User talk:EEMIV/Archive9

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 ...

---

Ok, look here.

You can't just go around calling everything you disagree with, original research. What I have been adding isn't original research. I am not making up theories here out of thin air. I am also not posting disruptive edits--in fact, I would say you are. Just because I say it doesn't make it so. You seem to know very little about the topics you are posting on. Have you even seen these movies? If so, at least address these topics in the discussion area. If you continue to mindlessly threaten you, I will begin to deal with you in the same way you are attempting now to deal with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs)

You continue to restore material without citing a single reliable source, and I'm not the only editor who has undone your insertions of original research. The burden of proof is on editors adding/restoring material and your edits have not met that threshold. (Yes, I've seen the movies.) --EEMIV (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I give up because I am even less interested in a discussion war than I am in an edit war. If you've seen the movies, you ought to see them again. You can't argue in good faith that an inference, for instance, that the Space Jockey was killed by an alien is pure speculation or original research. It is all but spelled out--and no matter what IllaZilla says, we as intelligent humans do not need everything spelled out to the letter for us. You guys are playing devil's advocate, very poorly I might add, and arguing against a very very simple issues that you know to be patently true, for absolutely no good reason. You're also not the only editor attacking my edits who happens to be wrong. For example, it took me forever to prove DarkHyena wrong about the Predalien being a queen, but he saw the light of reason in the end. I have no reason to suspect you or IllaZilla ever will (IllaZilla was of course wrong about the Predalien queen as well... no surprise). IllaZilla is to me nothing better than a vandal--I checked out the discussion behind removing the Derelict page, and, pardon my plain English, but it was pure bullshit. He isn't consistent with his own guidelines, he is destroying useful information just because it's not sourced 100% properly (if he's so adamant about it, he should fix the sourcing himself--HE KNOWS THEY EXIST) and he will bend the facts in anyway necessary to support his petty and idiosyncratic editorial preferences. In fact, I restored a lot of material that did have reliable sources, but I'm not an editor. I'm a fan of the series, I only take the movies as canon, and I simply would like to see the Wikipedia pages reflect the continuing development of the A/P universe, as it has expanded a great deal with the release of the past 2 movies. I would expect help from the other editors, not mindless bickering over obvious topics. But there's good news, none of this is worth the effort, so you guys can go back to monopolizing and stagnating the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs)

Okay, bye. --EEMIV (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ArtsandCraftsHistorian

(ArtsandCraftsHistorian (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)) I read the reference instructions and re-formatted my footnotes. I hope they are now correct.

However, my Mission Style Furniture article is being criticized for lots of reasons I cannot understand.

It seems to me Wiki accepts articles if someone writes as if what they are saying is factual; but is it? For example, several Arts and Crafts related sites on wiki state "facts" which are simply not true. Other historians, including myself, have spotted mistakes in earlier research (in books) accepted as "true" and we have published books correcting prior historians' mistakes. But, judging by the comments on my article,if we publish our new information on Wiki, Wiki's editors assume our corrections are "opinion" unless we state them as facts.

If Einstein published his E=MC2 on wiki it would be torn to shreds within two weeks as "opinion."

It is very sad that Wiki articles are so often incomplete, in error, wrong, old information etc. Now I see why. If an historian with credentials writes an article disproving others research and clearly proving a new theory it is considered "theory" and "opinion" whereas the first article is presumed to be true and factual because the writer writes as if his points were facts when actually they are not.

What's really sad is that many people not educated in a particular field check Wiki for information which often is old info, outdated and thus wrong.

Just for fun I may re-write my article as if it were all fact, without showing why the facts are true.

Re. Restoring images

In response to this

Thank you for the notice, and I'm glad I did not add anymore that those. I guess I should read up on those policies. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard^(Bloom) 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries; happy to help. --EEMIV (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

EEMIV, Thank you for your notes.

You're right/article mostly plot summary;

Still working to improve/expand.

The fair-use-reduce template will be handy; thanks!

Any thoughts on how it could be done w/o a merge would be appreciated.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 00:45, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, you're right about overimaged.

Added one back for total of two.

Nomi one of more significant characters in that series.

Working on expanding beyond plot synopses.

Also added "see also" section.

Thoughts and/or assistance appreciated!

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 00:59, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Editing of an Entry: Seeking a Third Opinion

Hello,

I am interested in having someone work with me to fix an entry I have been working on regarding the American writer Raymond Kennedy. Some of the information I have posted includes original research gathered from exclusive interviews with his family and friends, as well as professional literary critics.

So far, these entries have been disputed by a wiki editor who does not, as far as I can tell, have any credentials in terms of professional editing or the literary world. I am very concerned that someone such as this has final say in the editing of an article on this encyclopedia.

At the very least, we would like to have a third person involved in this discussion.

Cordially, James Donovan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.204.152 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way

As you are a frequent AFD/prod/merger person, I just wanted to remind you that when you merge articles, cut the star wars and other wikiproject tags from them. The Star Wars Wikiproject thought it has 1015 articles, but it had over 250 redirects still listed ar articles :) I'm not sure what you normally do, but I wanted to make sure i mentioned it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

About the River Tam issues

Since a couple of IPs have targeted the redirect, I've protected River Tam. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- I listed it for protection. This same editor has a couple of redirects he targets: River Tam, Simon Tam, Planet Express, I think a couple of others. Sigh. --EEMIV (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And now Jayne Cobb. --EEMIV (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll target anything that has been "removed" due to Wikipedia's moronic "fictional notability" policy. *Sigh*130.184.250.29 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Something I'd thought I'd never read...

See this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Akira class starship

Regarding Image:Akira class starship.jpg, I uploaded a picture over the top of the old one. I know this image is a screenshot from the series, and I have found the actual copyright information on the copyright.gov copyright search page. Please let me know if this is not acceptable. — OranL (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, something is wrong with Akira class starship. On my browser, it is still displaying the old version of the image. I've bypassed my cache and purged the page, but it is still displaying the old image. Even editing the page and looking at the preview still shows the old image. Do you know what would cause this to happen? — OranL (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: In-universe info./trivia

In response to this

I am currently in the process of reading those guidelines.

Sorry, I tend to get carried away when I'm talking sci-fi. I try to keep my writings leaning towards reality, but sometimes it ends up like that.

Besides, I'm already a member of Memory Alpha, Memory Beta, sci-fi.com, ect.

Please respons on my talkpage.

Thanks, Cdmajava —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdmajava (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: In-universe info./trivia

In response to this

I try to remember. I'm just used to other forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdmajava (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bastila Shan

The page was split again from the list, what to do? Texcarson (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bah. User:VengeancePrime is still climbing up the learning curve, but I think this redirect will be okay. --EEMIV (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch!   ;-)

I remember now why I did that... that 12kb was ALL in the master article and was significantly longer than other entries. Silly me, I thought I was helping. Ah, I keep trying. Silly learning curve!!! Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{20:38, 13 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Troop Leading Procedures

Can you restore, please?

I didn't have time for the hangon tag.

I will be expanding this significantly over the next week or so.

Referenced, even.

(If then you still don't like it, be my guest.)

Purty-puhleese? Merci. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{19:50, 13 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Force Unleashed

Hi mate.

I understand why you deleted my contributions. They were indeed a bit repetitive. However, the information posted on the characters was clearly explained in the IGN article. About Eclipse being the love interest, I added the source to that: a video interview with one of the developers. I hope this will do.

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjoeri (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Variable Geometry Pylons

Why are references to info at http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Variable-geometry_pylon considered unreliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.208.121 (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Wikis are not reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you reverted an edit stating that nothing in The Caretaker Janeway dialogue supported claims of enhanced warp performance. This is wrong. There is mention of the gel packs and other technology enhancements in not just episode 1 but several of the early episodes. I don't have a copy handy, but I'm sure someone can verify this. I added this info as part of a correction to the Voyager page which had a whole lot of rubbish about serious plot inconsistencies concerning the time needed to travel to the Alpha Quadrant. I've replaced my edits and you are quite welcome to find the relevant script references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermckwiki (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The preceding commentary about the pylons moving around and when they started to be common and so on -- that material is not substantiated by the quote. The article in general is pretty weak; I'd suggest looking to source the claims already sitting there before adding new ones. --EEMIV (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

At http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/ships/article/70517.html it states that "Voyager's folding wing-and-nacelle warp drive system allows the starship to exceed the warp 5 "speed limit" without polluting the space continuum. Voyager can reach a speed of warp 9.975, but only for short periods." I don't suppose your going to argue with that are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermckwiki (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's great you found a source. But, um, a blatant word-for-word copyright violation for a bit of trivia isn't exactly what Wikipedia is looking for. Even if you identify the source -- which you did, so wonderful -- using Viacom's exact words violates policy. --EEMIV (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that. It's not what I would call trivia when a key component to the plot (75 year journey time) is reliant on being able to exceed warp 5 for prolonged periods of time. The lack of information on this point led to a whole section on the Voyager page being titled "Serious Plot Contradiction", which was incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.208.121 (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Hank Pym

A checkuser confirmed it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Lightsaber combat

Notability is debatable, but unreferenced? You clearly missed the list of over thirty references and books that this article draws from. This is valid, sourced information, and a merge is completely insufficient considering that the main lightsaber article covers combat barely at all. Please discuss on the talk page before conducting such a wanton removal of content. GlassCobra 20:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As above, the merge to lightsaber did not include any of the extensively sourced information on the forms and their history. The list of techniques may be a bit much, but the forms in particular have played a large role in several of the video games, and have been properly referenced. I will work on trimming the article, but a redirect is still inappropriate. GlassCobra 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left some related notes on your own talk page. Feel free to work on the article, but please do it in user space. As it stands now, it simply has no encyclopedic value. It is a collection of trivia amalgamated onto one page. While not the end-all of sourcing, this suggests that "lightsaber combat" has not been the subject of significant, third-party coverage and is therefore not notable. --EEMIV (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, "encyclopedic value" is highly subjective. The last AfD of this article was closed as a keep, and the merge discussion was malformed and carried out by a banned user. I will be reverting your redirect, and will continue to work on trimming the article there. If you desire to carry out another merge, please make sure to follow the proper channels; ie. the talk page, the Star Wars WikiProject, etc. However, please do not redirect the article again. GlassCobra 21:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I will revert it to the version that the last AfD concluded was a "keep"able version. If you want all the dreck from the old one, move it to user space. --EEMIV (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, GlassCobra, but precisely what ""extensive" sources are you referring to, the pre-trimmed version that was all from one book and was so in-universe so as to have been added on the Death Star? Come one. The banned user wasn't the one who removed all the crap, I was. I rewrote it, and kept it from the AfD chopping block. Not Fred Day or whatever sock he chose to use that day. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Rule of Two / Sith merge

Nice work, I was happy to see it done properly. Silly articles like that annoy me to no end.75.183.86.60 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sulaco

How is armament "in-universe trivia without context, not significant in understanding from real-world perspective" but the function and capabilities -sections not? I personally find it as interesting and important as those. I rather either remove them all or leave them be.Ajjunn (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The current version should suffice. In general, though, cruft like that is best cut than retained; rather than restoring it, you coulda taken a knife to the fat left behind ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, agreed. Although I do love details on these kind of things, they don't really belong here. Ajjunn (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: AfD

In response to this

I'll remember that next time. (: Octane ^{[improve me?]} 19.08.08 2202 (UTC)

A new image?

Would an image from the theme of Star Trek Voyager be allowed? I would like to upload it onto the Intrepid Class Starship Page. Or would a fan created mesh/image do if it was high quality?cdmajava There are always possibilities... 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a gander at WP:NFCC. However, I'd suggest holding off: in the next couple of weeks I think some of the ship class articles are going to be merged, and some of the images might get axed. A screenshot and a fan-created image are both affected by copyright and require fair-use claims (the latter because it's a derivative image). --EEMIV (talk)

Why would they be merged? How? Into a super article? And why a an image created by a fan be affected, just becuease its derived from somewhere else? Is there any way I can keep an eye on this, or be a part of the discussion that is deciding whther or not to do this (if there is one)?cdmajava There are always possibilities... 15:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Abhuman

For this one, I am not arguing any further for the Warhammer content; however, would you be opposed to my going ahead and completely writing a new article about the concept as used in Gothic literature as that does have lots of secondary source commentary and is discussed in the context of such noted authors as Bram Stoker, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Rudyard Kipling. Please comment in the AfD if you would support totally cutting the Warhammer stuff and allowing me to continue the rewrite based on the other topic. I am hoping that how Arathi and Commander Dante currently look can be a positive precedent for what to do with ones that say lack consensus for Warhammer but for which a different arguably legitimately more "encyclopedic" subject exists. I am hoping that this will be a good opportunity to work constructively and aboid further going back and forth in the discussions over the Warhammer sub-articles. Obviously I couldn't make such claims for all of these Warhammer articles, but some like Arathe, Abhuman, and Commander Dante are ones that I believe we can instead boldly write a new article on a more clearly notable topic. I am hoping that this will be a way to mend fences, i.e. instead of going back and forth over Warhammer notability, let's just leave that consensus where it is and instead go ahead and make the article about a subject that I don't think we disagree on as having notability. It would make for one less back and forth AfD here on out and instead allow for the creation of a genuinely notable article. If you grant me ones like this, I will be far less inclined to vigorously defend others. Please consider. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't spam my talk page. The AfD is on my watchlist -- and, if you'd read my comments, you'd see I already answered your question. --EEMIV (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am replying there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Catsuits AFD

It was an accidental deletion - I apologise. Hut 8.5 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:) no worries! Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images

In response to this

im sorry its not my intention to leave duplicates, i just want to know how to delete the images i wont use. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachi-wan (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

okay i wont upload any more duplicates.. i know i dont have to but im breaking my head to know how to edit the license of a picture when its already uploaded... if you can tell me i would thank you.. nachi-wan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachi-wan (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

TFU

Hello. The review was taken from the October issue of OXM, as shown at the Gamerankings page. I think the review of the soundtrack not suited to the reception section - the article is about the game, not the soundtrack. I'll move it to a new Music section, which'd be better I think. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there's enough content for a music section to stand. The soundtrack is much part of the game as the characters and graphics -- and those would certainly be covered in a "critical reception" section. --EEMIV (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

When the music is covered in the context of the game itself (as the characters and graphics would be), that's fine for the reception section. When it's viewed as a standalone element (as it is in the ref'd section), I would contend it is not. I moved it to the cinematic bit, which I think is a more appropriate place. Fin©™ 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created a section in the article's talk page. Please respond there. --EEMIV (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Think it's sorted now anyway, looks good to me =) Sorry for removing it in the first place! Fin©™ 20:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for the support and the outside look there. My advice is to let it peter out. He doesn't look like he's going to do much but keep reasserting the same claims. If no one responds then he won't have anything to add. Again, thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Gepetto

You can't seriously argue that my submission wasn't at least probable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gepettotruth (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SW:TFU sections

Hi there. Sorry, I was obviously being a bit dense. I increased the heading section for the soundtrack as I actually thought it was supposed to be a section about the soundtrack, rather than a section on the reception of the soundtrack; I'd remembered reading about how the soudtrack was going to interact with the game, and presumed it was this section without actually reading it this time, my bad! You're quite right in that respect, it doesn't need a separate expand tag. --Ged UK (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet Pins

Hey dude, we are obviously both trying to make this a good article. I am just not a pro at Wikipedia. Can you please just help me instead of pointing out what I can't do. I don't have the time for all of this.

Thanks, --Flans44 05:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

my images

hey brother i never violate a norm of copyright, this images are free, because this is the internet. then wikipedia is a free enciclopedia, everybody puts all. please don't delete the images, all the world ha right to se them. thank you.Amigo29 9014:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigo29 90 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's free because it's on the internet" is one of the most pervasive misunderstandings about copyright, and a belief that you need to rectify before uploading any more images. Please read WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:NONFREE. --EEMIV (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Force unleashed concept.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Force unleashed concept.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're invited...

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

About the ANI thread "Evasion of AfD results by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles"

EEMIV, in that thread you suggest that RoidC will invoke his right to vanish, and return for a fresh start with a new username. Can I just direct you to WP:RTV, which specifically makes clear that this is not an acceptable use of the right to vanish. Fram (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at RTV a few minutes ago, trying to figure out a way to give him advice on, you know, actually vanishing the hell out of here -- and saw that note. I guess I just mentally melded some RTV/CHU hybrid and channeled it onto ANI. --EEMIV (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Fram (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Slow down, bubba

You accidentally reverted my addition of the Trib citation; even though you replaced it, you need to slow down a little bit, so you don;t do that sort of stuff again. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that I see someone is actually editing it with worthwhile contributions, I'll try to be a bit more mindful. And since I restored the material from the ec... well, whatever; no big deal. --EEMIV (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, sorry, that was a bit terse. I'm editing now as a distraction from grading blaaaaah papers and my frustration is bleeding over here. Sorry for the edit conflict! --EEMIV (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here, you deserve this!

		The VG Barnstar
		For your excellent and ongoing work on Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, ensuring that this is a well sourced and balanced article, I, Ged UK, award you this barnstar!

Here you go, well deserved IMHO :) --Ged UK (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was hoping maybe someone from LucasArts would notice and give me a free copy of the game but, hey, this is nice, too ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's just hope after all the effort you've put in, the game doesn't suck! --Ged UK (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!

Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27) The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station. DC 6th Meetup (March 7) The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6.

This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!

Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27) The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station. DC 6th Meetup (March 7) The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6.

This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)