Talk: Jack Nebulax/Archive 2

< User talk:Jack Nebulax

watchlist

Hey, is your watchlist messed up too?--Xilentshadow900 20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I got mixed up on the B-wing edit. But i'm not an idiot fanon lover. I'm 100% canon. -User:Bwingfreak

  • Let's hope so. But just don't do it again. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Slave IV

Why did you remove the picture? The user who uploaded it sourced it as being a Lucasarts image. Do you have evidence to the contrary?--DannyBoy7783 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hiya Admiral. I've noticed that several of your edits are fairly minor. I hope you don't mind me asking that you tick the "this is a minor edit" box for such edits. For example: edits that involve adding a comma or period, or minor link changes, or minor infobox changes. Nice job on keeping an eye on the anons btw. Cheers. --Azizlight 12:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WOTM

Congrats Neb. The people voted you February's winner. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just Wonderin'....

If I make up a fake biography of me which I did, can I make up my fake flagship on a whole different page? What are your thoughts about xanga and do you have one. -Bwingfreak 01:32, 1 Feb 2006

  • Well, I believe you can make a user subpage, but I'm not sure how to. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Just make a page called User:Bwingfreak/whatever. CooperTFN 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer

You do good work, you're just very...snappy. I know the newbies can be frustrating, but you get a lot more accomplished if you remain polite (though you do seem to be a lot better lately). I just got into a big debate with a guy over the Mando'a page, to the point of us reverting each other's edits several times, and I got quite annoyed, but if I'd just called him an idiot or something (which I've seen you do several times in the past), we wouldn't have been able to iron things out amicably. Just try to be more patient with people. CooperTFN 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the thing is, I try to be nice in the beginning, but there are some people who keep it up. Then I resort to the namecalling. And thank you for responding. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Never resort to namecalling. At least not as strong as "idiot". There are two kinds of trouble on a site like this: people who want nothing other than to screw around, who'll eventually get banned anyway, and people who just misunderstand things and could eventually become more productive. Calling one of them an idiot drastically reduces the chances of that happening. CooperTFN 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Similarly, your recent note to Jibers was perhaps a bit too harshly worded, and not specific enough. I understand that you're annoyed with him, since his only contributions are apparently newbie-type "who's toughest" questions, but just telling him to keep his opinions to himself doesn't tell him why you object to his posts. It just sounds like you're trying to scare him off. He may well just be a kid who doesn't know any better, you know. — Silly Dan 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        • This has already been discussed: User_talk:Jack_Nebulax#Please_Be_Kinder--DannyBoy7783 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
          • DannyBoy, I had asked CooperTFN to post this. And I wasn't trying to scare him off. To tell you the truth, I'm just frustrated with some of these people who post these kind of things. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
            • ahh, apologies then. It seemed like a rehash of an old topic. I know how you feel Jack, it's annoying having to check every edit to make sure it isn't f'ed up by some anon or a kid who doesn't know better.--DannyBoy7783 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Yeah, but I'm actually trying to be kinder. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Good luck. (I don't mean that sarcastically)--DannyBoy7783 20:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Thanks. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • See, I think it's amusing. The Admiral is a "character". Wookieepedia's got a "character," w00t! ;) Not to demean your hard work, diligence, and unflinching pursuit of canon, Admiral.--Erl 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
                      • Well, not everyone thinks of me as that, especially some anons. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

hello

Hey, Admiral. I just wanted to say hi, and tell you that I'm a big fan of your work. I'm new here, and you will probably start seeing my comments in various discussion pages. Also, how do you do that infobox thin on your biography?--General Antilles 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you. As for the infobox, I copied it from a character's page (usually one with the color you want) and pasted it on my user page, changing the information to have what I want in it. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

oh,okay--General Antilles 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

how do you do that thong that says what language you speak and stuff?--General Antilles 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, that's usually not in a character infobox, but a species infobox. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Known duels section

I noticed that you removed all the Known duels sections in all three articles it was present. Don't you think that you should ask OTHER people before you remove entire sections? That section was useful if you look specificly for their respective duels. - TopAce 17:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Those duels are already in the person's biography, which is why the sections were pointless. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See User talk:Mdmccombie#"Duels" section. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • You could still ask some other people, this is why the discussion page is there. - TopAce 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Why? If the duels are already in the article, what's the point of that extra section? Admiral J. Nebulax 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
          • The date of birth and death are also in the article, so what's the use of the blurb (or whatever it is called)? - TopAce 17:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
            • That's actually information about the character and is very important. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
              • This is not about a piece of information being important or not, it is about that ONE piece of information is inside an article twice. - TopAce 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Actually, yeah, it is. Things that are important, such as a character's birth year and death year, can be repeated. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Please understand that I don't mind if that section exists or not, it may not contribute much to the article, but if one is only interested in the duels specific characters fought, why read the whole bio and pick all the duels one by one? This is very annoying if you deal with long articles, like the ones from which you removed those sections. - TopAce 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • A separate article can be made for duels, then. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

San Hill

I know it's behind the scenes, but the paragraph in question starts out in past tense and switches to present, so I corrected it to be internally consistent.Yrfeloran 21:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter, though. It could be either way. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:R7-series astromech droid

Please see Talk:R7-series astromech droid. Thanks.--DannyBoy7783 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundant infoboxes

Why in the world are you putting the redundant infoboxes back? The boxes on Ro-ti-Mundi, Radiant VII, and Allegiance are useless. They don't say anything that the class article doesn't already state. Infoboxes for individual ships are pointless unless those ships differ notably from other ships of the class, as is the case with Wild Karrde and Action VI transport or Millennium Falcon and YT-1300. —Darth Culator (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • They are important, whether you like it or not. Infoboxes are always helpful, no matter what. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. But it only seems logical to either have them on every ship or none at all. Do you want to put them on every other named starship? I'm certainly not going to. —Darth Culator (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't have the time to. But you're the one going around putting the new infoboxes on all the ship classes. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Classes is the key word. We have about ten times as many individual starship articles as class pages. It seems like an incredible waste of effort to put an infobox on any of them if they're not known to be different from the standard specs for their class, but it seems silly to me to have them on only some of them. I think the best course of action at this point is to remove the (thankfully few) redundant ones that are already there and restrain the use of infoboxes to class pages unless a specific ship is known to differ from others of its type. —Darth Culator (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Still, we have infoboxes on specific droids, in addition to their type. If there is enough information for an infobox, there should be one. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
            • But droids are effectively characters, and characters have always been treated differently from ships and equipment. And the infobox for starships has a LOT more fields than a droid infobox. Hmm... Maybe we should whip up another collapso-box for individual ships, with just a few fields that would normally differ between ships like affiliation and known usage dates... I'll have to think about this one. I'll leave the individual ship pages alone until after my current projects are done. —Darth Culator (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
              • "Maybe we should whip up another collapso-box for individual ships, with just a few fields that would normally differ between ships like affiliation and known usage dates..." Not a bad idea. I'd be honored to help you out when (and if) we do it. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Plolicy

  • Nebulax please provide a link for this supposed image policy that you keep quoting on Talk:New Republic. It is not covered in Wookieepedia:Image use policy. If it is unofficial, then why don't you let an admin enforce it? Great work, by the way, now you have User:Redemption removing good images all over the wiki...--Sentry 22:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • First of all, it's nowhere. I was told that when I first became a Wookieepedian. And I did not tell Redemption to remove all those images. Redemption did it on his/her own. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Guidelines for fanmade images, if we're allowing any, might be a good thing to take up at the next meeting. (I think we should allow fan images like the b/w logos some articles used to have, but be very very strict about what circumstances we allow them in.) — Silly Dan 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        • That's why I re-inserted the New Republic and CIS logos that Redemption removed. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, you asked how I got that picture, I posted a reply on my own talk page, I don't know if you saw it. It's a Jedi Academy screenshot edited by my friend. Nice biography, by the way. I'd like to read more. And congratulations on being the Wookieepedian of the Month! Aiddat 21:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delta-6

Hey, first let me give you a reason why I changed the title. I was trying to clean up some of the red links in the Darrus Jeht article when I came across the Delta-6 Aethersprite as it was named in the article. I checked CUSWE and they had it listed as such also. That's the only reason I changed it. I hadn't read the talk page, so that's my fault. Anyway, could you perhaps explain to me why we have it at Delta-6 starfighter instead of the other title? Cull Tremayne 22:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There is no source for "Delta-6 Aethersprite". Admiral J. Nebulax 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This article seems to suggest that the Delta-6 is from the same line as the Delta-7s, wouldn't that make it the same class? But then again, the description of the Delta-6 in this article makes no sense in comparison with the description we have now. Cull Tremayne 03:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No, just because two fighters are from the same line does not make them the same class. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • While the Delta-7 is an "Aethersprite," the Delta-12 is called a "Skysprite," which seems to hint that another Delta-series ship would have a different name. —Darth Culator (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You just beat me to saying that, Darth Culator. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you have a better example? The Skysprite is a two-man fighter so naturally it is a different class. The Delta-6 is a one-man fighter just like the Delta-7. Cull Tremayne 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Notice that they're all in the same line, yet there are two different classes so far. The point is, there is no source for "Delta-6 Aethersprite". Admiral J. Nebulax 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I'll yield. It still seems to me that logic would put it as an Aethersprite class, but you're right, no source. Thanks for the discussion. Cull Tremayne 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Signature test.

Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There we go. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • To make a link to your talk page in your signature you have to go to Preferances> User data> Click "Raw signatures (without automatic link)" so that there's a tick in the box, then enter the text [[User:Jack Nebulax|Admiral J. Nebulax]] <sup>[[User talk:Jack Nebulax|(talk)]]</sup>]] —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

In the Imperial Remnant article you capitalized "head of state" and "fleet admiral". Neither one of these are proper nouns. I can see how "head of state" can be seen as a proper noun, but its usage in the article is simply talking about the "person at the head of the state" and not a title or position of "Head of State." It's the same way the President of the United States title is "President" (proper noun), but he has the powers of "head of state" (common noun). Also, military ranks are not proper nouns unless they are being used in place of someone's name (for instance, referring to Pellaeon as "the Fleet Admiral") or if its being used as the person's title/rank in conjunction with their name (i.e. "Fleet Admiral Pellaeon"). The usage in the article is simply talking about being a fleet admiral, in the same way I would say, "Daala was an admiral in the Imperial Navy" or "Thrawn was one of twelve grand admirals in the Imperial Navy." Just because it's a title, doesn't mean it has to be capitalized—it always depends on usage. That's why I keep lower-casing them after you capitalized them...--SOCL 03:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it's different here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Really? Is there something I missed in the Wookieepedia style policy? (not sarcastic; honest)--SOCL 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know if it's in there, but there are certain things that I have learned since I came here; this being one of them. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Something you picked up or personal preference? Look, the plain and simple fact is that I am using grammar rules and techniques that are not only common but correct in the English language. Unless Wookieepedia style policy says differently, it would seem logical to use those techniques.--SOCL 04:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • So what you're telling me is that it's correct for me to not capitalize it in the same way that you capitalize it(?).--SOCL 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Databank uses capitalization for "Grand Admiral" regardless of usage. See Databank title Thrawn in the Databank (original site is defunct). --Azizlight 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Funny, but I expected Grand Admiral to be brought up. Actually, check it, but Grand Admiral isn't quite the same case as regular ranks. The same goes for Moff, Grand Moff, and Supreme Moff. All these ranks are closer to honorary titles than true ranks. Granted, Grand Admiral is a true Naval rank, its elite status makes it capitalized. The same goes for the rank of "General of the Army" in the United States Army—it is always capitalized. Ranks below that, though, are not. The argument, though, is valid, but can be explained.--SOCL 04:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Um ok, sorry, I guess

So Jack Nebulax, I will admit it was my first addition to Wookieepedia so I was just figuring things out that's why it screwed up the text but I fully intended to fix it and was in the process of doing so when you deleted them all.

I thought this was place to give Star Wars fans more input on all subjects Star Wars but I guess I was wrong. There was discussion on that subject that other users were requesting pics of the Imperial Palace so its not like I went nuts all of a sudden posting pics. It was requested.

Perhaps your a real Rebel at heart and hate the Galactic Empire and saw what I was doing as Imperial propaganda I don't know, but for what its worth, sorry. Next time I'll just watch and not touch.

  • The thing is, the images you had added were covering parts of the text, and I realized that the only way to see the text was to remove the pictures. But I actually love the Empire. Perhaps a Gallery of Imperial Palace images could be made to put all of the images in, however. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for providing a place for the extra Imperial Palace imagery, I added a link at the Imperial Palace page so that it would be easily accessed. Bear with my editing, I'm just learning this Wiki thing. - Darth Trini.

Spoiler

Hey, I'm Darth Cow. yes, --DarthCow--Talk| Email. Anyway, I believe there should be a spoiler warning on Sev's page, since it gives away the ending to a game! Please don't remove the message again, as I think people won't want to know the endind before they get it/there.

Thenks, --DarthCow--Talk| Email

  • No. General-use spoiler tags are only for new books, comics, etc. that have just come out. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The game isn't even new anymore so for that reason alone no spoiler tag is necessary.--DannyBoy7783 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal page

Hey, Admiral (or do you prefer Jack?) how do you put that box with the stuff about your homeworld, era, etc. in your bio? Same for the box about your knowledge of Star Wars, what groups you like, etc. Thanks for helping a new Wookipedia. (My name is Commander Jake if you want to check it out.)

  • Well, what I did was I took the infobox from Palpatine and changed all of the information to what I wanted and stuck it on my page. As for the info box on person stuff, I'll post up what you should do in a little bit, as it is kind of long to explain. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks--Commander Jake 14:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Cestus Commandos

Why did you change the Cestus Squad back to clone troopers? the Cestus Deception names them clone commandos

  • It also names them ARCs. They have the standard CT designation, making them standard clone troopers. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Appologies

Hey, I am really sorry about my immature behavior earlier. I said somethings that were wrong and I truly am sorry for the way I acted (and by the way, i did NOT make up that article on Elite Clone Troopers. The fanon part was XilentShadow's opinion, and he never presented any SOLID proof that they are fanon, and I swear I did not make it up).Ghost1591 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I accept you apology, and I believe you about the elite clone troopers. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for believing me and accepting my apology. Ghost1591 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Commando Troopers

In Jedi Trial, Page 13, Paragraph 2, Hardback edition, it calls the commandos of Squad Seven "commando troopers". I was wondering if that is just referring to them as normal troopers carrying out a commando operation or maybe if they are a new soldier. If they are a new soldier I would like to make an article about it. Just wondering. Ghost1591 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No, Squad Seven was normal troops as far as I know. It's probably just commando operations. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok. Thanks Ghost1591 22:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, is it okay if I add something about commando operations on the clone trooper page? Ghost1591 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and did Squad Seven always act as commandos, or were they part-time? it sounds like they were always commandos, but I want to be accurate. Ghost1591 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No. Squad Seven did not have clone commandos. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine's New Picture

Nice addition to the Palpatine article, Jack, as usual. I'd guessed that someone would have grabbed that Star Wars Insider 84 picture of Palps by Joe Corroney sooner or later, and I'm pleased it was you. I'd always thought it would work splendidly there. I wonder, can both the new and old pictures be used? Maybe it would throw off the layout, but perhaps you could experiment? I'd do it, but I don't have the tech. Best regards! Erik Pflueger 02:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oops! I'd spoken too soon! I hadn't looked at the history! Seems it was The Ultimate that added it. And it seems I know what it looks like with two pictures now, when they're too close together. But kudos to you for putting the Corroney picture up front. Maybe the older picture could be put at the last paragraph, or, better still, at the end we should use the image showing Palpatine on the podium seen from the back, taking the applause from the hall. That'd be perfect. Do you agree? Disagree? Do let me know. Ciao! Erik Pflueger 02:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd have to agree with you. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd have to agree also. Not only that but I went ahead and did it! Waddaya think? Interestingly enough, it's the same picture. In the Corroney drawing we see it from the front while in the movie from behind (the camera seen in the drawing certainly implies something). --Master Starkeiller 23:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Clone Commander Cody

Hi there! :)

Why did you delete the picture I've putted in the article, recently? It's too bad, cause I though that a photo of Cody without his helmet was interesting. We always see clone photos with helmets in a lot of article, and it's cool, but in other hand, it's good to see their "real" faces, isn't it? (Kaal-Jhyy)

  • Well, the image was blurry. I thought I put that in the summary box. Could you get a better image, perhaps? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "blurry"? You're kidding? Ok, Obi-Wan is a little bit blurry, but it's normal, he's on the first plan, and the camera is focusing on Cody, who is not blurry at all, IMO (and BTW, the picture is from the official Databank)... But do what you want, it's not a problem. ;) (Kaal-Jhyy)
    • Wait a minute, I might be thinking of another image. Could you post it up here? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • thumb|left|150px If you compare with the movie, it's pretty much the same.
  • Oops, I removed that one by accident. I'll re-add it. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem, thanks. ;)

Reverts

You've reverted some of my Risk: Star Wars Clone Wars Edition appearances. I have the game and I was just trying to put it under all the planets that didn't have it under appearances already? Why did you revert it? Leave a message on my talk page.Darthtyler 19:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to your message, on the articles Mygeeto and Felucia it had it as aan appearance so I just added it to all the others. Sorry.--Darthtyler 20:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sides of the Force

Even though this is a little thing, and probably shouldn't bother me (though I'm really good at being bothered by little things :), I don't see why it was necessary to change the dark side link on Quinlan Vos page back to the The Force#The dark side and so on, since the main article on the dark side is now at Bogan. Granted, it still lacks a lot, but the dark side is worth having its own page (which I'm sure it will expand). Just a thought. --Tinwe 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the article shouldn't be called "Bogan" when it could be called "Dark side of the Force". Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm inclined to agree, but that doesn't change the fact that the dark side has its own page now and the links should go there. At least in my opinion. Oh well. --Tinwe 08:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Uuugh

Could you just PLEASE STOP reverting the spoiler warning on Sev's page? It really needs to be there! I put a note of this on Imperialles' userpage. Don't revert it! PLEASE!!! --DarthCow--Talk| Email

  • It doesn't need a spoiler warning. The game was released over a year ago.--DannyBoy7783 09:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Are you good with formatting? I'm asking because I've somehow screwed up Template:Infobox Television episode when I was working on it, and need some help fixing the spacing. Thanks. Adamwankenobi 20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I have to ask WHY did you revert back to the pre edit stage for the Delta-7 artical I know you have contrubited highly to it (you pretty much started it) however I can see your point for removeing the ROG side story part but why were the Seismic charge removed? These are G-canon (but C-canon about being on the delta 7)DX-2052 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The standard Delta-7 does not have seismic charges. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you give a sorce? DX-2052 16:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The fact that, in Attack of the Clones, Slave I launches the seismic charges. Also, if you still don't get it, the Delta-7 is too small to carry seismic charges. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Saying the Slave I launchs them and thus the Delta-7 can't is just as good as saying that wile the Y-wing is never seen launching Proton Torpdos and the X-wing is the Y-wing can not lannch PTs, and can you tell me were you get that the D-7 is too small?
          • You don't get it, do you? Games go against canon. Slave I had seismic charges, and it launched them. For the Delta-7: it's too small that it can't even fit a full astromech droid or an internal hyperdrive. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
            • If there's only one source that shows a particular feature of a ship, and all the other sources omit it, and the one source is a game, it's probably not canon. Adding a note about it in the "Behind the scenes" section would probably be the best compromise, like I did for the missile launcher on the V-wing airspeeder. —Darth Culator (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls

Hi Admiral. I noticed your clash with 151.199.17.128 on the anakin Skywalker talk page. I understand your frustration and you have the right to be angry at that impertinent a*****e, but it seems to me that this particular anon is displaying patterns of troll behavior. While I have sympathy with your anger towards this kind of user, I think the best thing to do is to simply not react to such users' comments. Trolls often aim at making people angry, so the best thing is not to get angry, that way they've lost. Just revert whatever they do in the articles themselves and ignore their comment on the talk pages. Such users should of course be VIP-tagged and banned from this forum. May the Force be with you, my friend. KEJ 10:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Jack, I'm Jamie Blakeley (Mastermundi). I've not been a Wookieepedian for long, but from what I've seen on the discussion pages, you're a whizz at all SW characters, places, organisations and events. You've answered most of my questions, and by the looks of it, everyone else's. I hope you'll carry on writing. Thanks a lot. Mastermundi 12:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • He is an admiral after all ;-) KEJ 12:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Mastermundi. And I'm not really a whizz. I wish I was, however. Nonetheless, thank you. And no problem. If you need any more help, I'll do the best I can to help you. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sig icons

Under "user data" enter what you want your sig to be in the "your nickname" box and make sure "raw signatures" is checked. Here's what mine looks like:

[[:File:Tbhelm.gif|30px]] [[User:Shadowtrooper|Shadowtrooper]] <sub>[[User talk:Shadowtrooper|talk]]</sub>

If you need more assistance, look at Forgotmytea's talk page. Hope that helps some. 30px Shadowtrooper talk 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Testing...

Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, and enjoy! :) 30px Shadowtrooper talk 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Executrix article

Why did you change it to an Imperator-class ship? There is no class fixed to that vessel yet. I'm gonna change it back and rewrite the BtS section slightly if there's no reply. :/ VT-16 12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I thought it had been settled that it was an Imperator-class. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought the discussion page only had a lot of back-and-forth talk. Looking up the actual naming convention IRL, it seems classes named after a lead ship don't always have that ship be first to get its commission. From Wikipedia: In the United States Navy, a class is always named after the lead ship; that is, the first ship of that class to be approved by Congress—almost (but not quite) without exception the ship of the class with the lowest hull number.
In the various European powers: In European navies, a class is named after the first ship in commission, regardless of when that ship was ordered or laid down.
With the Imperator already known to exist, the class is most likely named after it, but it needn't have been the first to be finished. So the Executrix could be an Imperator, but with Tarkin already having a history with a Victory-class ship in the early years of the Empire, it's most likely that. VT-16 18:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • True, but if its class is still unknown (which I thought was no longer unknown), then the article should reflect that. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Hey Jack, I notice that you tend to not mark edits as minor or you don't give a brief description of what you did. We all forget sometimes but if you remember that would be great. Thanks. --DannyBoy7783 17:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk/Quinlan Vos

Hey dude, there was no need to snark at me in the middle of the Talk:Quinlan Vos page. You may have not intended it to sound rude but it really came off that way to me and it kind of hurt my feelings as I'm the one who started the whole discussion to complete the article in the first place. Besides, if you'll look, I did not technically post in the middle of any discussions. In both cases, my posts were directed at bulleted posts that had received no replies. I thought it made more sense to place my response to those points right below them rather than at the bottom of the page. I guess that's a violation of Wookieepedia policy; I know now and won't do it again. But I really don't appreciate being treated like an idiot and called out on the middle of the talk page. Next time if you have such a comment could you take it to my talk page please? I know I'm a newbie here but I am pretty good at "teh internets" if you know what I mean. Sorry if this seems like an overreaction, but I needed to get this off my chest. - Breathesgelatin 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The thing is, when someone posts in the middle of a discussion and you want to reply, it throws off the rest of the discussion. It's not a violation again policy; it just gets a little, well... annoying when someone keeps posting in the middle. Now, I have great respect for you, especially with the fact that you ordered something just to help improve an article. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing my edits

Hey, Admiral, I've noticed that whenever I make an edit to something, you always find something to alter. Is this because the pages I alter are strangely all on your watchlist, or is it because I'm on your watched user list?--Commander Jake 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Not at all. I'm just on the patrol for minor or major edits all the time. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification.--Commander Jake 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing my edits

Hi Admiral Nebulax - I'm the 4th doctor. I'm a new member of Wookiepedia and I'm just trying to learn the ropes of Wiki editing, so I wanted to make some simple text edits about an uncovered subject, so I wrote about two obscure varients, the Royal Guard Interceptor and the Snow-Scout. I see you removed these from the TIE interceptor and Scout Trooper, and I must admit, if you have not come across them, they sound like fanon rubbish. However, you can find the Royal TIE on the officila site here http://www.starwars.com/gaming/videogames/news/news20050331.html and the Snow - scout in Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections by DK, but I appreiciate you were just trying to help. I plan to re-add these and also add info about the TIE to the Royal Guard page. Tell me if you don't think its worth it or even if you want a scan of the snow scout. Thanks, The Doctor.

Actually, I'm going to wait till you reply before making any more changes I don't want to annoy people. The Doctor 20:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey man, thnx for the cleanup on my JK-13 article. Also, have you considered a talk archive?--The Erl of User talk talk What I do 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • No problem. And I'll probably wait for the 80th subtopic, then I'll make two talk archives. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New signature test.

Admiral J. Nebulax (Personal Imperial Holovision link) 20px 23:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)