Talk: Jerrycurl

NEGTD?

Just wondering about all the info you added to various droid articles, about them being used throughout the Imperial era, etc. Is that from the New essential Guide to Droids? VT-16 16:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep--Jerry 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. Always wondered if they'd ever add those to the Empire. 8) VT-16 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Isard and ISB

Unfortunately, Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader explicitly has Isard in charge of ISB, most likely due to a mix up, but canon nonetheless. See Armand Isard. QuentinGeorge 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Dark Lord calls it the "Internal Security Bureau." This is not the same as the "Imperial Security Bureau." The "InternalSB" must be a division of Imperial Intelligence, while the "ImperialSB" is a quasi-official branch of COMPNOR. It would seem that there are simply two different organizations within the Imperial State that have the same initials.--Jerry 05:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  - If you could post the exact text so we can clear this up, that would be nice. QuentinGeorge 05:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Unfortunatly I'm at University and don't have my copy of the book with me. If you or another party could check on this though I agree we need textual confirmation. For what it's worth, I vividly recall making a mental note of the "Internal" portion of the organization's name while I was reading it.--Jerry 05:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Havac's findings appear to have corroborrated my statement.--Jerry 05:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Daala's Enlistment

You mentioned on the Daala talk page that Daala was a corporal in the Imperial Army serving in the mess of an Imperial Star Destroyer until discovered by Tarkin. Please go to the said page and legitimize your claim with a source, otherwise the part in the article that reads of her enlistment in the Army and status as an NCO in said service will be stricken.--SOCL^comm 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. On the discussion page you mentioned The Essential Guide to Characters. I somehow missed it.--SOCL^comm 23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Graestan

Why did I revert? Because:

You removed a ton of sourced information. RC sentries jump when they see that, so use an edit summary for once, please.
Your "dicussion" on the talk page consisted of little more than a one-sided, unopposed argument and some petty threats of edit-warring.

Graestan^(Talk) 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you for replying. Several points:
  - I was not referring to "discussion" as though there was an actual back and forth dialog; I was in fact, referring to the "discussion" tab on top of the page. Apologies if I was unclear.
  - The "sourced material" I removed was for the "Revenge of the Sith Incredible Cross Sections" which offers NO statistics for the Providence-class Carrier/Destroyer. The RotS ICS has stats for the Invisible Hand, which the ICS itself states has "major design modifications" pertaining to the hangars and what is normally present in those spaces (pages 14,15 fold-out).
  - Apologies if I acted swiftly on only "one-sided, unopposed argument and some petty threats of edit-warring." If you will notice, this matter has been brought up before three years ago on the article's talk page and no action was taken. I would ask for your evidence for my "petty threats of edit-warring." My exact words pertaining to the edit were (from the article in question's talk page):
    - "Since I have been unable to find a source that substantiates the stats cited in this page, I will remove them. If anyone finds a source supporting the figures, by all means state it here and reinstate them."
  - That statement is hardly a "petty threat". My other statement on the matter is from my Edit Summary following your first reversion:
    - "Please see my justifications in the discussion for these edits before summarily reverting the material. I am not vandalizing this page"
  - Again, if you would indulge me by pointing out "petty threats of edit-warring" for I can see nothing threatening and nothing remotely impolite about either of these comments. Indeed the first is rather conciliatory, and the second, a request to review the evidence I presented for my edit in the discussion page before summarily reverting my edits. I am not sir, looking for an edit war at all.
  - As for lack of and Edit Summary on the initial edit, I am admittedly at fault. I forgot to enter a summary before clicking "submit." For that lack of oversight, I apologize.
- I do not strive to cause trouble or create waves, if I have hit a nerve with you again, apologies and that was not my intention.
- I am unaware as to when you will check my page again, so for ease of communication I will also post this on the header I started on your talk page.
- Cheers and thanks for your response.
  - --Jerry 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can look at your contribs, and judging by them, an attempt to reason with you regarding this is beyond my level of patience. You really don't think "I will remove them" is a threat? I can't believe I wasted as much time as this second post required. Graestan^(Talk) 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

- Sir, "I will remove them" was a statement to the effect that "I am going to edit this page". You neglected to note that I state directly after that "If anyone finds a source supporting the figures, by all means state it here and reinstate them." I am confused at your hostile attitude, I have hardly been impolite and took some time to address your points and apologies for my errors. To have you flippantly disregard all I wrote in response as "wasted" "time" without hardly addressing anything I said is frustrating to say the least. You declare I am unreasonable, and yet I did not enter into an edit war with you, apologized for my errors, provided my evidence for my edit, and have refrained from editing the page again until I receive the "all clear" as it were. I would suppose I am being anything but unreasonable.--Jerry 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)