Talk: Evir Daal

Welcome Evir Daal!

Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers: right|180px

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask me on my talk page. May the Force be with you! — Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

New articles

Try to remember to add sources / appearances to new articles you create and to add them to any appropriate categories. Thanks. Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry. I'm still learning, it was my first new article. But I think I've fixed it now. Evir Daal 08:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, thanks for the help. Evir Daal 08:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's cool. I used to forget at first (still do occasionally). Just remember appearances for comics, books, films, etc and sources for reference books (see WP:LG). Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Ruler

I reverted your edit to Supreme Dark Ruler: please revert again if you can provide a source for the "Supreme Ruler" title. Thanks, —Silly Dan (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If I remember it correctly, they used that title too in the ROTJ novelisation, though I can't provide a page number or anything right now. Evir Daal 07:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Here it is, ROTJ novelisation, p. 373 in my The Star Wars Trilogy collection, 7th printing:

"Patience, my |friend," the Supreme Ruler cautioned.

So I'll just go ahead, OK? Evir Daal 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. Sorry for my confusion. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No problem, I know how important it is to verify these things. Evir Daal 08:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Electric judgment query

I apologize for the delay. But to answer your question, the Yuuzhan Vong are vulnerable to telekinetic skills and powers; Tsavong Lah was once hurled right through an open window by a whirlwind explosion of Force energy at the climax of Balance Point. And as of now, the Yuuzhan Vong are not universally Force-blind. Believe me, I think it's dumb too, but just check the link to Vongerella and you'll see what I mean. Azra Namor 22:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay; Time Warner sucks!

Yeah, Time Warner had some customer care issues earlier this weekend, but I'm finally back. And in response to your query: Yeah, you have a point. There's a difference between attacking the Vong with something like Force Whirlwind and targeting them with, say, Death Field or Drain Life, but the distinction is hard to draw, largely because nobody really cares. Why is Electric judgment any less physical than a strong gust of wind? I know KOTOR is a tacky example, but the only reason I was able to defeat Darth Malak was because I saved all 5 charges of Yusanis's dueling shield to absorb his Force lightning attacks. No mystic energy field there; just a trusty personal deflector shield. I know there's some confusion about this, because of the whole 'Palpy's face melting' thing and that crack about 'emotional and spiritual agony' in the Wook article, but the whole 'skeletal calcification' thing in The Truce at Bakura was about as scientific as you get. Basically, the only stuff that won't work on the Vong are mind-affecting powers and weird spirit stuff (i.e. Sith 'magic' in Tales of the Jedi and Jedi vs. Sith). Force lightning and Electric judgment are just another kind of telekinetic skill. And if the Vong aren't part of the Force, then why are there so many Force visions with Vong in them? The Force isn't supposed to even know they're there! All in all, I think the sentence was unnecessary; the Vong immunity is something that deserves its own article; it doesn't need a sentence in every Force power.

(Besides, the sentence was kind of jarring and it interrupted the flow of the paragraph. That's why I stopped long enough to notice the factual ambiguity. If it had been integrated seamlessly with the rest of the article, it would've been too much of a hassle to fix. I'm all about sentence structure; just look at spirit transference!)

For more on the actual nature of how telekinetic powers work, check out my work on Force Push. Azra Namor 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Never said it couldn't

I was never denying that it could affect them. I'm just saying that "electric judgment works on the Vong" is basically the same as "a blaster in the face can affect the Vong." It doesn't need its own sentence. But I admit, the topic itself is kind of screwed up; Lomi Plo, being a Nightsister, obviously used the more lethal Force lightning technique to kill the shaper, but Jacen Solo (in the basement of the Jedi Temple on Yuuzhan'tar) tried to fry them with the same technique but found that "there was a circuit missing." So he'd brought the roof down on them. Not to mention the fact that the lightning had burned holes in his hands, which hasn't happened anywhere else in canon (as far as I know). Azra Namor 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Sikon's Edit

Actually, check out the user page policy, buddy...Sikon's acting within it's parameters. --School of Thrawn 101 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Point taken. I have a bad feeling about this. --School of Thrawn 101 10:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The policy says that the right place for guestbooks is at the Guestbook Wikia. Also, please respond to messages left on your talk page on your talk page, not on the talk page of the user who posted the message. - Sikon 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That statement immediately follows the official ban on guestbook sub-pages. While it is still a good idea, imo, to have a guestbook at the Guestbook Wiki, the policy, as it appears currently, does not ban a guestbook on a user's main page. --School of Thrawn 101 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's a sub-section to the one above. As I said, it's perfectly legit, and I can't see how it's hurting anyone, least of all enough to warrant summary deletion. If you have a problem with it, Sikon, why not talk about it before editing a legit userpage?
      • Oh... and sorry for forgetting to sign the last one. Evir Daal 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The policy is not legal code, and we're not discussing formalities here. The policy says Wookieepedia is not a social club. Just because it only says "guestbook or blog subpages" doesn't mean guestbooks or blogs per se are allowed. Also, Evir Daal, you reverted an administrative action, calling it "vandalism", without even bothering to discuss first. And you continue to ignore my requests to respond on your own talk page, rather than mine. - Sikon 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Sikon, it also doesn't mean that they're not allowed, either. --School of Thrawn 101 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Exactly. Evir Daal 11:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
              • The fact that Wookieepedia is not a social club does well mean they're not allowed. We have plenty of precedents for guestbooks being deleted - I didn't even start the Happy Fun Cleanup Project. And the policy explicitly says where the right place for guestbooks is. - Sikon 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
                • But it does not explicitly deny a user's ability to contain a guestbook within the boundaries of their main user page. That is my contention. --School of Thrawn 101 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • It's not enough that you say so to make it policy, Sikon. If it is, it should be on the page (it isn't there). Until Guestbooks on user main pages are expressly prohibited, I'll have to assume they're legit, and so should you. Evir Daal 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
          • No, I don't, I just hadn't read it before sending the last post. As for the situation, if someone starts messing up my page for no good reason I assume it to be vandals. And even admins have to follow the rules. The user page policy, as it is know, doesn't prohibit Guestbooks. If you have a problem with that, request a change of policy. When (and if) such a rule is implemented, I will be happy to comply, but I won't be subject to capricious and arbitrary judgments unsupported by policy. Evir Daal 11:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Per Item 7 of The Happy Fun User Page Super Friendly Cleanup Project, guestbooks are to be deleted from user pages. Quit trying to game the system; you won't win. Have a Happy Fun Super Friendly Day. jSarek 11:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Nowhere on the What Wookieepedia is Not nor on the User Page Policy sections does it specifically mention guestbooks that exist on a user's main page. The Forum that you link to does mention that guestbooks on main pages will be deleted; however, that action is not supported by policy. At least, no policy that I can find. If there is such a policy, please link to it, as I'm a sponge for information of that nature. --School of Thrawn 101 11:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
              • If it is actual policy, I am, as stated, happy to comply. Truth be told, I never liked those things overmuch anyway, it was mostly the way Sikon approached it that pushed me on the defensive. Thank you, everyone, for helping to clear this up. You may want clarify the policy page a bit to prevent this from happening again, though. Just a suggestion. Evir Daal 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT section 2.2. If you can coherently explain how a guestbook is anything BUT a general-purpose message board, we'll drop it. Except you can't. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 11:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "And so it ends, as I somehow always knew it must... in darkness." It is done. Evir Daal 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • While I am aware that Evir Daal has declined to continue the debate, I would like to point out that classifying a guestbook as a "general purpose message board" is an incorrect classification. A guestbook may fulfill a similar role in regards to a message board, but it is in no way "general purpose" in nature. A guestbook has a specific role to perform and is usually not allowed to operate outside of that particular role. A guestbook is not a place for discussion, but a simple script included within a website or page to allow other users to "leave their mark" as a means of recording their visit. While I am aware that Wikipedia is not the end-all when it comes to information, I would point any interested party in the direction of Internet Forum which makes no specific mention of guestbooks at any point within the article. The article for Guestbook, likewise, makes no specific mention of "message board" in it's article. --School of Thrawn 101 11:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • An appendum, upon further review of Guestbook, it does specifically say ...a guestbook is different from a chat room (which is more or less realtime communication), or an Internet forum (which is intended to be a location for discussions)... --School of Thrawn 101 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What a mess

Thanks to my purge of the Guestbook, my Contributions section is now scrambled beyond all recognition. Could anyone help me restore it, please? Evir Daal 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything wrong with your contributions section in Firefox or IE6. Can you post a screenshot? - Sikon 11:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I meant the "Contributions" section of my user page. Evir Daal 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sig Policy

  • Sorry, but it states you must have your actual user name or part of it in some form or fashion. As far as I can tell "Evir Daal" does not equal the Eternal Minority. Cheers. Atarumaster88 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Terribly sorry, I must have missed that. Won't happen again. Evir Daal 09:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct

Hey, this is JuiceStain. In regards to your comments on Sixtus Quin, you are absoultely right. I was terribly mistaken. Anyway, thanks for pointing out my mistake and if you want more information, check out the Sixtus Quin talk page. --LtCol. JuiceStain 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Checked it. No problem, such things easily happen. You're welcome. Evir Daal 10:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Guardsmen

Regarding the Grodin Tierce explanation for Guardsmen existing even after Palpatine died, I was under the impression from the Flim duology that he was referring to the explosion of the second Death Star, not the events that took place during the Dark Empire series. --School of Thrawn 101 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Possibly, but the Imperial Guard was never threatened with extinction by the RotJ events. Most of them were on Byss or elsewhere anyway. The way it looked in the article, Endor was the end for almost all of them. Either he was referring to Byss, or he was referring to some particular unit of the Guard or something like that. Commander Daal 20px 09:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I always thought that the implication was the he was referring to Endor, and that it would be a relatively remarkable event for a member of the Guard not to be with the Emperor. --School of Thrawn 101 11:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The greater part of the Guard was never with Palpatine at any given time, but were instead on Byss or in other places, perhaps on Yinchorr. He was only guarded by a small detachment. I guess they shifted troops between active and bodyguard duty. What we get from Tierce's statement is that he might have belonged to the particular unit that accompanied Palpatine to DS II, or at least that's how I see it. Commander Daal 20px 12:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll check the Zahn books and get back to you. We'll sort it out, I'm sure. --School of Thrawn 101 13:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • As will I. It's starting to sound like there might be a continuity issue. Commander Daal 20px 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I found the conversation you were probably referring to on pp. 61-62 of my Specter of the Past (paperback). What I notice here is that it is Disra who assumes that the Guard died at Endor. Since it from the rest of the passage becomes very clear how little he really knows of the Guard, I'm wondering if it was not simply a false assumption. Tierce, who isn't exactly free with information, probably just didn't correct him in order to preserve his own secrecy. For all we know, the rest of his story was made up on the spot; Disra was not in any position to check it. The Dark Empire series and Crimson Empire would therefore, IMHO, give the true description of the Imperial Guard's fall after all. (Sorry I can't post a full quote, BTW, I don't have the book available at the time of writing.) Commander Daal 20px 06:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • While you do make an interesting point, be careful with that original research. You're dangerously close to pure speculation with some of that. Also, remember that Specter of the Past is a newer publication and deals with a later time than Dark Empire. Crimson, imo, is a solid source for info on the Guard, since that's the chief purpose of that publication. Remember, unless newer canon directly contradicts older canon, both are correct. Taking the information at face value, Dark Empire and Specter don't necessarily contradict. It just depends on your point of view. I still think that the original intent of the phrasing we're discussing in the article was to refer to the conversation in Specter, and that we should revert back to some form of it. However, it's certainly our job, at this point, to append it in some fashion to reflect that it was simply one Moff's relatively uneducated opinion and that the Guardsmen that perished at Endor did not account for the whole of the corps. --School of Thrawn 101 08:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I changed it in the text so that it simply refers to Tierce's particular Guard unit, which, if his story was true (as we assume it is), was charged with Palpatine's personal security at the time, and added a sentence about other surviving Guardsmen on Byss, Yinchorr etc. How's that? Commander Daal 20px 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe that is a satisfactory compromise. --School of Thrawn 101 09:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Then let's shake hands on that. And thanks for bringing up the point in the first hand, BTW, or I'd have missed it. Commander Daal 20px 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You know what, you were right about a vs an. Thanks for reverting it. --School of Thrawn 101 08:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rankings

  • On your user page it says your current rank is Commander. What is this ranking system and how does it work? (I only ask to see if I can steal it from you!). Darth Seth (Chewbacca lives!) 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I haven't got it on the page yet, but I'm working on a (completely unofficial) system of rank for users based on their number of edits. It will closely resemble the Imperial Navy set of ranks. I expect to get a rank table working in a couple of days. Feel free to use it if you like it. Commander Daal 20px 06:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Czerka

I don't want it to look like I'm following you around, but your edit comment to the Humanocentrism made me raise an eyebrow. What makes you think that Czerka corporation was evil? --School of Thrawn 101 11:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Could it be the fact that they co-operated with criminals, strip-mined planets, enslaved entire species, and used violence and extortion in their business dealings? Or was it something else they did? Basically, Czerka would do anything to increase its profits, no matter who it hurt. In my book, that's Evil. Commander Daal 20px 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Alright, I can understand your position from a personal perspective. Now, from a canon perspective, was Czerka Corporation evil? --School of Thrawn 101 11:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Er... not objectively, no, I guess not. Why are you asking? I never put any such thing in any article. The point of the comment, if that's what's bothering you, was that they weren't speciesists. Commander Daal 20px 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not entirely sure that humanocentrist is equal to speceisist. Either way, your edit comment claimed that they were evil and I was curious as to what source provided you with that perspective. --School of Thrawn 101 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't have a source for that, which is why I've never claimed it in any article. My point with the comment was to say that there is no evidence that Czerka was speciesist, as was implied in the article, or even humanocentric. The thing about them being evil was just a stray comment of little importance. I'm sorry if it offended you. Commander Daal 20px 07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I never said that it offended me. I was only curious as to your motivation for that particular claim. --School of Thrawn 101 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
              • It was just a personal value judgment. I might as well have left it out, since it had no real relevance to the edit. Commander Daal 20px 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice

If anyone who tries to reach me, or is discussing anything with me on another page, feels I'm taking my time to respond, I apologise. My Internet connection isn't working five by five right now (I'm using a modem...), so I won't be here as often as I'd like. But I'll still try and check in every now and then, though I most likely won't be able to contribute a lot for some time. Commander Daal 20px 14:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Hopefully, things will have been worked out by now, so I'll be easier to reach from now on. Commander Daal 20px 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)