Talk: Jack Nebulax/Archive 14

< User talk:Jack Nebulax

Blocked, again

  • You know, I'd get into the whole quality thing, because I don't think you have a leg to stand on there, but that's not even the question anymore. That's just what got me fed up enough with your nonsense to take action. Your sense of complete ownership of this wiki and blanket reversions of any changes to your edits without even looking at them are juvenile and unacceptable. You pick almost exclusively on anons or lesser-established users to revert, and when anyone puts up a fight you keep pushing, thinking that you'll keep going when they give up. You're not interested in being right, but in having the last word. If anyone does call you on it and put up serious resistance, you run off crying harassment and namecalling and poor poor picked-on me or you throw a hissyfit and leave . . . for a week. It's classic bullying behavior. I've had enough. The Jack Nebulax drama show is over. It's not about Parck. It's about your complete inability to get along with others and behave in a mature manner. It's about your using this wiki as a stage for your ego. It's about the fact that you're a chronic edit-warrer who has been called on it time and time again and each time you promise you'll change and you come back saying you changed and you'll try and you haven't changed a damn bit except for one day of contrite behavior, and then back into the swing of things. Enough. Enough. I told you to stop the edit-warring. You didn't. You've been blocked eight times, seven of them for edit warring and five of those within the last six months. You're not learning. Apparently, you can't learn. You're done. Crying and moaning looking after some sort of compromise won't help you. Your history has demonstrated that it's just enabling you. Havac 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Because some people believe a permanent ban is not yet warranted, your block has been shortened from infinity to one week. This, I fear, is merely delaying the inevitable. When you return, which I know you will, your actions will be watched more closely. The very next edit war you get into, the very next personal attack you post, will be the end of your time here.
    This is not personal. You save us a lot of work patrolling the RCs, and we seem to have compatible views on a number of issues, so I certainly don't have an overwhelming desire to kick you out. You may have forgotten that I was happy to vote for you for WotM back in 2006, and I have been in your camp on a number of consensus tracks and talk page discussions, and I do not regret that. But Havac's points are hard to argue against. I've watched the cycle in action for too long.
    You need to cease your constant efforts to have the last word or the top edit. You need to give anons the benefit of the doubt more often. And most of all, you need to understand that you are neither greater nor lower than any other user in the eyes of the community and its laws. Your tenure does not give you any special privilege.
    I have no particular desire to see that tenure end, so I have agreed with my fellow administrators on this compromise. Take this week to consider your position, and do not force us to take action again. The next time we do will be the last. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dialog-error You have been blocked from editing for one week. To contest this block, please contact the blocking administrator with the reason you believe the block is unjustified.

I thinnk all of you are crazy! Jack never did anything wrong!ruusan 02:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's in the past now, Ruusan. I did do many things wrong, and I got what I deserved. I appreciate your concern, though. And thanks for the Wookiee Cookie. ;) —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

hello

hi im new.wookiepedia is great!!! Imperialwalker 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Jack

Hey, Jack, just wanted to say welcome back after that long ban.--Darthtyler (talk) (HSM RKY) 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I second that motion. Welcome back, Jack. Erik Pflueger 20px 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Hopefully, the forum discussion will end soon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You do understand, though, Jack, that even if the discussion turns out to be in your favor, they'll be watching you like a hawk now. As your friend, who genuinely likes you, who stood up for you in a crunch as best as I could given the circumstances, and who owes you the honest truth as I see it, I'm telling you this: the long knives will be out for you if you make the slightest misstep after this. Whatever it is they think you keep doing - and I've never experienced it because you and I treat each other on a different and more cordial level - you MUST stop it. Whatever new leaf they want you to turn, you MUST turn it. I won't be able to defend you if it should happen again, and it was a real challenge THIS time. And regardless, they'll be tightening the punishments for things like this; whatever happens, if you're not walking on eggshells with these people, you'll be getting bans of weeks or months. Or maybe the most outraged of them will finally get what they want and perma-ban you. They'll do it. I don't doubt that others, such as administrators or even your enemies, would have said the same thing in time, but I felt you needed to hear from your friend first. I DO have your best interest at heart here, and it's in your best interest to be allowed to stay. Therefore, it's in your best interest to fundamentally change your approach. Whatever this "always has to have the last word" things is about, it has to end. Whatever this "3RR repetition" thing is, it needs to stop. Because if not, they WILL NOT stay their hand again. You WILL be finished. Please consider that, if only for my sake. I've lost enough friends in my life recently, for various reasons; I don't want to lose you too. Erik Pflueger 20px 16:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • what the heck did you do to get blocked for so long???? Imperialwalker 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Grand Admiral Article

I noticed the addition of references to the Grand Admiral article and I think that puts it into GA territory. I'd be happy to support a nom for it if you'd like to offer it up for a vote. --School of Thrawn 101 05:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack

  • Hey jack I know this might be late but I dont really come here anymore but welcome back. Also I havent seen you at SW fanon but your article is now on the main page and thing are going well, but sadly Ive been blocked at SW fanon which will end at 5:27 am today. Well see ya just wanted to pop in and say hi, also I'm a admin and buericrate at the new transfanon wiki too just to let you know. well see ya. (Please leave responce on my SW fanon talk page since I'm way to lazy to check back here).Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) contribs20px 02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Its nice to hear from you to admiral. You know we should create an article together a SW fanon, something like an imperial or sith lord. We are such good friends yet weve done nothing together. Also I remember user:Rune Haako on my first day here, where is he anyway?Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) contribs20px 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Voss Parck

  • May I remind you that this article is what got you in trouble in the first place? You've already been told to stay away from that article by an admin, and as far as I'm concerned it's for the best. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ataru, I did nothing wrong; therefore, I cannot be banned for my edits. In addition, this is a website that "anyone can edit"; therefore, being told by an admin to stay away from an article when I'm not doing anything wrong is against the principle about wikicities. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, in all fairness, I didn't actually look at the revisions, I was informed that it was the same kind of controversial edit that had gotten you into this mess in the first place, and I was merely trying to forestall an edit war. Second, not everyone has the same view about following policy or interpreting policy as I do. Third, um, there have been numerous cases where admins have asked users to stay off talk pages and articles because of edit warring. Just ask Silly Dan. Or, for the flip side, Tnu. Anyone can edit anything, but the stability and civility of the community must be maintained. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 16:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Ataru, do you really think I'd suddenly go back to my old self now? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Jack, I've already spoken to Ataru on your behalf regarding this matter, explaining the nature of the edits, and that they were good ones. As a result, he looked over the edits and concluded you did nothing wrong. He's already said he was reacting on impulse, both to me and to you. That's a noble and honest concession coming from an admin. Give something back to him now, and at least concede that you understand where he was coming from when he did it. It's not a question of whether he thinks you'd backslide or not; there have been any number of others who have backslid and given him good reason to be cautious with everyone, not just you. It's not his job to measure anyone's intent; it's to maintain order. And you'd have to admit, going right back to the same page that got the whole fracas started can be seen by others as provocative, whether it's meant to be or not. That's not smart to do when feelings are still sore. My advice as a friend: call it a lesson learned and just let the matter drop. Erik Pflueger 20px 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm not trying to be rude, but Ataru should have checked my edits before he started this topic here. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Ataru's only human, Jack. And after what the Pedia's been going through for more than a week now, you're not in a position to take the moral high ground. Let it go. No more comments, no more "last words." Just please be humble and drop it. Erik Pflueger 20px 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                • Erik, I'm not creating a conflict here. I was simply stating that I did nothing wrong on the Parck article. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • I know you're not, and I know you didn't do anything wrong with your edits. I'm just saying that it was just poor judgment to go to the Parck page even if you ARE blameless, especially after what's bveen happening, and you really need to just put it to bed. That's all. Between the two of us, for the first time, I'm actually seeing this thing that others have complained about, this so-called "need to have the last word." And I have to say, it's not the Jack I know and love. There's no need to defend yourself every time I say something. As I've said before, just be gracious to Ataru and call the matter over. And then we'll all move on. Happy-happy, joy-joy. :P Erik Pflueger 20px 15:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • Erik, you have to understand this: I settled this with Ataru on IRC, and I have to say that you seem to be taking this a bit too seriously. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to be mean; we're friends, Erik, and I appreciate that. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • Jack, considering that I've been on the front lines for a week or more, defending you with what little ammunition I had against a far louder and stronger number that wanted your head, can you blame me for being serious? I meant everything I said when I welcomed you back: they WILL take you out permanently if there's one nmore problem. I'm being serious now because we ARE friends, and I appreciate THAT. I want you to be able to stay. Better me being a pain in the butt than you being permabanned, because those seem to be the only options. Erik Pflueger 20px 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Core Forces Edit

Thanks for editing that anon bit in the Core Forces article. I saw that this morning on my way to work and hoped that someone would fix it before I got off. Kudos! AdmiralNick22 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. And if he puts it back in without providing a source, I'll remove it again. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it seemed kind of a silly edit. The only compromise I can think of it to change it from saying "Defense Fleet" to "Defense Force". That way the more encompasing "Defense Force" leaves no doubt that starfighters and possibly some army units also joined the Core Forces. It may not be a important distinction (given the fact that authors seem to use both interchangably), but it may prevent the anon from doing it in the future. AdmiralNick22

Vengeance (Jerec's Super Star Destroyer)

Sure thing. When it is changed to {{Title|''Vengeance''}} the effect is to hide the actual location of the page. When linking to the page, people are more likely to link simply to Vengeance leading to the disambig page. The other alternative to using PAGENAME is to use {{Title|''Vengenance'' (Jerec's Super Star Destroyer)}}. --Eyrezer 03:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Problem is, though, it makes it seem like that whole thing is the actual name of the ship, rather than just "Vengeance". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd tend to think people are smart enough to work out that's not the case, especially when the text of the article only uses Vengeance etc. --Eyrezer 01:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Howeye.

Em, I was gonna tell/ask you this on swfanon but I saw a link to your page to thought, why not ask you here. yeah, so; I had this idea for a good fanon story a couple of days ago but wasn't really bothered writing it until today when i was inspired (yeah inspired) by jacks story so started it. long story short, a few pages in, i needed to come up with an admiral who was clever, cunning, feared, respected, ambitious, etc. but could not think of anyone because everything i came up with was GA J Nebulax, GA J Nebulax, GA J Nebulax. he was so perfect for the part (it was set in 3ABY) so i decided to stick him in and ask you later - but thats not what this is. anyways, HUGE story short, out of desire to write fanon that was not at the expense of canon, i changed the story so it was 3121BBY and had to change suprisingly little. GA jack nebulax changed to supreme admiral of the GSA (great sith armada) Gydon Nebulax and i might even give him a proper role as a sith lord. basically im asking could i give jack an anscestor on swfanon? or even reference him but not give him a part? the "book's" called Harbingers of the Force. Tutos Lumenarious 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's actually funny that you should mention an ancestor of Jack. Having recently beaten KotoR, in which I used the name "Drak Nebulax", I thought about giving Jack an ancestor. Gydon Nebulax would be perfect, and that would give Jack two ancestors (I'm working on a separate Drak Nebulax character right now). After I'm done working on Drak Nebulax, we can try to come up with a way to relate Drak and Gydon, in addition to Jack. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Gossam

why did you remove the paragraph about the clone wars in the Gossam page? I'm trying to get it ready for GA, and due to limited sources, I think it should include as much detail and information as possible. thanks for the cleanup work, 20px TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Grievous Quote

I removed it because I thought it's not really necessary, but I guess it could stay. It is a decent quote. I'll re-add it if no one else has already. Chack Jadson Talk 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Admin

Thanks Jack :) Greyman(Paratus) 18:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Youre rankless

  • [personal attack removed]. 172.189.8.238 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree there. De facto admins should be banned infinitely. 40px Jediknight19bby (Jedi High Council Chambers!) 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • [personal attack removed]. 172.189.8.238 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And with that, I will intervene and block the anon for personal attacks and vandalism of other articles. JK19BBY, leave Jack alone. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem

Fuggettabowdit! --School of Thrawn 101 14:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

R-Series

The reason I'm leaving the letter R off (for example: Category:R-series|2(S5)-series) is so they will be divided up by their number rather than having them all under the letter R. -- Reignfire 14:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your request

Hey Jack, your request has been dealt with. Feel free to review it and forward any questions or concerns to my talk page, or via IRC. Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 14:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hey again, just letting you know that that anon thought he could continue with the conversation after the warning I left. He's been blocked for 1 month because of it. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. Greyman(Paratus) 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to the 181st

Hey Jack, I just wanted to let you know that the 181st is on my list of article to promote to GA and, eventually, to FA—since I'm pretty sure it's one of the articles you watch. I also just wanted to let you know that the edits you made, with regards to adding links to the references were unneeded in this instance. Although it is "undecided" here as per the exact policy, the references that you linked are already linked in the appearances and sources sections. As such, having the ref tags linked is kinda redundant. I don't mind ref tags having links, but only when they link to an appearance or source that is not listed in the article already. As such, I think I'll be working on this article on my subpage—and don't be surprised if I ask you for some factual help along the way :) Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry; I was just editting them to make them like the references on numerous other articles. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey, no problem at all Jack :) Also, if you know of any...hm, quality pictures of the 181st, they would be appreciated. I've never actually written about the "other" guys before, so any help would be welcomed. Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 21:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Cowcamp

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The user in question has been given his last warning and been advised that any further fanon nonsense will be dealt with a lengthy block. Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 14:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Palpatine

Is it SithLord990205 that keeps changing it? Greyman(Paratus) 14:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Jack, some People think I am a sockpuppet of yours. Could you please sort this out?ruusan 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jediknight19bby. To save us both from this, I am leaving wookiepedia. PS. It's on the admin forums as COPPA VIOLATION.ruusan 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

TIE Interceptor

What didn't you like about the latest version?--MIS Tau 1 04:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't take this the wrong way, but it was kind of a mess. I'll admit that it wasn't the best idea for me to revert it, but I had some trouble in trying to incorporate both versions. I'll try again today. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • A bunch of us in IRC are discussing the article, instead of reverting it back every time it's edited. Perhaps you'd like to join us? Tread lightly. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:References

  • There is no policy one way or another, but I prefer un-linked references and I had the entire article (I think) referenced that way so I saw no need to link them. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 04:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think the references should be linked, so people can just click on them there instead of scrolling up and looking for the link in the "Appearances" or "Sources" sections. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sith Lords of Krayt's Order

My good admiral, there is no evidence that any of the "Unknown Sith" is Sith Lord. Therefore the category they are currently in is inappropriate. Would you kindly stop reverting my edits? Perhaps we should rename the category, but I thought it best to move them to the Sith acolytes and apprentices category, which currently holds such Sith from Darth Revan's times. Gorthuar 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • No, because they are more accurately Sith Lords than Sith apprentices or acolytes. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon? Judging from their performance, they're half-trained minions. One thing we're sure of is that they are Sith. Unless they are explicitly named Sith Lords, we can't put them in such category. Gorthuar 23:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • And neither could we put them in a category for Sith acolytes and apprentices. If you must, make a "Category:Unnamed Sith of Krayt's Order" to put them in. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
        • That will do. Thanks for your time. Gorthuar 23:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

  • Hey Jack hows it going? I see you were not blocked for good, thats...good :P I was just here and wanted to say Hi to a friend. All of us miss you at SW fanon, hope you return soon.Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) contribs20px 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good to hear from you old friend. So you see I have now left wookieepedia (Check my user page) and I will only pop in once and awhile now. But hopefully you will find time soon. Also I have been named admin and admin appointer at Transformers fanon.Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) contribs20px 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Before I go for today (Possibly) I want to say that mayjor thing have been going on at SW fanon, we have a new voting system, clans are gone. Also C3POtheD has just got surgery. bye.Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) contribs20px 00:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting links in references

I'm not going to bother reverting it, but I think we've decided it's not really necessary to put links in the footnotes (as you did with your recent edit to Digger) unless you want to make a link to the article for a source which doesn't already appear in the "Sources" or "Appearances" section. Cheers, —Silly Dan (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know who was in on that decision, but I certainly wasn't, and I'm pretty sure it was never a CT or anything. Footnotes should all be thoroughly linked. jSarek 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sure there's a discussion somewhere, but all I can find is Wookieepedia:Sourcing, which currently lists that question as "undecided". —Silly Dan (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I actually don't think we have had a discussion on it all in one place, other than scattered bits in pieces across a number of talk and user talk pages. It's probably time we had something formal on the matter. jSarek 02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Skirting 3RR

Next time Goodwood tries adding the cleanup tag, let me remove it. I don't want to see you get banned when you're not in the wrong. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good! Gooood!

Excellent, Jack! You found the stub tag on Palpatine! You are indeed among the most attentive Wookieepedians active. Bravo! (I won't do it again. Curiosity is satisfied.) Karohalva

TIV

I disagree and would prefer to leave it written with "operations". I am not seeking to start a flame war about the semantics of the context of the use of the word, it is enough that it is mentioned in the actual reference source. Is this really a big deal to you?

Also, I don't see that you have any right to order me not to change it again... I mean seriously… what was that meant to be? (Some form of anonymous online bullying). Shiaic 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Plure Barron

Hello there, Jack. I wanted to let you know that I modified the word "During" for "On" on the article regarding Plure Barron because I felt it was less repetitive. What I mean is that during the short phrase "She was killed during the Clone Wars during the battle on the mineral-rich Krantian moon of Aereen." the word "During" is repeated twice, so I thought that changing "During" to "On" would make it sound better, wouln't you agree? Do you mind if I change it back? Carlitos Moff 22:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The thing is, you can't be killed "on" a battle; you can only be killed "during" a battle. Perhaps the phrase "during the Clone Wars" can be removed instead. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You are right. I apologize for the bad grammar, you can be killed "On" a ship or a world, but a Battle is not a real fisical place. Do you have any idea how to rephrase the article so it looks better without taking out the Clone Wars reference? I am looking at it right now and I can't figure out a way to put it better. Carlitos Moff 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I'm new to wookieepedia do you know of any forums where I can't talk about Starwars

Galactic Marines

Hello,

Recentley you undid my edit on the galactic marines page where I stated that the showing of the Galactic Marine boots (In close up) was based off of a scene in the longest day. This is true, I found it on a wookiepedia page. I'm going to add this again, but scource the fact.

-Clones

Okay, thanks.

TIE Defender

Hey Jack. As you may have noticed I'm hoping to take TIE/D Defender to FA. Unfortunately I don't have Forces of Corruption so I can't really expand the bit about the Zann Consortium. I don't suppose you have the game and could shed some light on how they (possibly) get hold of the ships? Thanks. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

White Eyes

Delta-class DX-9 Stormtrooper Transport

You removed a lot more than you stated. If you're going to watch these articles, why not make constructive edits to them? I'm not impressed thus far. - Graestan 20px (This party's over) 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Where else DX-9 appear beside games? I am restoring the BtS (putting an 'almost') until you update the Appearances section. MoffRebus 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Boba Fett

It wasn't really necessary to edit my change on the appearances. Boba has appeared in two of Karen Traviss' LOTF books, so what is to say he might not appear in Revelation? Like I said on my edit, I put (possible), as in speculation.Liberi Fatali37 05:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, my reverting of your edit was necessary. Until the book or a part of the book is released, we don't know if he appears in it or not. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, per Jack. Our policy has always been to list an appearance for a character after it has been confirmed that they indeed, do, have an appearance. (PS - hope you don't mind me replying here Jack :P) Greyman(Paratus) 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mofference

Here's what happened:

  • We established a new IRC policy that I'll type up later today.
  • Search icon guidelines were adopted.
  • The "Did you know" section on the Main Page is now for all trivia, not just new articles.
  • 3RR was changed to a guideline, and will be handled on a more case-to-case basis.
  • The Single issue voters limit now applies to all votes.
  • Ataru is going to CT a block policy amendment.
  • We adopted a new trivia policy.
  • Everyone agreed that the boxes in the Conan Antonio Motti article need to go.
  • American English spelling, grammar and punctuation are now policy.
  • There will be changes to the amount of links allowed in an article.
  • All galleries will be deleted and replaced with categories.
  • --Imperialles 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Military Executor

Well, buddy, you better go around and remove the "Executor" title from every page that includes it along with Darth Vader, including the Vader page itself and all battle infoboxes. I'm using the countless Wookieepedia pages themselves at sources, because otherwise those need to be removed too. And remove the attitude, Jack. For someone that cares so much about removing it from the Executor main page, you sure don't do too much to fix the problem as a whole. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • 1) Wookieepedia is not a source. 2) Check the edit summary of the article. Notice how many times I've reverted it because people have not provided a source. That comment was not directed at you as a person. It was directed to the fact that people continually put that edit in without providing a source. 3) There was no attitude involved on my part, so I suggest you remove your attitude from this. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Executor-class Star Dreadnought

Hey Jack. I just wanted to give you some advice about the direction your comments seem to be going on that talk page. Although I understand why you appear to be getting frustrated, your last comment, with regards to your language, was unwarranted and I have to warn you about it per policy. Like I said, I understand your position (trust me), but please go about it in a more diplomatic way. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 21:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Honestly, Greyman, saying "ass" isn't bad. Tons of people get away with comments that are worse than that. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I completely understand, and like I said, I agree with your stance per this issue. However, it was brought to my attention in IRC that you called/referred to someone as an "ass", and that is not acceptable, regardless of the reasons. And as for those who "get away with comments that are worse than that" I have seen very very few, and if I do see them I put a stop to them—and if you see something that you disagree with, then I want you or someone to make me aware of it. Like I said, the ass comment was brought to my attention by someone in IRC, and that person wanted to perma-ban you, and my warning was simply a step away from that because I personally don't think that you deserve a perma-ban over that. However, if you would like, I won't regulate those conversations where I see moronic users goading you—I just wanted to let you know that I was honestly only trying to help you. Greyman(Paratus) 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That someone was likely the user "Some Guy". Obviously, he thinks that anyone who disagrees with him—especially when I said that the Executor in an image was gray instead of blue—should be banned. Figures. Now you know why I called him an ass, for future reference. In any case, let's hope he stops posting on Talk:Executor-class Star Dreadnought. I'm getting a little tired of putting up with him. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It wasn't that user you pointed out, unfortunately, as I would have dealt with him on IRC. But yes, let's hope he stops posting on that talk page. Greyman(Paratus) 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The person on IRC was likely Some Guy under a different name (or maybe one of the many other people who hold grudges against me for various reasons). Apparently, Some Guy is on IRC as we type. But I'm curious. What was the name of the person on IRC who wanted me perma-banned? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm reluctant to say who it was here on the talk pages, but it was an established user who I know was not Some Guy. Anyways, the point of my original post was simply to help you out as I didn't want to see you get blocked by another admin for it. For the most part, I like looking out for our established users :) Greyman(Paratus) 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

why do you replace this blatent speculation every time i remove it (Mort and Sev) as for 1) it hasn't been comfermed by any official source therefore should be removed 2) it even says that this is unlikley as Mort saw his whole squad die so really its pointless and 3) if you want to go for the old heaps of fans belive this so we should have it source it as on both pages there is not one source to prove this. --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)20px 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The One Sith

hi there Jack Nebulax i was in the articles history that you tried unsuccessfully to redirect this page to its proper place the New Sith Order anyways i hope you do not let this die and leave it in two seperate pages as it is obsered. there argument is that it has a different name and yet in Issue five of legacy Darth Krayt states that he created the One sith so it is one in the same and should be redirected your help on this matter would be appreaciated thanks --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)20px 09:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I still think it should be merged and redirected into "new Sith Order", but it almost became an edit war. When we do have confirmation that they were the same, though, the One Sith article will redirect into new Sith Order. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your X-wing comment

Jack you are WRONG. YOU CAN'T GET THE B-WING IN THIS GAME, THE ONLY SHIPS YOU CAN USE ARE THE X-WING AND THE N-1. WHICH ONLY HAS TORPS SO IF YOU USE IT, YOU FAIL.X-WINGS HAVE USED ION CANNONS. GET OVER IT.—Unsigned comment by Aybfreak (talk • contribs)

Bring back jack

I dont know about you guys but when I first came to wookieepedia, Jack made it seem like a wookieepedia. Now that Jack is gone, it already doesnt seem like a wookieepedia anymore. Bring back Jack! Hobo 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Why was he banned?--Rune Haako 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It may have been because of his revert-fest at Mort. - TopAce (Talk) 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Which is why he needs to remain away. He's a narcissistic prick, who I honestly cannot recall seeing one worthwhile edit/addition from (not to say he hasn't made them in the past) during my time here. All he does is patrol the recent changes page reverting people's edits. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)