Talk: Jack Nebulax/Archive 1

< User talk:Jack Nebulax

Jack Nebulax, welcome!

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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Community Portal talk page or ask me on my Talk page. May the Force be with you! -- Riffsyphon1024 00:07, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Second Battle of Coruscant

Why did you change my pics? It all wrong now! The battle in sector four has nothing to do with teh capture of Palatine!!! Themelle444 20:16, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I simply moved them because they screwed up the text. While it has nothing to do with the capture of Palpatine, it looks better there. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:19, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • If it screwed up the text (wich it didn't) just adjust the "px" so it looks better!!! Themelle444 20:24, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, first: Chill out. Second: It did screw up the text, so leave it alone. It's perfectly fine the way I have it. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:27, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please don't mark controversial changes as minor. Changes should be marked as minor only if they can be safely skipped when viewing edit history, like spelling corrections. Thank you. - Sikon 01:23, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Source for info on OOM-9

Could you please provide a source for the information presented in the second paragraph of OOM-9's article? Thank you. – Aidje talk 05:06, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not exactly what I found, but what it said for on the CIS page on Wikipedia. In the section under the Key Members section, it says: "General OOM-9: General of the Trade Federation Army up until the Battle of Hypori" or something like that. So, since I thought that was true information, I added it to OOM-9's page. If that is not actual information, however, I'll gladly remove it. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:34, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wookieepedia. It would probably be best to remove this information until it is verified by an official source. – Aidje talk 20:09, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • It appears that that information was taken off the CIS page so you might as well remove it from OOM-9s section Unit121 8 Sep 2005
      • Information removed, forgot to notify everyone here. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:41, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Basilisk War Droid

Why did you revert the BWD back to it's original, un-detailed version. My information was accurate, coming from the Essential Guide to Droids and the Mandalorian history article in Insider 80.If it was not written to your likely, I would have been happy for you to clean it up in your way. However the information I had was accurate.--Darth Nuke 16:49, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

  • It just sounded a little, how should I say this, "different". I myself don't have the Essential Guide to Droids, but when I saw that, it just seemed a little fan-made or exaggerated to me. Usually, what I do here is look at articles and if some material doesn't make sense to me, I remove it until a source is stated. However, if this is, as you say, official information, then I apologize for reverting it. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:19, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but the info is indeed offical and from the Mandalorian History Article and the EGTDs.--Darth Nuke 01:04, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Dark Side, dark side

Check [[Star Wars talk:Community Portal/Sides of the Force]] and Star Wars:Manual of Style -- the rest of the wiki appears to have decided to use "dark side" rather than "Dark Side". Cheers, — Silly Dan 23:02, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • That's just stupid, though. You don't say "jedi knights" or "dark jedi", you say Jedi Knights and Dark Jedi. Therefore, the sides of the Force should be the same. It should be Dark Side and Light Side. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:48, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • It *is* stupid - I totally think it should be capitalized. But that's not the way Lucasfilm does it, so it's not the way that we do it. jSarek 02:54, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)


Buzz Droid

I would just like to thank you for helping me flesh out the Buzz Droid page, I figured the cute little droids needed more info and wanted to take a stab at it, I do have 1 question, why did you remove the picture of the droid folded up into a ball, granted it was a picture of the toy but it also looked that way in the movie as well? --sithlord123 17:34, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, because it was the toy. However, if you could find a picture of it in "ball" formation from the movie, you could put that in. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 18:17, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a movie picture of a Buzz Droid, was/is it against Star Wars Wiki rules to use Toy pictures?--sithlord123 11:07, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's against the rules, it's just preferred that better images than toys be used when possible (and it's not always possible; see All Terrain-Ion Cannon for an example). jSarek 11:13, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm mad, as I said Thank you for you help but what's with the quote erasing? other pages have them Leia has a quote from Yoda "There is another..." I was trying to base the Buzz Droid on that page since it's a featured article, or are Droid templates not treated as flesh and blood templates?--sithlord123 11:46, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • What quote? I don't ever recall seeing a quote on the buzz droid page. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:33, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

sorry I thought it was you that removed it it was Anakin's quote "I see them . . . Buzz Droids." --sithlord123 21:26, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Star Destroyer subclasses

Please go to the Imperial-class Star Destroyer discussion page. I disagree with your claim that the classes are Imperial I and Imperial II since that would imply two separate classes of ship, whereas the Mark I and Mark II designations imply two subclasses of the same class (i.e. Imperial-class).--SOCL 12:30, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, "Imperial I" is "Imperial-class Star Destroyer, Mark I" in a shortened form. Also, it's the same for "Victory I" and "Victory II". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:41, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

From SOCL to Jack Nebulax

Hey, I'm not sure if you have a personal grudge or problem with me, but it sure would be nice to know what I did to tick you off so much (if I did). I might be misreading you, but you seemed rather hostile to me in two of the discussion pages. If there is a problem, let me know, would you?--SOCL 23:23, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Well, allow me to extend a heartfelt apology for reacting rather badly to what I perceieved as being a hostile comment.--SOCL 16:11, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't worry about it. Things get a little tense here. Sometimes people take things way too seriously. I've done it before. But seriously, don't worry about it. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 17:32, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you're right about that. I never thought debates over Star Wars could get as bad as political debates.--SOCL 17:48, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • If you thought this was bad, you'd better check out the Battlefront II Talk page. When all of that was going on, we had to lock up the page a few times to prevent people from changing stuff during the page's edit war. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 17:50, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Refering to ships

Hey Jack. Regarding your changes to Mon Mothma (starship), our Manual of Style outlines that the definite article "the" is not used before the name of the ship. Thus "Mon Mothma was a starship" is correct; "the Mon Mothma was a starship" is incorrect. I hope that clarifies that for you. --SparqMan 20:17, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that. I'm just used to referring to ships as "the (ship name)". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:18, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Rookie One

Just wanted to ask where do you know from that Rookie One piloted a Spearhead during the Battle of Yavin MoffRebus 01:39, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I've seen it in many places. There were two Spearheads in the battle, one piloted by Rookie One and the other piloted by Jake Farrell. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:34, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's the deal; we see them fly A-wing-shaped craft at the Battle of Yavin. However, we know that the A-wing wasn't developed until AFTER Yavin (Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, other sources), that the R-22 Spearhead was the look-alike ship that the A-wing was developed from (New Essential Guide to Characters, and that Yavin Base was equipped with several of them (Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy). Thus, Rookie One had to have been flying a Spearhead. Q.E.D. jSarek 06:54, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the R-22 Spearhead was the pre-A-wing A-wing. Plus, the Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy clearly show two R-22 Spearheads that would later be flown by Farrell and Rookie One. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:50, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I know we see 2 A-Wings and the one belongs to Farrell, but how we know that the other one is Rookie's? He is flying an X-Wing in the game and Blue Squadron had more pilots than Farrell and Rookie. The second A-Wing could be anyone's. Who tells us it's Rookie One and not Ru Murleen? MoffRebus 23:56, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, as I said before, not everything in the games are true. Of course Blue Squadron has more pilots than those two. Blue and Green Squadrons were a mix of fighters at Yavin. There are plenty of sources showing that it was Rookie One's. Just go out and find one. You'll see. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:34, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Umm, such as? I can't think of a single source mentioning Rookie One by name other than the Rebel Assault games themselves, let alone what ship he was flying. jSarek 07:15, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • That's exactly my point. I know that R.A. is S-canon but who says that Rookie flew Spearhead and not X-Wing (as shown in the game) or Y-wing? Who tells us it's Rookie and not anyone else? Who tells us the second Spearhead must belong to the Blue Squadron? 'Just go out and find one source' isn't helping much. MoffRebus 10:03, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, MoffRebus, I know there are sources, because I wasn't the one that put in here on Star Wars Wikipedia. So, why are you asking me? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:39, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • According to the 'History' of the article, it was you that made the change X-Wing > A-Wing. If it wasn't you I don't know who did it and what sources did he have? Anyway.. Truth will be revealed. MoffRebus 22:41, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • Probably my brother. He's on a lot under my name. But I remember seeing a source for that, actually—I just can't remember where. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:02, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nested categories

Hey Jack Nebulax. For the clone commanders, there is no need to categorize them in the general [[:Category:Old Republic characters]] because the category Category:Clone trooper commanders is sorted inside that category, making it redundant. --SparqMan 21:59, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry. I just thought it would be better with the "Old Republic characters" category because they served the Republic. Oh well. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:01, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

They did, which is why Category:Clone trooper commanders is categorized under Category:Galactic Republic military officers. --SparqMan 23:30, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Oops. Didn't realize that. I'll go fix it if it hasn't been done already. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:32, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Heavy trooper

Unfortunately, the reason I'm "screwing up" is to clarify how Battlefront II has screwed everything up. In the video game, they take the armor of Commander Bacara and standardize it for their so-called "heavy troopers". Heavy trooper is actually a nickname for ARCs because the are heavy'weapons commandos. And because the "heavy troopers" in Battlefront II take the armor of Bacara (leader of the Galactic Marines), to avoid confusion I have called the Battlefront II "heavy trooper" a "Galactic Marines heavy trooper".

Heavy Trooper 2

There are no such things as "clone heavy troopers" other than the nickname for a ARC. And under clone heavy trooper I noticed you have stolen all my writing and pasted it there. At least write your own page about these troopers if you're goign to redirect my page. - Ty

  • What? The only reason I had all of your writing (some of which I had to fix, by the way) on that page is because it was NOT a Galactic Marines heavy trooper, but a clone heavy trooper. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:52, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Again I see you have taken my work. Please at least ask next time you tell me my information is wrong and then copy and paste it onto another page.

May the Force be with you. Ty 13:12, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Death Star I

Andeson's books confirm that this was the prototype. Lucas would gladly accept it, seeing the excuse he gave. It was an offhand comment that he made, anyway. Adamwankenobi 13:06, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • So, it came from Lucas HIMSELF. He is the creator of Star Wars, not Anderson. Adamwankenobi, you can't admit that you're wrong. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:07, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I've made a compromise on the page. Explaining the different sources. See, I'm willing to be fair. Adamwankenobi 13:19, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • That's better. Sometimes things get a little tense... All too many times... Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:20, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap

You live in PA? I live in Bucks county--Xilentshadow900 21:15, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Really? I've been to Bucks county a few times myself. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:16, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't been here long, just since february.--Xilentshadow900 21:19, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh. Well, I'm in Cumberland county. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:21, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • About all our arguments- I'm sorry that I've been kid of edgy. or ridiculous. I think we can both agree that we're two star wars fans trying to do what's best for the site. --Xilentshadow900 21:23, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • I apologize as well. We seem to have a lot more in common now. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:09, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
            • We can drink to it at the newly enhanced Battle of Ithor page.--Xilentshadow900 00:30, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
              • Nice job. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:31, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
                • Thank you--Xilentshadow900 00:33, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
                  • No problem. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:34, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
                    • Yeah, I just bought that NJO three pack with the first three books. Now I need to buy agents of chaos. Have you read the NJO books?--Xilentshadow900 00:35, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
                      • Only the first three. I was about to read the fourth, but that's when The Joiner King came out. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:37, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • How come you didn't continue? I mean, doesn't skipping a few books leave you wondering what happens? Ever since 2003, I've been on a quest to read (most of) the star wars books after return of the jedi. I've read (in order): Shadows of the empire, The bounty hunter wars, Truce at bakura, The X-wing series, courtship of princess leia, the Thrawn crisis, I, Jedi (instead of the Jedi academy trilogy, which I heard was terrible), the hand of thrawn duology, and now, the NJO series, which i will finish in forever. A shame I hadn't heard of this website sooner, as its so much easier to document things while you're reading about them. I've taken it upon myself to write the articles of all the battles in the NJO series so the people who don't want to read it can keep up with it anyway and skip to the legacy era, and some awesome mandalorian action.--Xilentshadow900 00:42, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I myself at first didn't like the whole "extragalactic Yuuzhan Vong threat". I was hoping for more Imperial warlords. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:44, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • I think its a great change, and, like Elegos A'kla i find the Yuuzhan vong characters to be fascinating. Just wait, you'll find my skeleton mailed to you with jewels in my eyes... But seriously, I was getting a bit tired of the imperial warlord business, especially after the x-wing series. But that's just me.--Xilentshadow900 00:48, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • I myself actually liked the whole Elegos A'kla's skeleton deal and the Lambda shuttle covered in whatever that was. I could picture that in my mind, that is, the way the shuttle looked. That I liked. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:51, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • That was pretty cool. The sad thing is, I could visualize the skeleton pretty well, and it was a sad moment for me, because I've read about elegos ever since Corran found him in I, Jedi. What a sad end to such a nice person. I'm looking forward to the siege of coruscant though, and the death of Borsk Fey'lya. I've been waiting for his death for years...--Xilentshadow900 00:55, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove {{1st}} tags?

Why would you do this? They are quite useful. Please explain. --Azizlight 00:35, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • There's no point to include those tags when we know that he appeared in those movies. All it does is add small text that says where he first appeared, which doesn't matter. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:37, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • It's like when there was the pronunciations on certain pages. You don't need to know how to pronounce something when you're reading it, and you don't need to know their first appearances, either. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:38, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • It IS useful information that many people DO want to know. It's nice to be able to look at a list of appearances and immediately be able to tell which was their first, or when their name was first identified. This is especially useful for the more obscure aspects of the saga. You did it to the Ailyn Vel article, and it was useful information there. I agree that it's probably not required for the Darth Vader page, but I was just doing that for the sake of consistency. --Azizlight 00:53, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I've started a discussion on the Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal page to see what other Wookieepedians think. --Azizlight 01:56, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies, then. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:04, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • None required :-) And sorry if i sounded a bit rude earlier. It's just that I thought it was a great idea when i created it, and I got a bit upset when you deleted it straight away. Cheers :-) --Azizlight 12:40, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't worry, you didn't sound rude. I understand that you felt a little upset. The same kind of thing happens to me every so often, and not just here. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:42, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Just Checking

Someone with the UK-based BT ISP 86.128.153.190 edited what looks to me like inaccurate special-pleading into the Cygnus Spaceworks article in between your two edits. I've noticed a problem with similar stuff elsewhere, also from BT ISPs. I, um, hope this isn't you. Let me know before I report anonymous vandalism! --McEwok 23:16, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Plo Koon image

I can't figure out how to make a new section because I'm new here but I wanted to point out that your comment about my Plo Koon edit was rude. I was only trying to help. Something like "image doesn't fit site standards of quality" would have been much more appropriate. "Removed image that ruins the entire section." is harsher than is really necessary. Was the problem that it was a picture of an action figure or that the picture was not good enough? Be helpful not insulting. Also, I noticed your comment in the plo koon edit history right after I posted the image back up. (Feel free to edit this so it is in its own section. Sorry for my wiki incompetence.)--DannyBoy7783

  • Well, the thing is, it messes up the flow of the article. When saved, the text is stuck between both images in that section, and I had previewed it in other spots in that section, but it doesn't quite fit. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:54, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean. I thought it looked fine personally but I'll yield on this. The Jedi Power Battles picture makes the point well enough anyway. Thanks for the helpful comments. DannyBoy7783 13:01 EST, 10 Dec 2005 (EST)

Thanks for your support

Just wanted to offer my thanks for your support on the issue of the Executrix debate. Quite frankly, I'm surprised there was a debate, given the evidence. And I'm really annoyed that I had to explain myself three times.

Once again, thanks.TIEPilot051999 21:53, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Humans or humans

  • Admiral...

It SHOULD be Humans, but IS it? Every source I know has them as humans. --Master Starkeiller 18:45, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Here's a place where sources don't really matter. If it is a specific species, it should be capitalized. Example: Hutts, not hutts. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:47, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I think sources matter in this case too. I'm not a fan of the idea, but when the sources speak, what can we say? --Master Starkeiller 18:50, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Despite the fact that it appears like that, it really should be capitalized no matter what, and we all know that. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:53, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't know... I'm inclined to trust the sources... --Master Starkeiller 18:55, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • What is the sources were wrong? Admiral J. Nebulax 18:58, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • I perfectly understand your position, but I still think that if they use it in all the books, we here should also. --Master Starkeiller 19:00, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • But Starkeiller, we know that Humans are a specific species. The only reason they are spelled with a lowercase "h" in the sources in because the authors didn't care about it. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:02, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • I know, and I didn't say otherwise. I'm just saying that if they don't care about it, we shouldn't care about it as well. They define what's official, not we. Whatever the reasons, that's the way they write it. --Master Starkeiller 19:06, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                  • ...despite the fact that we know it's wrong—the reason why the "h" should be capitalized. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:09, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                    • Yes, despite the fact that we know it's wrong. Call it... uhm... blind obedience. --Master Starkeiller 19:11, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                      • So, do you think this matter is solved, Master Starkeiller? Or must we pointlessly debate when we know what is right here? Admiral J. Nebulax 19:13, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                        • — Silly Dan is scouring the sources. If most sources say human, that's what we'll use. If most sources say Human, that's what we'll use. There is no right or wrong. Only the sources. Actually, there is, but the sources take precedence. For example, that stupidity about the Universe being formed earlier than 13,5 billion years ago... We have to accept it. --Master Starkeiller 19:17, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                          • I still say it should be Humans, no matter what. Please ask him to stop over here and view our dicussion. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:20, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                            • Well, he isn't currently scouring the sources. I recon he'll be back tomorrow with the results. When he does, I'll direct him here. But he's looking for a source that capitalizes the word so we can have an excuse for capitalizing it here. If he finds one, I'm with you. If not, I think we should keep it in lowercase. I have a source, but it's in Greek (Anthropos instead of anthropos) and I can't know if it was capitilized in the originial version. --Master Starkeiller 19:22, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • The statement that I would check the souces tomorrow was only true from a certain point of view. 8) Watch Talk:Human for my findings. — Silly Dan 17:55, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

My page

If you would be so kind as to move the "info" box on my page under the box with the black bar across the top on the right I'd be most grateful. I'm having a hard time. --DannyBoy7783 21:11, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think that's possible. It just happens. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:02, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

501st Legion

Why did you deleted my references to 501st battles on Mygeeto, Felucia and Utapau?

Emperor Palpatine "self-declared" emperor

Emperor Palpatine not only declared himself emperor before the Galactic Senate, but also anointed himself emperor in the aforementioned bodie's presence. This change in diction is more revealing, but should be considered a minor edit/improvement not to be debated. Why is that it seems you revert any contribution I make? --24.253.120.206

  • Maybe because it would be better another way. Nontheless, "self-declared" is much better than "self-anointed". Admiral J. Nebulax 21:13, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, Jack and Unnamed-Series of-Numbers. What about self-appointed? One can be appointed to a government position (Palpatine did so for others many a time). Can it not be said that he appointed himself to the position of Emperor, and the lapdog Senate approved? Or not. I just thought I'd toss it out. I happen to like self-declared better, since most Star Wars material I've read since childhood phrased it in terms very similar - or exactly like - that. But it really won't sink the article either way. Erik Pflueger 21:19, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • For the time being, I have "self-declared/self-anointed". But I'd gladly go for "self-appointed" if this user agrees. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:21, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • An anointment is a more specific type of declaration, one by ritual. The ritualistic nature is appealing. While my edits are first class, I will agree with "self-appointed". --24.253.120.206
          • I will go add "self-appointed" now. At least this was solved. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:29, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Blessed is the peacemaker... ;) Erik Pflueger 02:14, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to stir up any trouble and I know this has been resolved. I'm simply commenting that appointed makes more sense. a·noint tr.v. a·noint·ed, a·noint·ing, a·noints
  1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
  2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
  3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.

Palpatine was never anointed so self appointed fits perfectly.--DannyBoy7783 03:45, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Premiere Limited and other SWCCG set names

  • We've only recently had articles for the various sets made, which is why few articles link to them yet. I've been making an effort to add them in when I come across articles that need them, but haven't made a comprehensive effort to get the ones I *haven't* come across, hence the lack of set names in some articles. jSarek 03:42, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Databank tag

I noticed you placed the 3PO page's Databank tag under 'External Links'. But the tag page says it needs to go under the Sources section. This would avoid the fugly contents box, too - Kwenn

  • In all the articles I've seen, it's in "External links" because it is, in fact, an external link. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:51, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • True, but then again, so are any links to HoloNet News, but on that page, it's been decided to place those links under 'Appearances'. And it's not as if it's just linking to a fan page or further information: info is actually taken from the Databank, making it a source - Kwenn

Edit summaries

Please enter in at least a basic edit summary. I grow weary of always checking version differences to see what changes you made. --SparqMan 21:45, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Then please mark them as minor with the checkbox below the edit summary box. If most of your edits are minor, you can set it to be checked by default. --SparqMan 03:45, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Screen resolution

Jack, can I please have your screen resolution so I can take it into account in the placement of my pictures? We seem to constantly disagree, if I had your screen resolution we can avoid future arguements. Mine is 1280 * 1024 pixels. --Master Starkeiller 15:52, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter. I won't move the pictures anymore; it's just that it seems a little, well, odd. But the point is to get the information and fix it, not the pictures. So if it looks good on your computer, I'll leave it alone. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:59, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, know what my screen resolution is so that if something looks really bad to you, you may be able to see it as I do. --Master Starkeiller 16:03, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Jar-Jar

  • So, let's tak about Jar-Jar. Why yousa no liken him? --Master Starkeiller 15:57, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Simple—he's annoying. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:59, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but isn't Gunganspeak awesome? --Master Starkeiller 16:03, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Sort-of. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:04, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Okay then, I'll try to speak as Boss Nass from now on. --Master Starkeiller 16:06, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • It's a start. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:08, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • I kid you not, folks: the first thing I did that made my fiancee interested in me, according to her, was that I did a Jar Jar impression. I know, I don't get it either. All I said was "meesa sorry." I know there's no accounting for taste, Jack, but Gunganspeak pays dividends! ;) Erik Pflueger 19:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't think I'll try it though... --Master Starkeiller 19:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Wow, Erik. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • I know! In fact, I just showed Yvette what I wrote about that incident, and she laughed until her face hurt. But she said, "You know, it's true!" God, I love her... :) Erik Pflueger 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

R4-P17

Thanks for removing that bit I added about R4-P17 being almost destroyed on Yavin 4. I was just about to remove it myself. I had assumed it was the same droid: you know, R2 dome, identical coloring. Then I read the bit about R4-P17 being the template for all Jedi starfighter astromechs, and it seemed unlikely that the droid would be rebuilt after what happened to it. --Canley 01:46, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Period on redirect

Hey there. Why did you place a period at 212th Attack Batallion after I made it into a redirect? --SparqMan 19:07, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Do you know how to put it? Revan 06:02, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • It appears automatically when you have a certain amount of sections. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:40, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Please Be Kinder

I have noticed the responses you put about numerous Wookieepedians, making them feel like idiots or saying they ask "stupid questions". Could you please be more respectful of others' thoughts and opinions? Many of us learn our information from the SW books or video games as well as just the movies. Often conflicts will then arise between the movies and these other expanded universe sources. Instead of saying that SW fans' info is "completely wrong", try to be a little more considerate and ask where they got their sources or why they believe what they do. Thank you. --Anonymous

  • Well, the reason I do it that way is because usually the people don't give up. Then I call them idiots for keeping it up. I give them a chance, but when they keep it up and they don't get the point, I speak my mind. That's allowed here. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:28, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Even so, no one likes being shot down and discussions are more important then getting your own point across which you should arise in a non-intimidating manner. The site is a compilation of the info on all aspects of SW; it is not as if any of it is real or should be taken so seriously as to be actually annoyed at the person on the other side of the argument.
      • "it is not as if any of it is real or should be taken so seriously as to be actually annoyed at the person on the other side of the argument." With this kind of thinking, why are you even here?--Xilentshadow900 05:21, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Hey Xilentshadow900, that was rude. I don't know about Jack, but you need to be kinder, Xilent. Telling someone who is here why is he even here is not only rude but counter-productive. We need more Wookiepedians. --Master Starkeiller 12:14, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • To the anonymous user: Listen, when I need to get my point across, I get my point across, especially when the other person keeps it up, whether they're wrong or they don't listen. Now, I do not need to be lectured. When need be, I say these things. I understand what you're saying, but I can handle myself. And the reason I argue is for th good of the article, not to sound like I'm in charge, because I know I'm not. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:27, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • And don't forget Jack is a member of the Imperial Starfleet. He values efficiency more than politeness. http://forums.starwars.com/share/img/emoticons/wink.gif --Master Starkeiller 12:31, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Now excuse me, I have to go command my fleet... ;) Admiral J. Nebulax 12:36, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I guess It's too late now, but my point was this: If you aren't going to take the Star Wars universe seriously, should you really be editing it at all?--Xilentshadow900 17:18, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Who was that directed at? Because if it was directed at me, I do take the Star Wars universe seriously. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:09, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • That was towards mr. anonymous. Sorry bout the confusion.--Xilentshadow900 15:58, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Expecting people to be nice when confrontations arise here is like asking someone not to get angry when some jerk on the highway cuts them off. People have anonymity here and confrontations arise quite often I am noticing. I'm all for people being friendly and diplomatic but expecting it is a bit naive. Telling Nebulax to cut it out isn't going to do anything but annoy him :)--DannyBoy7783 07:58, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I owe Xilent an apology. I misunderstood. What he said wasn't rude, he said it in a way that made it sound very rude. He meant something else entirely. Sorry. --Master Starkeiller 16:42, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • This really isn't the place for it, Starkeiller. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:13, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • This is the place where the misunderstanding took place, this is the place for the apology. --Master Starkeiller 17:16, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • If you want to apologize to Xilentshadow, his talk page is the appropiate spot, not mine. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:18, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Okay, now I apologized, it's over, no hard feelings, happy ending. --Master Starkeiller 17:19, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • There's no point to apologize to someone on someone else's talk page. So just don't do it again. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:23, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm hoping I won't have to, Jack. --Master Starkeiller 17:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • Me too. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:39, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • See? This is EXACTLY my point. I mean look at yourself Jack, your getting annoyed at someone because they're apologizing to someone else! --Anonymous
                      • What is your problem? I'm just saying that this isn't the place for someone to apologize to someone else. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:07, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Jack is right. It's his page so shove off. This place is full of over sensative teen agers and older users who don't care what people think. Stop apologizing to everyone and just go edit a wiki or something. jack's talk page isn't a message board for anything except Jack related matters.--DannyBoy7783 20:49, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Whoever started this discussion is 100% correct. You people with "encyclopedic knowledge" are so obsessed with a fictional space fantasy saga that you don't care about other peoples feelings or ideas. - unsigned comment by Ghost1591

  • Jack does have anger issues, but he's trying. And if you weren't obsessed with it too, you wouldn't be here. And for the record, I have yet to see proof of anyone with the sw-4 tag actually having encyclopedic knowledge. CooperTFN 21:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not obsessed with it to the point i think of nothing else, and i do not put Star Wars above everything else in my life. - unsigned comment by Ghost1591

  • Nor do you have the least bit of proof that Jack is like that. Being rude to people is completely unrelated to those things. CooperTFN 21:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe your right, but nothing he's said to me has proven it otherwise. And ever since I joined this thing he's been on my case, and I've only been here two or three weeks, and I'm probably half his age (at least, I'm only 14!). And no, from what i've seen, he is NOT trying. Either that or he's failing miserably.

  • Yes, you've been screwing things up and creating fanon. That's why I'm "on your case". I don't say to people "Please stop screwing this up" if they keep it up and keep it up. And for your information, I have not failed. It's just that no one puts up with fanon-creators and/or vandalizers. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In case you havent noticed, i only created TWO things of fanon, of which i admitted that i did. I also did not know that fanon was not allowed. What about the clone assassin page? that has as much innacurate stuff as my fanon did, and your not on their case. And Star Wars IS fanon. It is all make believe. My fanon just wasn't official.

  • Two things of fanon is still very bad. And Star Wars is made-up, not fanon. Fanon is when something that is not correct is made by a fan. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

VERY BAD. Hmm. Nebulax, i think you need to find someone who can teach you about ethics. VERY BAD is when you rob an old lady. MAKING A MISTAKE is what I did. You take star wars to seriously. AND I remember that you guys were all over my fanon so quickly it was probably only there for six hours MAX. Other stuff that YOU know is fanon is STILL up there, like the CLONE ASSASSIN article. So that makes it appear to me that your just a big bully who knows everything about star wars.

  • You claim that it's a fanon name, yet you clearly stated that you have no source to back up your claim. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ships

Why do you keep omitting the "the"? - Sikon [Talk] 14:43, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Because that's the way it is done on most of the other starship articles. I originally kept adding the "the" in front of the names, but I found out that it was not supposed to be like that. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:47, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Articles that need images

Hey Jack, is there a way to find out what articles need pictures? Is there a listing for this?

  • I'm not sure. But try looking for pages with an {{images}} tag. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:56, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Slave V Firespray

If you are going to remove the Firespray Attack.jpg image from the Slave V page you should also remove it from the Firespray-class starship as well. Though the image has already been discussed and approved by some users at the discussion page for the firespray. Do you have any evidence that it is actually fan-made or are you assuming? In the image discussion page they site the source being a model kit retailer website.--DannyBoy7783 21:33, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • The evidence is that it shows a Boba Fett-paint job while it's Slave I in the Geonosis asteroid belt. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:38, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Coruscant images

Take a look at this and you will understand why all the pictures have to be on the left:

http://i19. abucketwithphotos .com/albums/b153/Starkeiller/1-2006-01-07-20-07-22.jpg

--Master Starkeiller 18:12, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about the Asijj ventress thing. P.h 03:15, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)p.h

Fullstops

Check my talk page. There's supposed to be a manual of style or something that says captions should have fullstops and we're supposed to follow it. --Master Starkeiller 16:26, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Funny, every time an article has a picture, there are never periods in the captions. It's been like that for a long time. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:21, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Image Question

Hey Jack, I was wondering if there is any actual policy against putting images inside of a paragraph? Starkeiller did it earlier for the Boba Fett weapons sections and I noticed you undid it. I personally find it very annoying when trying to edit when the images are in the middle of a block of text. Is this just a personal preference thing (you reverting it) or is this an actual site thing (if not it should be!)--DannyBoy7783 00:17, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Fanon names

I noticed you disagree with my edit for those fanon names. Did you put them back for all 6 pages that had them? I really don't think they should be here at all because they are fanon, regardless of whether or not it is a warning. People should know better not to listen to SuperShadow and if they want to put his crap in here we can remove it and tell them it is fanon. This looks like a slippery slope for people to include information in the behind the scenes section for any fanon stuff they want and then just add that it is fan made and it will be ok. Including those names on those 6 pages creates a dangerous precedent. For more on this please see [User talk: SFH]--DannyBoy7783 00:49, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem is, people do believe SuperShadow. This way, any more vandalisms with these fanon names will be avoided. If you check Dooku's and Grievous's pages histories, you'll see that the fanon names have been added into the articles numerous times. I put those paragraphs in to hopefully avoid any further vandalizing. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:51, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand why the names are in the Behind the Scenes sections. If they must be there that would be the best place but I think the way it is worded now only serves to leave a door open for fans who wants fanon included here. By simply putting a "fan made" disclaimer after it they can post whatever they want in the Behind the Scenes sections at this site. Where do you draw the line for stuff like that? We'll never stop fanon from coming here and I think that what is there now serves as a foot hold. At the least the wording should be more negatively slanted towards fanon inclusion. --DannyBoy7783 01:03, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right. We'll never stop fanon from being posted, because there are idiots that will do it no matter what. That's what we're here for. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:06, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • I just checked the Dooku article again and I think the wording is much better. Are all 6 articles like this? What about Palpatine's page?--DannyBoy7783 01:09, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Silly Dan...

...for fixing this talk archive. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)