothered to do anything to address even a single problem - correct. --EEMIV (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be perfectly alright, if it weren't for one of your stated goals on your user page. Wasn't Jesse Jackson at the funeral for that word newspapers don't print, and then he got caught using that very word last week? Anton Mravcek (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --EEMIV (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You say that you want to "Align Star Wars- and Star Trek-related articles with WP:FICT and WP:WAF," yet you undermine that goal by tagging. The recent rigmarolle with Jesse Jackson is what reminded me of this. Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

StarFleet Marines

Hello. Where was the prior deletion discussion? Cheers Dlohcierekim 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Starfleet_Marine_Corps --EEMIV (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Help

Could you help me with getting more info for the references so it could be more visable on the NOTES Kelvin Martinez (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your request. What notes? References for what? --EEMIV (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest

What led you to believing that this was vandalism? I don't use Twinkle, but I'm worried that such a thing might have been automatically flagged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alle.'s user page has been vandalized quite a bit, and it's rare to see good-faith efforts to edit another user's user page. If he wanted that discussion linked, he'd have linked it himself. --EEMIV (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've edited it in the past. I think he trusts me not to vandalise it. I'd also note that he reverted your edit yourself. Just a heads-up to be more careful with the tools, because not everyone would assume that an edit like that were an innocent oversight. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

alright

thanks for those links, but can you help me cite this website then? http://www.snpp.com/guides/starwars.html it shows which episodes reference star wars

Also how do I create references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Galactiac

It looks like someone's already removed the deletion tag and you've added a notability one instead. I'm not really sure what the question is here. This is a fusion of two major characters, Galactus and Brainiac who are incredibly notable villains of the Fantastic Four and Superman, longtime mascots of the Marvel and DC universes. This character plays such a role in the Amalgam Universe project these companies worked together on. Tyciol (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Add to the article a citation to a reliable third-party source that substantiates your claim. --EEMIV (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Help for new editor

(ArtsandCraftsHistorian (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)) Dear Editor,

I am a published author but new to Wikipedia. Thanks for offering to help.

First problem: I just published an article online and need to know how to properly insert external links to it.

I inserted this: http://berkeleyheritage.com/essays.html

A Wikipedia editor wrote me:

You should enter only the direct link to your article:

Is this the correct link? http://berkeleyheritage.com/essays/wilde-worcester.html or Is it this? When no longer the latest, this is the permalink: http://berkeleyheritage.com/weblog/2008/07/oscar-wilde-joseph-worcester-and.html

Second Problem: a) I compiled excerpts from my book into an article on Mission style furniture and posted it on Wikipedia. How do I make the "references" section at the end of the article?

b) I see from guidelines that I need . Is that right?

Many thanks. Leslie

(ArtsandCraftsHistorian (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)) Editor,

I have a third problem to ask about.

I inserted links in my article on Mission Style Furniture. But they should have been "external" links. how can I change them to external links?

Many thanks, leslie

It looks like many of your concerns were addressed on your talk page by another editor. Please take a close look at the welcome post on your talk page and review those basic policies. I'm worried that Mission style furniture might be inappropriate here in its current form, since it appears to be original research (even though apparently well done). --EEMIV (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another minor point from Leslie

(ArtsandCraftsHistorian (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)) When putting in external links I see a straight vertical line in front of each part of the link. Am I supposed to insert these? I cannot find such a symbol on my computer so I just copied the link above, removed their text and put in the new link. I have a feeling the vertical lines come when I save the edit. Is that right? leslie

Yes, those lines are inserted automatically. Use pairs of brackets -- i.e. [[ ]] -- for internal, Wikipedia links and single brackets -- i.e. [ ] -- for external links. The symbol will be "magically" appended to the latter.--EEMIV (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bowcaster

Please don't revert an edit without addressing the reason it was done. I explained my edit and you did not, so I have undone your reversion. If you disagree with this, please explain why in the article's talk page and let's work toward a consensus. --P3d0 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I merged what pieces weren't trivia, plot summary, speculation and original research into Wookiee. Please note that the burden of proof, i.e. for providing sources, for maintaining content falls on those adding/restoring it -- simply pasting the material into a new article/undoing the redirect without adding a single source is against policy. --EEMIV (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award you this Alien barnstar for your excellent work removing original research and fancruft from the Space Jockey, Bishop, and other Alien-related articles. Keep up the great contributions! --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)