Talk: Master Jonathan/Archive25

< User talk:Master Jonathan

This is an archive of my talk page. To leave me a message, please use my current talk page. Thank you.

Re:Protect

Done. JangFett (Talk) 01:52, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 01:53, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Also, please check my edits for your recent TC: Wookieepedia:Vandalism in progress. JangFett (Talk) 01:57, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. I went ahead and killed the entire dynamic section, since the only purpose of that was to list user pages tagged with {{tl|vip}}. Thanks for closing that. —MJ— Comlink 02:00, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, wasn't sure about that. :P JangFett (Talk) 02:01, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
Hey man, can I talk to you on IRC, if you have time. JangFett (Talk) 02:23, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the template move happy user

He just tried to do this this with the FFG templates that, as a CT Consensus decided, were to be split as shown on the CT page. He suggested on the template talk pages that a consensus for moving them was not needed and that an informal discussion was all that was needed (which is incorrect). I have commented rebuttals for not moving the templates—not including the fact that the CT vote decided to have the templates split as they are now. As I posted on Tranner's page, if you let this one slide, you are looking at many more moves about to happen. This is more than "being bold." He moved this after trying to get the others moved, so he is trying to move stuff around without opposition. The issue is that he is doing so without asking the community, and (like I posted on Tranners discussion) now I have to ask to move it back? I will defer to you guys on what to do, but I am just letting you know this isn't the first attempt he's made. —GethralkinHyperwave 03:56, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Please review. Forum:TC:Template:GG. Also, please note the correlating forum topic: Forum:SH:Are There Guidelines for Naming Templates? —GethralkinHyperwave 06:33, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, Thunderforge has informed me that his template move was due to a discussion he had on IRC, and that is why no discussion was made here on Talk pages or in the CT forum. The precedent, however, of moving articles without discussion in the visible areas of the community is still one that needs to be worked out. As well as when such moves are made without community decision, that the reverting process for the move is the one that is made to undergo procedure to request the change. This is backward, and allows those (maybe not Thunderforge, but others) who would attempt unilateral or disruptive changes to successfully do so with ease, where the correction is the process that is scrutinized and lengthy. What do we do about this? —GethralkinHyperwave 08:39, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Wookieepedia is not a bureaucracy. One does not ever need to obtain formal consensus before every single action, especially when the person taking the action has reason to believe that the action is not controversial. Consensus only needs to be sought in advance when the person proposing the action has reason to believe that the action might be controversial. Also, repeatedly moving a page—any page—is highly disruptive. Therefore, when a WP:BOLD pagemove is contested, particularly a template where the title is only meaningful to editors and not readers, the proper solution is to immediately stop moving the page around, leave it where it is until agreement is reached, then move the page to the agreed-upon title. Moving it back solely because consensus was not sought in advance, when the ultimate consensus could well result in putting it back at the title it was first moved to, serves no purpose whatsoever except attempting to enforce process for the sake of process, which is ridiculous. And as far as "moving articles without discussion in the visible areas of the community", IRC is a visible area of the community, as anyone can join the channel, and decisions affecting the wiki are often made on IRC. That's just the way Wookieepedia works. —MJ— War Room 17:40, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Are such IRC discussions archived where they can be visible to those who were not present for those discussions and, thus, did not have the option to "weigh in?' —GethralkinHyperwave 20:58, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Logs are not routinely posted on-wiki except for Mofferences and Inq and AC meetings, but I believe Culator's IRC bot, Nuku-Nuku, privately logs everything said in every channel she's in (yes, it's a female bot :P). So if you ask Culator nicely, he may be able to provide you with the relevant section of the log when he has some free time to search for it. Having the date and approximate time of the discussion would help him greatly in locating it. Private conversations between two users not held in an open channel will not have logs unless one user saved it manually, and if they did, regulations set by Freenode (the company that hosts our IRC channels) dictate that logs of private discussions cannot be posted publicly or distributed in any way without explicit advance permission from both users (however, if both users give permission, then it can be posted publicly without further restriction). —MJ— War Room 21:11, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I might add that Culator is more likely to respond in a positive manner when he's not frustrated with or pissed off at you, and while I can't speak for him, judging by his comment on your TC thread, my guess is that he doesn't think too highly of you right now, to put it politely. My advice would be to wait a couple of days, maybe even until the TC is closed, to give everyone upset with you a chance to calm down before you bug him for the log. Wookieepedia does not have a deadline. :P —MJ— Council Chambers 21:23, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't know why DC would be upset with me either. I do agree on reflection that CT puts things in development heck, so I can understand the expressions and comments regarding that on the votes. I also need to get in touch with him concerning the new issue that has developed. This is the main reason why I do not agree (and I will do the proper CT for it next) in using IRC for consensus on major changes to templates and articles unless those discussions lead to talk page guidance. Certainly, a post of IRC consensus copy-pasted on the talk page would work, I imagine, to let the community know what's going on. However, just someone saying, "I got IRC consensus" doesn't prove anything. I assumed good faith that it happened, but according to Trip, it actually did not... despite Thunderforge's previous assurances more than once that he sought IRC approval for the move. So, if DC can look into it to verify who is telling the truth (because they both can't be) would be very interesting. —GethralkinHyperwave 10:19, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in responding; I was away from the computer yesterday and was busy most of today. Culator, in general, tends to have very short patience with people who have violated policies or flirted with violating them. Whether your actions were in good faith or not (I believe they are), the fact is that by starting the TC thread, and now possibly with the new CT, you came very close to violating WP:POINT. So he quite possibly might ignore you if you ask now. He did respond to your request to close the TC thread, but I would still advise waiting a few days at least before asking for the logs. A sincere apology (to him or to the community in general) will go a long way here. That said, if we have conflicting stories about whether that IRC discussion actually happened, then I too would be interested in seeing the logs. —MJ— Council Chambers 03:47, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article?

Why did you delete my article?--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 03:33, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Because the "restricted items" system is pure game mechanics, which we don't cover. Licensing and legal issues are unique for each and every item; they don't fit neatly into a small number of categories. That's just a convenience system to make things easier on players and GMs. —MJ— Training Room 03:42, July 21, 2013 (UTC)
What game mechanics that are allowed then? I see game mechanics all the time. For example, the cost of items are game mechanics. Dividing armor into categories Category:Light armor, Category:Medium armor, Category:Heavy armor are game mechanics. --Richterbelmont10 (talk) 03:55, July 21, 2013 (UTC)
Costs of items are not game mechanics; they are simply the item's in-universe cost. Armor categories appear to me at first to be a gray area, and I might have to look into those to determine whether we really should be categorizing like that. As for "what game mechanics we allow", the answer is a flat "none". Game mechanics are defined as rules, categorization systems, and other material that exist solely OOU. However, when those OOU rules and concepts have an IU representation, that IU representation is canon and not game mechanics Using the new Fantasy Flight RPG as an example, if Character A has four ranks in the Piloting (Space) skill (out of the maximum of five), we don't say in an article exactly that because the skill rank system is OOU, but we can say that Character A is an expert pilot, which is what the four ranks represent IU. Likewise if the rules classify an item as "Restricted", we don't say that it was classified as "Restricted" because that's just an OOU term generalizing things for the benefit of players and GMs. We can, however, describe in the item's article what that term represents IU, using any further details in the item's description to be more specific. So while the licensing fees and legal restrictions exist IU and thus are not game mechanics, the four classifications, as well as the general concept, of "restricted items", do not exist IU and thus are game mechanics. Does that make sense? —MJ— Training Room 04:16, July 21, 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware that skill ranks are game mechanics that should not be posted. But you yourself admit that licensing fees and legal restrictions do exist in universe. Wouldn't it have been better to edit the article (perhaps removing the sections about the 4 categories) rather than completely deleting it? I spent a lot of time writing this article and making sure that it conformed to all Wookieepedia's standards, even checking Wikipedia on things like naming policies, referencing, and rewording to avoid copyright violation.--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 04:25, July 21, 2013 (UTC)
Read what I said closer: "So while the licensing fees and legal restrictions exist IU and thus are not game mechanics, the four classifications, as well as the general concept, of "restricted items", do not exist IU and thus are game mechanics." (emphasis added) The article purported to lump all these items together under the title "Restricted items", but such a general classification does not exist IU. That makes the mere existence of an article on the subject inappropriate. The correct place to describe the licensing and legal issues is in the respective articles on each of the affected items. A stand-alone article should not exist because that would require lumping everything together in an OOU manner under a game mechanics term. —MJ— Training Room 19:37, July 21, 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I wish I would have known this before writing the article!--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 22:45, July 21, 2013 (UTC)
When in doubt, don't forget that you can always ask first, either on someone's user talk page or simply by posting a thread in the Senate Hall forum. Just a simple "is this OK?" can save you a lot of trouble later. :) —MJ— Comlink 23:03, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Club penguin

I thought so too: [1]. But then I remembered that Disney owns LFL. Is that Club Penguin an official LFL licensed game? I just reverted a series of edits from the same user, but I reverted my reverts just to be safe. JangFett (Talk) 00:46, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point. At the very least, it's a licensed crossover, similar to Soulcalibur IV, which we do list (see Galen_Marek#Non-canonical_appearances). So yes, it should be listed. I've reverted my revert also. —MJ— Comlink 00:51, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Template:Device Modifier data field

Thanks for your help with that.--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 17:19, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Okay, I'm sorry for causing any trouble. Don't get mad. You may not know the image is genuine, but I do. I play Club Penguin every day of my life. I cannot really give a proper source because the image is screenshotted from the game, but I will do my best!

ɐɾuıN uǝǝɹפ (talk) 23:05, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

I saw the change; thanks for the quick response. One question: When you access the game through the website normally, is that the literal URL that it sends you to, or does it send you to a standard HTML page with that Flash object embedded in it? If the latter is the case, then we would prefer the URL of that page instead. —MJ— Council Chambers 23:15, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Range

Thanks for catching that, MJ. Yes, I meant Verizon and not Version. :P JangFett (Talk) 03:42, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Why does "Heading 6" use microscopic font?

I was wondering if there was any progress on this: Forum:SH:Why does "Heading 6" use microscopic font?.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 16:07, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Since the discussion has died out, the next step is to decide whether you want to actually try to get things changed. If so, then craft a proposal that you think would be most agreeable to everyone and start a CT thread so the community can vote on it. —MJ— Holocomm 19:10, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Otto pre-nom review

Hello Master Jonathan. I'd like to request a pre-nom review of General Otto's article from you—I know that your reviews are always thorough and demanding, which usually pays! :-) I'm not in a hurry, so you can take your time (even months) if you do accept my request. Regards. --LelalMekha (talk) 15:00, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I can get to it this weekend. Poke me again on Saturday or Sunday so I don't forget. :) —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 17:15, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, MJ. As you requested on this very talk page, I'm poking you again. ;-) Looking forward to reading from you soon. --LelalMekha (talk) 22:29, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
First set of objections is now on the article's talk page. Please continue discussion there. —MJ— Training Room 03:45, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Template:FFGSWRPG

Thank you SOOO much for fixing this right. I have been just going on stuff that I have seen in other like templates, but this is much more informative of the material than I was able to conceive. Thanks! —GethralkinHyperwave 17:02, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was bored and the parentheses in headers were annoying my OCD. :P —MJ— Council Chambers 17:57, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
lol. Cool. I knew something needed to be done to make look better but couldn't figure what. Can you please take a look at the corresponding changes I made to the other two templates, {{FFGSWTCG}} and {{FFGSWXW}}, to see if they also look okay now? —GethralkinHyperwave 18:30, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. I tweaked them a little more as well. Two quick notes: when linking something where the entire display text is in italics or bold, like Edge of the Empire, it is preferred that you put the '' outside the link brackets. Also, when editing templates, don't insert extra whitespace such as blank lines between the end of the template and the noinclude tag, as doing so causes that extra whitespace to be transcluded as well, which can cause formatting issues in articles that use the template. —MJ— Holocomm 18:54, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. —GethralkinHyperwave 18:56, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Individual User

Thanks!--63.92.231.217 20:17, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Sorry to have left a few things unfinished, I try not to let that happen but I had several honeydos and a doctor appointment. I am surprised, however, that Jay Little went on the Tc fire because of the erroneous perception that all he did was invent a dice system. Can you let the voters know that more was added to the article showing with references that he had more to do with developing and editing the series as a whole than just build dice? I am surprised no one checked to see if there was nothing more about him, since the FFG site has several interviews on record with him about the RP series. —GethralkinHyperwave 04:45, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to comment on the TC thread in a few minutes; please continue the discussion there. —MJ— War Room 04:49, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

WOTM nomination

Thank you for supporting my nomination of WOTM for September 2013 as result for recognizing my work and hopefully some improvement for our beloved wookieepedia. -- Jedi Marty (talk) 23:21, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Talk page policy

It has been implemented, ect. Good work. :) JangFett (Talk) 23:28, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —MJ— Comlink 23:29, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Formatting EotE references

Yes, much better; it really wasn't clear at first. Not due to your statement per se, but Menkooroo's elaboration on your comment with his associated image that you didn't object to (which you might address if you don't agree, btw, so there is no continued confusion). The large image repositioned his statement to the bottom of the page where no one would see it unless they knew to scroll down past the image. I edited his code so that the image wouldn't get in the way, but you reverted my edit. I was given the impression that you saw his comment as a result, and that you were in agreement with it if you didn't post an objection to his instructions, which were, "As you can see, it's not an in-universe short story that belongs in an "Appearances" section; it's an encyclopedia entry that would go in a "Sources" section. So the comparison with the Mos Eisley short stories is a case of apples and oranges." His POV is that your format would be listed in Sources for a specific reference (as a vignette, I suppose), whereas the adventures (like EfMS and TLAotH) get listed in the Appearances section. If this is not the case, however, what of 41-VEX whose separate reference sources are contained within separate vignettes? —GethralkinHyperwave 11:40, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

I suspected my comment hadn't been clear, hence why I took the time to clarify. A couple things in response: First, Menk reverted your adjustment to his image, not me. Second, what I think Menk meant is that "Mathus' Story", if it were to be kept as a standalone article/source, would itself be placed in the Sources section (i.e. ==Sources== [line break] *"[[Mathus' Story]]") That has no bearing on the game itself, which belongs in Appearances. I've replied on the TC thread to clarify.
In terms of 41-VEX, that should not have a Sources section at all. We generally don't list items under Sources that don't have their own unique standalone article, with few exceptions (the vast majority, if not all, of which deal with online articles). Instead, each of those five lines should be converted into a reference for the specific material it covers. Does that make sense? —MJ— Comlink 00:04, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Much clearer. I might have a question or two later if I run into another problem. From what I understand, though, you mean that the reference is displayed as an in-text citation, and the Appearance is the material the specific item the citation is derived from if it has no inter-wiki (Wookieepedia) article. If there is an inter-wiki article, then article is listed under Sources. Correct? —GethralkinHyperwave 15:51, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
I assume by "inter-wiki" here you actually mean "intra-wiki", which is universally referred to as an "internal link" ("inter-wiki" would mean a link to other wikis such as Wikipedia). So in this case, you would indeed list the game itself under Appearances and use the folios as citations. In other similar cases, you would determine what header each article is listed under based on the nature of that article. Items consisting of narrative (such as a short story) or a plot (such as an RPG adventure) go under appearances, while "reference material" (stuff that provides canonical information but without plot, such as the core rulebook) goes under Sources. —MJ— Council Chambers 17:34, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I did mean "intra-" and mistyped. Thanks! —GethralkinHyperwave 19:13, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Droopy

Thanks MJ, for sorting that out and explaining. The problem was that it wouldn't let me move the page over the redirect. I would've if I could've. Bo Shuda (talk) 01:51, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

That's very odd, as it should have allowed you to do so. Must be some sort of Wikia bug (of which there are plenty). —MJ— Comlink 02:18, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Confused about an addition to lightsaber

Hi MJ, I am confused about an addition that was made by User:Alucard10001 in lightsaber article here: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lightsaber?curid=433&diff=4616694&oldid=4615531 It talks about the sound of a lightsaber and cites Episode 6 as a source. I don't seem to recall Episode 6 talking about lightsaber activation noises. Maybe its just a personal observation on his part? Anyway, I didn't want to revert the information in case it was good, so I decided to let you take a look at it to see if it's ok.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 03:06, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. That really needs a text-based source. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and apologies for the delay in responding (I was away from the computer all day yesterday). —MJ— Council Chambers 20:25, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks. One last question: Let's say I want to undo a past edit, but there have been other good edits that have been made since then. If I click "Undo" on that edit, will it revert that edit ONLY, or will it revert ALL edits made back until that edit, including the good edits?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 21:22, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
The undo link will undo just that specific edit, but only if no subsequent edits conflict with it. If there are subsequent conflicting edits, you'll get an error message and must manually "revert" the edit by directly manipulating the text in the edit box like any other edit. Also, one thing a lot of people are unaware of is that you can use the undo feature on multiple consecutive edits at once by going to the history page, creating a diff involving all the edits you want to revert, and then clicking the undo link on the diff page. That is what I did in this case since there were two edits by the same user. —MJ— Comlink 04:53, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
That's great stuff, thanks MJ. Since I'm not sure I would know how to properly create a diff and then undo it, I might have to stick to the old fashioned method, just to be safe.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 16:19, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

Template hiccup

Hey, MJ! I was hoping you could help me out with something. I've been trying to expand the Chubbit article, but for some reason, I'm getting an error message: "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found." This is strange, since I'm using {{Reflist}}. You can see what I mean in User:SavageBob/Sandbox. Do you have any idea what could be causing this error? Thanks, ~SavageBOB sig 16:56, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Winterz fixed it for you here, and it's working right now. Let me know if you have any other problems. —MJ— Comlink 19:45, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! ~SavageBOB sig 19:48, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

Move/merge help

Hey, MJ. Could you help me out with something? I was going through the Ewoks episode "A Gift for Shodu" when I noticed that we had made a mistake on one of our article titles. We have a dragonlike creature from the episode under the page name Terpa, when in the episode, the characters call it a "serpent." Nowhere is the name "terpa" used; that is likely just the result of someone watching a bad copy of the episode and the audio not being clear. That said, I tried to move Terpa to Serpent, but I can't, since that article has a history (I recently moved Serpent to Serpent (starship) to make way for the move before being blocked by the wiki software). Could you move Terpa to serpent accordingly? Thanks! ~SavageBOB sig 12:31, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

  • Belay that request. I think Latara is not a reliable narrator in this case; she's never seen one of these things before. Instead, "serpent" should probably be a disambig page, which I can set up on my own. Thanks! ~SavageBOB sig 12:35, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Image CSD's

Hey MJ, the image's were made obsolete, I just didn't know how to place a link to the new images without it displaying them in the CSD template itself. Sorry about that. Trip391 (talk) 06:11, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

OK. In the future, to link to an image with without displaying it, prefix the link with a colon like this: [[:File:Name.jpg]]. That will produce an ordinary text link to the file. :) —MJ— Holocomm 18:41, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Otto FAN

Hello! Thanks to recent research by StarsiderSWG, one of the last persons here who still owns a Galaxies game, there have been significant additions to the "Put on the sidelines" section of Otto's article. Since you've already voted for its FA nomination, I send you this message so you can have a look at the recent additions and, if the need arises, remove your support vote. I don't want people who voted to feel cheated because they supported the nom before the article was complete—without my knowledge. Have a good day! --LelalMekha (talk) 13:15, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for letting me know, though I still had the article and your talk page on my watchlist, so I saw the whole thing developing. :P —MJ— War Room 18:53, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Are you alright?

Master Jonathan...Good name...I came to check and see if you were all right. I am almost certain I chewed you out and swallowed back in with those words on the Knowledge Bank. If you paid them no mind, then perhaps it is good. I only seek to see if you are understanding of my intentions and will not find anger for what was said. If you did not notice what was said, then forget it. Otherwise, I apologize for the snap. I do hope you will answer more soundly on the next pass, but in any case I hope more so you will not walk away disgruntled by the incident. May the Force be with you.99.188.36.80 04:45, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I was just answering the question the way I saw it at the time, and as for your response, I applied "tl;dr" and ignored it. Now that I have just read it... let's say it's a good thing that I didn't read it earlier or I might have blocked you on the spot for incivility. But cooler heads will prevail for now. :) I'll reply there in a few minutes with a more detailed answer. —MJ— Comlink 04:54, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

CT

Hey man, I'm trying out the sticky for the Wikia petition in the CT forum. Since people are asking about it, I've decided to "sticky" it to avoid future confusion. What do you think? (since you created the CT :P ) JangFett (Talk) 23:09, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I probably should have thought about that a long time ago. :P —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 23:11, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
I wish we could change the default "Topic" title for the forum, but oh well. Btw did you get my email regarding the closed TC thread? I was going to talk to another administrator about it to get their input, since you've mentioned that on my talk page. JangFett (Talk) 23:13, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
No; the last email I received you was about starting a new thread with a single section, to which I replied on 9/25 at 2:14 pm ET (the one starting with "I just fail to see how keeping the article as a full article makes sense [...]"). If you sent a reply to that, then I did not receive it. Try sending it again through Special:EmailUser/Master Jonathan and see if it goes through that way. —MJ— Training Room 23:21, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I fixed the "topic" label. Now when both parameters of {{forumtable}} are used, the first will say "Pinned topic". I went with pinned instead of sticky since that seems to be the more common nomenclature in forum software from what I've seen on the various forums I've been on. —MJ— War Room 00:47, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Jon. I knew it would be you! :D Menkooroo (talk) 01:55, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I logged on and loaded my watchlist seconds after you posted that, so I figured I might as well do it since I wasn't in the middle of anything and the baseball game is depressing (Pittsburgh fans can go to hell). —MJ— Council Chambers 01:59, October 2, 2013 (UTC)