Welcome, <insert name here>, to my talk page. As I am a new user, this page mostly contains notifications of my mistakes and warnings of impending edit-blocks. If you notice that I make a mistake, please let me know, but try to be forgiving. I still have a lot to learn.
Welcome, Gnarscien!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:
Wookieepedia aspires to be a reliable source for all Star Wars fans to read and draw information from, and as such, fan-created continuity and fan fiction are not allowed within our articles. All in-universe material must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Do not remove talk page and forum comments, including your own, as they are part of the public record. Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. For an optimal viewing experience, Wookieepedia recommends using the Monobook skin. For help changing your skin preference, see Help:Skin. 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! —Supreme Emperor (talk) 01:20, November 15, 2013 (UTC) |
Re: Question
Master Jonathan's response to your SH thread is correct. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask myself or any other administrators. Hope that helps! CC7567 (talk) 19:09, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
- Will do! Thanks :) --Gnarscien (talk) 19:12, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
Vote farming
Please stop spamming talk pages regarding the CT you have begun. That behaviour is not encouraged on Wookieepedia, and is known as vote farming as you may be targeting individuals who will only vote a certain way, which will render a biased vote. If you continue, administrative action may be considered. Thank you for your cooperation. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 16:29, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- I have replied on your talk page. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:16, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Unless you plan to notify every single user on Wookieepedia to the issue, then the warning stands. No user, regardless of intent, is allowed to vote farm on any issue. It does not matter that the users contacted may have voted a certain way on a past CT. Vote farming is not allowed, period. Also, unless you set out clear voting options within the CT you have posted, I will close it and move the entire discussion to the Senate Hall, where, to be honest, it should have been located in the first place. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 18:23, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you think this kind of attitude is a bit off-putting to new and potentially valuable editors? Warning "administrative action" is extremely harsh and unfair, as are your comments. I'm not sure why you're being so hostile toward me, but I ask again that you please look over the users I contacted about the CT. They were involved in the original discussion, every one, so they probably care if that discussion is re-opened. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:27, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I'm quoting from Help:Contents here: "Consensus track — where community-wide proposals, discussions, and debates take place". So how was it posted in the wrong place? Wookieepedia's help page clearly says Consensus track forum is used for discussion and debate, not exclusively voting. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:31, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- My attitude is not hostile. I have no reason to be hostile towards you. What it is, though, is direct and clear. If you take that to mean hostile, then so be it, but that is not the intent and if you have taken offense I apologise. In these matters, I prefer to be unambiguous. Yes, administrative action will be considered if you continue to vote farm, and you should be aware of the consequences if you continue down that route. The previous voting trends of users will not be reviewed. Vote farming of any kind is not tolerated on Wookieepedia, and should not be undertaken in any circumstances. As for the CT itself; it is expected that when tabling a CT, you also provide clear voting options. Without clear lines of voting, the CT becomes a nothing but a discussion, which is better handled in the Senate Hall. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 18:43, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- My point was not trying to justify "vote farming". It was trying to explain to you that it was in fact not "vote farming" by any definition of the phrase. By your own words, the current CT has no voting options. How then can I be "vote farming" if there is nothing to vote on? Inviting editors that took place in the first CT to participate in a reopening of that CT is common courtesy. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:53, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- You are calling attention to a CT, and included the phrase "CT" in the message heading and the message body to the users you contacted. Users expect a CT to have voting options. Therefore, you are technically vote farming, regardless of the fact that you did not set up a CT in the correct manner. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 19:00, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- The page Forum:Consensus track describes the forum like so: "The Consensus track page is a forum for organizing vital discussions and debates, especially those concerning new policies or site-wide improvements. In contrast, the Senate Hall is a place for general-purpose talk." Again, discussion and debate about something concerning *POLICY*. Senate Hall is *NOT* the place for a discussion of the type that I opened. The page I opened belongs in the CT forum since it regards policy. --Gnarscien (talk) 19:04, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- You are misunderstanding the notion of the Senate Hall. "General-purpose talk" refers to attempts to operate Wookieepedia as a general purpose discussion forum, discussing characters, story arcs and the like. To quote: "The Senate Hall is a site-wide discussion area meant for topics concerning Wookieepedia. Please feel free to post questions, suggestions, and comments not related to specific articles. Questions related to specific articles should be asked on the talk page for that article. Wookieepedia is not a general discussion board. Star Wars questions may be asked at the Knowledge Bank or referred to an external forum such as the Jedi Council Forums on TheForce.Net. Off-topic posts are subject to deletion." - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 19:15, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. --Gnarscien (talk) 19:18, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- You are misunderstanding the notion of the Senate Hall. "General-purpose talk" refers to attempts to operate Wookieepedia as a general purpose discussion forum, discussing characters, story arcs and the like. To quote: "The Senate Hall is a site-wide discussion area meant for topics concerning Wookieepedia. Please feel free to post questions, suggestions, and comments not related to specific articles. Questions related to specific articles should be asked on the talk page for that article. Wookieepedia is not a general discussion board. Star Wars questions may be asked at the Knowledge Bank or referred to an external forum such as the Jedi Council Forums on TheForce.Net. Off-topic posts are subject to deletion." - Sir Cavalier of One
- The page Forum:Consensus track describes the forum like so: "The Consensus track page is a forum for organizing vital discussions and debates, especially those concerning new policies or site-wide improvements. In contrast, the Senate Hall is a place for general-purpose talk." Again, discussion and debate about something concerning *POLICY*. Senate Hall is *NOT* the place for a discussion of the type that I opened. The page I opened belongs in the CT forum since it regards policy. --Gnarscien (talk) 19:04, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- You are calling attention to a CT, and included the phrase "CT" in the message heading and the message body to the users you contacted. Users expect a CT to have voting options. Therefore, you are technically vote farming, regardless of the fact that you did not set up a CT in the correct manner. - Sir Cavalier of One
- My point was not trying to justify "vote farming". It was trying to explain to you that it was in fact not "vote farming" by any definition of the phrase. By your own words, the current CT has no voting options. How then can I be "vote farming" if there is nothing to vote on? Inviting editors that took place in the first CT to participate in a reopening of that CT is common courtesy. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:53, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- My attitude is not hostile. I have no reason to be hostile towards you. What it is, though, is direct and clear. If you take that to mean hostile, then so be it, but that is not the intent and if you have taken offense I apologise. In these matters, I prefer to be unambiguous. Yes, administrative action will be considered if you continue to vote farm, and you should be aware of the consequences if you continue down that route. The previous voting trends of users will not be reviewed. Vote farming of any kind is not tolerated on Wookieepedia, and should not be undertaken in any circumstances. As for the CT itself; it is expected that when tabling a CT, you also provide clear voting options. Without clear lines of voting, the CT becomes a nothing but a discussion, which is better handled in the Senate Hall. - Sir Cavalier of One
- Also, I'm quoting from Help:Contents here: "Consensus track — where community-wide proposals, discussions, and debates take place". So how was it posted in the wrong place? Wookieepedia's help page clearly says Consensus track forum is used for discussion and debate, not exclusively voting. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:31, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you think this kind of attitude is a bit off-putting to new and potentially valuable editors? Warning "administrative action" is extremely harsh and unfair, as are your comments. I'm not sure why you're being so hostile toward me, but I ask again that you please look over the users I contacted about the CT. They were involved in the original discussion, every one, so they probably care if that discussion is re-opened. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:27, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Unless you plan to notify every single user on Wookieepedia to the issue, then the warning stands. No user, regardless of intent, is allowed to vote farm on any issue. It does not matter that the users contacted may have voted a certain way on a past CT. Vote farming is not allowed, period. Also, unless you set out clear voting options within the CT you have posted, I will close it and move the entire discussion to the Senate Hall, where, to be honest, it should have been located in the first place. - Sir Cavalier of One
Re:CT
I don't play TOR, sorry. JangFett (Talk) 23:51, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
Images
While all good-faith contributions to Wookieepedia are appreciated, we ask that you please refer to Wookieepedia:Images, which can be found under the "other policies and guidelines" link in your welcome message, and familiarize yourself with the sourcing and licensing requirements before uploading any more images. The only uploading method supported by Wookieepedia, Special:Upload, will prompt you to enter this information. Wikia's non-standard upload forms are not supported under Wookieepedia policy, and ignorance of the uploading rules is not an acceptable excuse. Continued violation of the image policy or falsification of any information in an upload description are considered vandalism and will likely result in a block. Thank you. Cade 
Calrayn 19:09, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you for notifying me. I thought I had filled in the necessary copyright information, but apparently not. --Gnarscien (talk) 19:15, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
I am noticing that on some of your uploads, you are stating that your reduced the size. Please don't do that. Screenshots should be uploaded at their native resolution without downscaling. Our general preference is for all images, regardless of source, to be as high of a resolution as possible without artificially enlarging them. In the future, please upload these images without downscaling them, and if you still have the originals of the ones that you downscaled, please upload them over top of their downscaled versions. Thank you. —MJ— Council Chambers 23:43, November 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. Unfortunately, I didn't save the originals, but the resizing was only very slight. I will be sure to keep it in mind for future uploads. --Gnarscien (talk) 23:48, November 19, 2013 (UTC)
Re: Lew Brell
Here are the guidelines for character articles. Your edits removed important information from the Behind the scenes section and also completely removed the Personality and traits section. While the article should probably be cleaned up slightly, in general, more detailed information is better. Your edits removed large amounts of context and details that helped describe the character. As an example of an article written according to the guidelines, here is an Old Republic article that has reached Featured article status.--Exiled Jedi 
(Greetings) 06:00, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Character articles should have a personality and traits section, and you should not remove all of the information that you did from the introduction and the biography.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 06:12, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding this article, a number of us looked over your edits and compared them with the previous revision. While the article has flaws, removing valid information to fix grammar and such is not a good means to improving the article, nor is stripping out half of the introduction. If you would like to work on the article a bit at a time, perhaps you could make a subpage (such as User:Gnarscien/Lew Brell) as use that to work on a new version of the article until it's finished. Until then, please refrain from continuing to trim away large portions of the content in the article. We're all in favor of improving article quality, but not at the cost of information. Thanks! Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 06:21, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Let's ask a rhetorical question. If you had to choose between multiple members of Wookieepedia, several of whom have considerable experience in writing articles on the website, years even, or someone who has been writing here for a couple weeks, who would you think would have a better understanding about writing articles? We appreciate your passion and we'd like you to continue contributing, but we do actually know what we're talking about here. —Unsigned comment by Atarumaster88 (talk • contribs)
- I appreciate all of your advice, and I admit I still have a lot to learn, but please do not belittle me. I know a piece of writing that needs cleanup when I see it. --Gnarscien (talk) 09:15, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Let's ask a rhetorical question. If you had to choose between multiple members of Wookieepedia, several of whom have considerable experience in writing articles on the website, years even, or someone who has been writing here for a couple weeks, who would you think would have a better understanding about writing articles? We appreciate your passion and we'd like you to continue contributing, but we do actually know what we're talking about here. —Unsigned comment by Atarumaster88 (talk • contribs)
- Regarding this article, a number of us looked over your edits and compared them with the previous revision. While the article has flaws, removing valid information to fix grammar and such is not a good means to improving the article, nor is stripping out half of the introduction. If you would like to work on the article a bit at a time, perhaps you could make a subpage (such as User:Gnarscien/Lew Brell) as use that to work on a new version of the article until it's finished. Until then, please refrain from continuing to trim away large portions of the content in the article. We're all in favor of improving article quality, but not at the cost of information. Thanks! Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 06:21, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
Wookieepedia's Layout Guide and our featured article requirements have a couple of writing conventions that you might not be aware of. The first is that no unique information shall be presented in the introduction. So if you establish that Lew Brell is a human male in the intro, the body should also state this. Another convention is that you shouldn't just remove redlinks—if it's a valid candidate for an article, make a stub for it. Don't just remove the redlink.
We did review your contributions to the article, and we found that it didn't align with Wookieepedia's way and preferred style of writing articles, which is why it was changed back. We're onboard with conciseness and writing quality improvements, but within the constraints of our manual of style. Thanks. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 06:30, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but no. Also, I did not remove any red links. It is silly to copy and paste the exact same information that is in the introduction into the 'Biography' section. No other article I have seen does that. I don't know why you all are so protective of the original version of the article, but frankly it's ridiculous. I've tried to be reasonable but nothing is getting through. It's very frustrating. --Gnarscien (talk) 06:38, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
|
|
User warning: Three-Revert Rule.
You have come close to violating, or have already violated, the Three-Revert Rule. If you continue to edit-war, an administrator will block you from editing. Please reconsider your approach, and pay attention to the advice others provide. |
It does not matter whether you "agree" with the comments above. The fact of the matter is that they are right and you are wrong, and you are expected to obey our policies and practices whether you agree with them or not. Rehashing the discussion somewhere else will serve absolutely no purpose, because I guarantee that you will not find any established user to agree with you, and for that reason any other forum threads you start in an attempt to get someone to side with you instead of accepting that we have set ways of doing things that you are expected to abide by will also be deleted as soon as I see them, because they are indeed a waste of the administration's and community's time. You have the right to disagree with our policies, but that does not give you the right to ignore them and do things your own way. Further attempts to persist in this course of action will result in a block from editing. —Unsigned comment by Master Jonathan (talk • contribs)
- I will also add that the cleanup template is reserved for when the article has major issues. It is not used on an article like this one that only has a few small issues. —MJ— Comlink 07:50, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Please look at this more rationally. I wasn't in an edit war. I didn't come close to breaking the 3RR. My edits after they reverted were an attempt to address their concerns. It was not an edit war, just me trying to clean up the article. If you read the article, you will notice several errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Those, to me, warrant a cleanup tag at least. --Gnarscien (talk) 07:56, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I take all of your advice and warnings very seriously, and I admit I still have a lot to learn, but I wish you would have been less belittling and patronizing. I've been nothing but respectful to you and every other user involved in this dispute. The fact is, I understand where you and they are coming from, and I understand that there is set policy. I also know a piece of writing that needs cleanup when I see it. That article does not simply have "a few small issues". It is currently a wall of text and the grammar is still very lacking, even after I corrected only spelling and punctuation. The fact that you have silenced my attempt to get another pair of eyes to look at it is very unfair. You seem to misunderstand my motives. I am not trying to cause trouble here. My intentions are out of the motivation to improve the wiki. You are treating me like a bad faith editor and it's very frustrating. --Gnarscien (talk) 09:13, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, no hard feelings. There's a bit of a learning curve in every new community. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 19:44, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
The Old Republic
 |
Just wanted to say good work. :) Protectorate (talk) 15:35, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks a lot! :D --Gnarscien (talk) 00:57, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
Star Wars: Bounty Hunter
Concerning Star Wars: Bounty Hunter I made the page more neutral and formal. --RROGON (talk) 20:44, July 10, 2015 (UTC)