Talk: Riffsyphon1024/Archive2

< User talk:Riffsyphon1024
This page is an archive of Riffsyphon1024's talk page between the 14th of June 2005 and the 14th of September 2005.

Millennium Falcon?

hey, should i not add the falcon as han's primary vehicle? seems like it should be there, thanks. TK-421 23:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • There's some dispute right now as to whether "Vehicle" should remain in the character info box template. See Template talk:Character for more info. – Aidje talk 03:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Summaries

Hey Riffsyphon1024. It would be helpful for you to include a slightly more details summary for the contributions where you add content to a page. Thanks! --SparqMan 16:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You're referring to the year pages, right? -- Riffsyphon1024 16:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah. It makes it easier to hunt down the original poster on a page with a lot of topics and years that require source validation. --SparqMan 17:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm simply finding events, births, deaths, and battles by what links to the page, already on our site. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That's fine, but just put in the summary something that indicates what you added. "Births-> Han Solo" is much more helpful than "added birth". --SparqMan 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Yea, but when you go as fast as I do when contributing, petty words in the edit summary are unneeded. I tend to think that you know what I mostly contribute is valid, and maybe there's the fun of finding out what it is that I added, rather than read the summary. But that's irresponsible as an admin, so I'll follow your lead, Sparq. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • It's never a question of the validity of your contributions, just a matter of making it easier to do things like sort out articles that have been through ugly mergers (ie Palpatine/Sidious) or in tracking down who posted what. --SparqMan 04:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tense

I hope you don't mind if I say this, but I'm going to be completely frank and say that the tense thing, where everything has to be in the past tense, is completely unnecessary and, well, stupid. It feels like I'm reading about a historical event when I'm looking through all of these articles, not a Star Wars encyclopedia. It should be like a normal encyclopedia, where only actual historical events should be past tense. Planets don't happen, they are there. I think, as an encyclopedia, this should be written like it's from the standpoint of somebody who is in the Star Wars universe recording information on the Star Wars universe. Is there somewhere where I can, like, challenge the official rules or whatever you call them. Besides, I see that at least the Coruscant article is written in present tense. Bob rulz 04:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Bob rulz, the primary problem with writing in the present tense is determining at what point the "present" is. The most forward chronological book? What about characters that died, like Jabba the Hutt? What about planets that were destroyed, like Alderaan? By writing all IU articles in the past tense we avoid a confusing mixture of tenses commonly found in Star Wars resources. Further, most encyclopedias are written in the past tense with the exception of topics like ideas. Here, we have chosen to write even those in past tense to give us the furthest removed perspective, and therefore the greatest NPOV. Some articles, like the Coruscant one, are in present or mixed tense because they were copied from Wikipedia, had contributions from a new user unaware of our style, or a mixture. --SparqMan 04:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, in every encyclopedia I've ever seen, only historical events or things that use to exist but don't anymore are written in past tense. With planets that were blown up (like Alderaan), or with historical events, yes, I'll agree that they should be written in the past tense, but I believe that everything else should be written in the present tense. It just makes more sense, because we're recounting what we know of the Star Wars Universe from reference books, novels, comics, games, the movies, etc. I believe that they should be written in the present tense, as that is standard encyclopedia formatting. When I read something like "Naboo was a planet in the Star Wars universe" it makes me feel like I'm reading about something that doesn't exist but use to. Sure, it most likely never did exist, but that doesn't mean anything. As of what we know FROM a Star Wars universe perspective at the moment, Naboo, Velusia, Coruscant, Tatooine, etc, all still exist. If some author decides one day to blow up Tatooine IN the Star Wars universe, then we can go back and change it all to past tense. But until then, I believe that it should be just like every other encyclopedia. Bob rulz 11:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no point in writing about planets in present tense, as all information we have about them could have easily changed during the course of "a long, long time". For example: how do we know Naboo didn't mysteriously explode in 2000 ABY?
How do we know that some huge star 500 light years away from us didn't go supernova 499 years ago? See, it's counter-intuitive. Let's say that theoretically the events in the Star Wars universe really DID happen a long, long time ago. To the best of our knowledge, everything is exactly as it was mentioned in the latest book, or whatever, that updated our knowledge on that specific thing. For example, to the best of our knowledge, Coruscant is still overrun by vegetation and was altered by the Yuuzhan Vong, and Luke Skywalker is still alive and well. Until authors update certain aspects of certain planets, characters, etc, I believe that it should remain with as much information as authors have decided to create for it. Bob rulz 11:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What's the point, other than for the sake of keeping it in present tense? To write it in present would only create a needlessly long timeline. --Imperialles 12:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How would it create a needlessly long timeline? Really, help me out on that one, because that makes no sense. Bob rulz 12:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be a large timeline because we would have to cover the information about a planet from "a long, long time ago" to 2005. --Imperialles 12:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um...no. A planet isn't an event. A planet doesn't happen. A planet is just there. EVENTS happen. PLANETS do not. Therefore, PLANETS are not EVENTS. I never said that we should write events in the present tense. Bob rulz 12:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I edited out the part that confused you. --Imperialles 12:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, no, the whole thing confused me. We wouldn't have to cover the information all the way up to "2005." Bob rulz 12:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You make some good points, Bob rulz, and certainly we shouldn't dogmatically stick with our guns. Everything is in flux. Here are my questions: How would you recommend we deal with issues that are unclear on whether they belong in the past or present tense? Equipment, for example. We are rarely given enough information to determine if a starship class is completely out of use and therefore should be written in the past tense. Are ARC starfighters still in use somewhere by the end of the NJO books? Maybe. What about characters that are not explicitly killed or revealed to be dead? Maybe they died, maybe not. The point is, the Star Wars universe is fictional, but not finite, and creates an atmosphere that promotes the use of mixed tense. Using the past tense is not inaccurate and certainly makes for a more consistent read. --SparqMan 13:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm currently figuring things out with SparqMan on his talk page. Sorry if I came off a little harsh...but I really feel like this needs to be changed at least partially. Of course, if I lose, then I will conform to the standards here, and I will always contribute no matter what. But...I think it's worth a shot... Bob rulz 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well everything works off of majority here. The proposal must go through a vote first and if more people are against it, then it won't happen. Don't you just love democracy? -- Riffsyphon1024 16:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good job

...on the "technical" pages. It was a seriously needed section here. I'd give you the Pit Droid of Diligence award, but I don't have the authority to do that. Instead you get my (unoffical) Administrator of the Month award! We couldn't have done this without you. --Imp 18:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks and no problem. it always helps when you have both Wikipedia and Wookieepedia open at the same time, plus those redlinks were annoying the hell outta me. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 18:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Navcomputer.com as source

Hi Riff: I don't think we should list nav-computer.com as a primary source in our articles, as it's not an official site. (That's why I removed it from the Kathol Sector article, replacing it with the RPG books which described it.) We should keep the "sources/references" sections for official publications.

On the other hand, it's a good resource, and it'd probably be a good idea to put relevant nav-computer.com links in as external links (maybe with a template, similar to how we do things with the databank?) -- Silly Dan 01:08, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I left an open space for a Nav-computer source template on one of the [[Star Wars:Template messages|template message]] pages. Also, note that when I provided that source for information regarding galactic geography, it was based on the maps he made, which were fairly detailed, especially in the inserts. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:16, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The correct page is [[Star Wars:Template messages/Sources of articles]] -- Riffsyphon1024 01:18, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's comprehensive and reliable, but not official, which is why I think it should only be listed as a reference alongside the official publications (which the webmaster lists anyway). -- Silly Dan 01:35, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I was also wondering the same thing, particularly in regards to a rehaul of the Galactic Civil War page which I've been working on (essentially using the maps on nav-computer.com to show fleet movements, or at least informing on). Although now that I think about it, it's not such a good idea, since the map may still be dubious and star wars is always in flux. -- Falmarin 01:21, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How can the map at Nav-computer be dubious? He has researched all sources of information quite well from what I've seen. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:23, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Right, but the Star Wars universe isn't very um, shall we say, "reliable." I'm still leaning towards using the maps, but I suppose it really depends on how complex the GCW article is in regards to mapping fleet positions, etc. -- Falmarin 01:27, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Well first let's make sure we know where everything is before we start mapping fleet positions. The Sectors, systems, and planets should all be arranged beforehand. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:53, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check your email

Just wanted to let you know that I sent you an email. I dunno if it's an account you check very often or not, so I figured I'd give you a heads-up. cya, WB

  • Well I've been on Wookieepedia all night so it would have been better to send it to here. I think Aidje is a good choice. He helped out alot in the beginning. And I would also like to see Shadowtrooper and SparqMan receive an honor in the coming months. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:45, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Re:Dashes

  • In response to your comment on dashes: I'm not sure where to discuss this problem with grammar. I suppose it should be discussed somewhere since it's such a big deal to change so many articles, but the whole reason that I didn't think of doing so beforehand was because it's just standard grammar like anything else. So… where do we discuss, and if here's good, what do you think? —qrc 20:24, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • It should be discussed in the [[Star Wars talk:Community Portal|Community Portal Talk Page]]. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:26, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Banned from Wikipedia

One of my enemies, a Wikipedia administrator named Snowspinner indefinitely blocked - banned me from Wikipedia. I'm sorry man, my time on Wikipedia is over. Remove me from your Wikipedia user page's Star Wars Contributors and Others lists right now! -- John-1107 20:34, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • You were blocked for your user page? --Imp 20:38, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Well you have to admit it John. Your user page was a little more than over the top. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:47, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Look man, no one besides me can edit my user pages. My user pages were privacy. I'm banned from Wikipedia forever. -- John-1107 15:43, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you suppose I do about it? -- Riffsyphon1024 23:55, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

My user page does not have wasteful, unnecessary piles of crap! It was already deleted by Snowspinner. My user pages are personal, not public and using it only traditionally to keep track of things better are boring to me partially because i have too many Wikipedia user contributions. I am discontent with the concept of simplicity because it is also boring to me. -- John-1107 00:44, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

My ideas on Wikipedia: add speculation, predictions of the future, or stuff from other websites, copy information from one article to another (or merging both articles if they contain the same information), merge all of my user pages, improve them, and making them personal, formal, and secure in any way i see fit, use "war tactics" to scare off those against me if they post too many comments that make me angry, avoid being blocked by marking many edits minor and keep my contributions to my user pages on the top of my user contributions, and publicly claim political (but not absolute) power. My enemies misinterpret what i'm doing and they want me gone! Are my ideas good or bad? -- John-1107 01:16, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm speechless. But I can say this. Wikipedia doesnt like users who make 10-15 user pages that all redirect to the same spot. The rest I'm not even going to argue against. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:47, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not talking about users who make too many user pages that redirect to the same spot on Wikipedia. -- John-1107 02:52, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Then what are you talking about? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:53, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking you if my ideas are good or bad. You don't have to give me an answer if you don't know. I have to end this discussion and change the subject. -- John-1107 02:59, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Look, I asked the admin Netaholic at Wikipedia on the matter of whether or not your ban was justified. I will notify you of his reply. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:48, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Netoholic is an admin? Great Force... Since when? - Sikon 09:24, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Apparently for some time when I saw his page. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:25, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Dark Lord of the Sith

  • Hi, I think you can unlocked Dark Lord of the Sith now, since [[KFanII]] seems to have given up on his reverts and we have a new entry to add to the page. QuentinGeorge 00:52, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Speedy

Can you please speedy delete Template:Individual_ship? I accidentally created it myself before realizing that ship summaries have an arbitrary number of fields. - Sikon 09:22, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Sabacc

Questions about your revision to the Sabacc article:

1) Where did you get that "46 is a winning number" from? I've never encountered that.

2) Why did you remove the Legate rank of face cards? It's between the 11 and the Commander. Thanos6 01:50, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanos, I did not remove 'Legate' from the list. 84.156.131.50 did and thats not my IP either. All my information came from the website in the external links. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:55, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Oy, you're right. I always misread those damn comparison pages. My apologies. -- Thanos6 01:57, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

7th

Very sorry I misread an article. you are correct it is not the 7th. Dylankidwell

sry looks like im right. on theforce.net it says its th 1st. Dylankidwell

  • Well thats what I want, a source. You may place a link to the page, on the current events page under November 1. Example [http://www.theforce.net/...] -- Riffsyphon1024 08:12, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Anon trouble

Hey Riff, could you ban 24.118.153.134? He has, in all his many months editing here, never added anything of use, mostly fanon and poor grammar and spelling. --Imp 15:09, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Well a ban is harsh for a noob who can't spell. He hasn't vandalized (which I'm zero-tolerate on) though. Is there anything good he has done? Look into it more before I do such a thing. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:12, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, he has added a few correct things, but those were, of course, misspelled beyond comprehension. I guess I'm just tired of cleaning up after him. --Imp 15:17, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I can deal with people who have trouble spelling. They just need to be taught. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:20, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Following this guy around for a few days was one of the things that motivated me to stick around here. I think we should let him stay for comic relief. Figuring out what he's trying to say is hilarious. His edit to Corporate Sector Authority was the funniest. I mean, "it mostliy axxinaest?" WTF is that? -- Darth Culator 17:51, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no clue. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:10, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I can agree with keeping him around for that. That's priceless. :P --Imp 22:13, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL...now that is funny. WhiteBoy 02:18, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Edit war alert

Despite a warning on the talk page, User:194.30.198.78 continues his edit war campaign, most notably on Palpatine (history) and Lumiya (history). It looks like User:194.30.198.103, User:194.30.198.94 and User:194.30.198.51 are also him. - Sikon 15:43, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Update: is User:Starkeiller also him? If so, it can wait, he seems to have finally stopped the edit war and started discussion on Palpatine and Lumiya's talk pages. - Sikon 15:49, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 16:05, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)Sorry, back then I didn't know about the talk pages. Fortunately, someone pointed me to that function of the Wiki. I'm not sure about the others, but 194.30.198.78 was me before I logged in or learned about the discussion function.

New Category

I put this on the community page but Im not sure if you saw it. Could you please make a Young Reader category? Currently all of the young reader books such as Young Jedi Knights and Jedi Apprentice are listed as novels, which doesnt really fit. Im not sure if I have to ask you to get a category set up or if I can do it myself and dont know howDurnar 22:14, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Easiest way is just go the article for the books and type at the bottom [[Category:Young Jedi Knights]] or [[Category:Jedi Apprentice]], and then create the categories for them, and be sure to make both within the category of Books, by typing in them [[Category:Books]]. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:29, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)

List of planets

Hey Riff, Microsoft Word (counting lines rather than words) counted the list to 3,452 planet links. Thought you'd like to know. --Imp 00:59, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • May I ask what revalence this has to us now? -- Riffsyphon1024 01:13, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Why, none whatsoever. :P Just saw you had devoted a section of your user page to the count, so I figured you'd like to know. --Imp 01:21, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh well then I'll update that. I forgot really. ;) -- Riffsyphon1024 01:29, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Great LucasCruft Purge

Who was the Wikipedian that started it? - Sikon 16:31, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Picture Upload Sizes

  • When uploading pictures it says dont upload if its more than 100k. Is this a set in stone rule, or is this just a guidline that you can go over slighty.Durnar 20:44, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • A recommendation to save on server space, however that doesn't seem to be an issue currently. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:14, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe it's also meant to save on download times for users, especially on slow connections. – Aidje talk 16:16, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Or for users with expensive traffic, like me... - Sikon 16:32, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • OK. Ive been editting the pictures down to less than 100k in Photoshop anyway. Just wasnt sure if ti was a strict cut off point or something. Durnar 16:34, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Worm?

What are you talking about, conflicted with "that worm." What worm? (Unsigned comment by User:JustinGann)

  • Oh, didn't you hear about the Zotob worm or its variations that took out CNN, ABC, New York Times, Caterpillar, etc, making each computer reboot and reload, over and over and over....? That worm. I guess I really have become paranoid. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:34, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

McEwok

I´m having some trouble with this individual, he has an obsession with the names 'Star Destroyer' and 'Super Star Destroyer' and keeps modifying articles to push his own agenda, under the guise of "objectifying" them. In addition, he seems to have some trouble with the newer factbooks (ICS, ITW etc.) taking precedence over older information as well as sources (young and old) contradicting his preferred information. Could you at least give him a warning not to take it too far, since he´s been getting on my (and other´s) nerves? VT-16 02:12, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • All sources of official information should be respected. However if something new contradicts something old, isn't it appropriate to go with the newer info, unless many other sources disagree and claim something else. In this case of SD and SSD, they can really be classified as 'slang' in the SW galaxy, while the titles of the articles are the fully technical names. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:29, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi. *deep breath*. Contrary to what VT and his friends might think, I'm not "pushing my own agenda", or at least, I'm trying my best not to; I'm simply trying to ensure that certain sections of this Wiki reflect the official material accurately. I don't want to go into distracting detail here, though; and I'm obviously just as involved in this as the people who're disagreeing with me. I'd definately welcome POVs and advice from people who're not caught up in this debate, and constructive discussion. Thanks! --McEwok 03:05, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • They´re not my 'friends', they´re random people on this site who keep having to tidy up your alterations due to bias. The only thing I´ve seen you do on this site is blow up minor uncertainties into big problems, most of the time relying on filmmaker´s intent rather than visual evidence. Guess what, the Executor is called 'Star Destroyer' in ESB, 'Super Star Destroyer' in ROTJ, 'Battlecruiser' in Marvel SW and 'Star Dreadnaught' in recent movie-related factbooks. Just because WEG & Co. kept writing SSD in their books, doesn´t make them authorities on SW ships.
And "It looks like a ventral section but they meant it to be the dorsal section" is fan-speculation and nothing more. You have it as a counter-point on the 'Tector behind the scenes'-section, when it is less supported by the film than the opposite view. Stop passing these things off as equally legit. VT-16 08:48, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • (1.) What I'm doing is, from my POV, trying to tidy up other people's bias. I'm here to try to work towards the best we can produce collectively. We should all try to be as rigorous as possible in our handling of the evidence, right? (2.) All c-canon information is equally valid, and the best interpretation is the one which troes to synthesize it all. On the designation of the Ex, ItW stands alone (at least for now) against a great weight of comics, novels, and sourcebooks. For future official publications to continue to contradict established canon will create a major continuity problem. (3.) Yes, "it's a kitbash" is fan-speculation; but "it's an otherwise unseen upside-down ship" is, too. It is equally legit, and weighing up the merits of both arguments is entirely subjective. --McEwok 18:02, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • (1)Nope, you are trying to counteract any former "bias" with your own POV. Two POVs in an article does not make it neutral. (2) Leland Chee clarified the official stance by saying that G- and C-canon is used only internally in Lucas Licensing and the old structures still stand, i.e the further from the films you get, the less relevant/accurate the info. Newer sources also trumph older ones in a conflict. For example, the DK books (which were made to chronicle the world of the films) are more relevant than any comics/books or other media. That´s their policy. (3) I haven´t said it was "otherwise unseen", only that it matches the bottom markings of an SD, and not the top. This is a more legit viewpoint, whether you like it or not. VT-16 21:26, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be clogging this up again, Riffsyphon. If VT-16 wants to take it back to my own Talk page, I'm fine with that. But to answer his questions.... (1.)What I'm trying to do is indicate where the limits of canonical certainty end, and where hypothetical fan extrapolation begins. Given that fanon has made it to the Wiki in these places, I think it's fair enough to note exactly what's fanon, and what the problems and alternatives are. No? If anyone sees it differently, please let me know... *confused Ewok* (2.) where's that remark from? The remarks by Mr. Chee which I've seen add that they try to reconcile all the material. Canon is canon, and shouldn't be disregarded just because SWTC is infested with brain-bugs. (3.) No, it's not more legit: other shots (eg. Ex bridge) show that close detail don't match up with the big models; though I won't say that it's objectively less legit, either - which is why I've tried to note both options at the Wiki. Not saying I'm perfect, just that I think there's too much fanon in some articles here. --McEwok 21:20, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I´ve made several "controversial" articles less biased either way (and backed up with an official source, where it was relevant). And I´ve added three relevant interviews approved by Lucasfilm to the bottom of the SSD-issues page. If he starts complaining about that or continue to debate the conduct of Lucasfilm/Lucas Licensing on certain issues, just because they don´t agree with his views, he can take it somewhere else. Or, stop trying to make something that isn´t a problem into a problem. Because I´ve had it with his whining. VT-16 19:01, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • sigh* I won't complain about more evidence; thank you for that. I appreciate. But I may disagree with the interpretation you put on it. I'll read the links, and get back to you. Again, thanks! There's no need to get riled up. --McEwok 00:18, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Edit War in Progress

Riffsyphon, can you lock Palpatine until all the disputes on the talk page are resolved? Thanks. QuentinGeorge 04:10, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 14:46, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)Yes, I am now OFFICIALY a troublemaker, huh?

  • You aren't a troublemaker, you are just a stubborn Wookieepedian. :) - Sikon 15:38, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 16:02, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)I'm sure we'll reach a solution with discussion.

  • I've started a vote on the issue of 84 BBY, the remaining unresloved issue keeping it locked. Could you monitor and moderate? --SFH 16:42, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe a vote is not the way to solve this issue, nor any other issue of that nature. I believe it should remain locked for some more time until we reach a consensus through debating. --Master Starkeiller 20:20, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you agree with QuentinGeorge's latest suggestion to end the war and unlock the page? It's a very nice way to end this. --Master Starkeiller 18:36, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Plo Koon Page

  • Can we unlock the Plo Koon page since Mr Anon has well and truly desisted with his vandalism? QuentinGeorge 13:03, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ulic Qel-Droma

We have a problem. From my comparisons, the Ulic Qel-Droma page is a copied from Databank verbatim. I know standard procedure is to list a copywrite thing, but I'm not sure if I need your permission, as you seem to be the Alpha Wookieepedian. User:SFH

  • Permission is not needed to label an article as a copyvio, just type {{copyvio|URL}} on the page and then submit in to [[Star Wars:Copyright problems]]. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:54, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Images

Sorry about the black lines (it's just that the part in the game had widescreen). Ill be sure to fix it up for all of my future image submissions.

  • Your existing ones are all marked with {{crop}} for easier finding, they will be in Category:Images that need cropping. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:04, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Reloading question

When I reload an image, should I rename it or does it automatically replace the old one?

  • You can overwrite the existing file with another with the same name. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:12, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Celanon Spur and Kanz Sector

Rifs, is Kanz Sector (Lorrd and Argazda) on the Perlemian near Corporate Sector?

Any idea where to locate the Celanon Spur? I know it includes M'shinni Sector (in Mid Rim) and Celanon (in Outer Rim), but not sure exactly where. What does it spur off of? The Corellian Run? I am almost certain Celanon is in the Slice.

  • I'm sorry but I wouldn't know anything about this particular sector, nor the Celanon Spur, right now that is. I'd still need to research all available online sources, including the updated map of Carty's which I still need to superimpose all the new sectors on (I did this with the old map last night/today). My book sources are limited so I wouldn't know anything offhand about such a minor route. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:31, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

69.219.149.128

  • Could you please do something about 69.219.149.128? All he has been doing is posting false information, even after it was REPEATEDLY removed. We have warned him numerous times, and the user doesn't seem to care. [Unsigned comment by Demented Smiloid.]
    • I'll check him out. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:57, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • No need to block him. He just doesn't understand his source. --SFH 23:02, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok then, I've unblocked him. Watch him closely and if he can't contribute correctly, he does not belong here then. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:05, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, he just called me a "motherfucking asshole" on his talk page, and is continuing to spread fanon bullcrap throughout the wiki. I have reasonable doubt he should remain unbanned. EDIT: Actually, hold that thought; he said he got info from jedipurge.com, which is Supershadow material and thus not really his fault. The flame still isn't very positive, however... Demented Smiloid 18:56, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
            • The flame was incredibly childish, as was the way he reacted to the correction of his C-3PO "error" (spooging C-3PO all over the Deaths section of 25 ABY). He has yet to contribute anything positive, and I doubt he ever will. -- Darth Culator 19:34, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
              • Well he sounds like a kid and if he's going to flame you with curses and not contribute then I will re-ban him. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:28, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • By the grammar and content of his edits, I think 209.175.47.162 might be this same guy. But this time around, he seems to be adding proper attribution to his additions. So far, anyway. Maybe he learned his lesson. I did not know that Jedi Power Battles assigned different saber colors to some characters, so that was actually an interesting factoid. If he had given a source last time around, I wouldn't have removed it. —Darth Culator 00:31, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Starkeiller's cronies

This is really bothering me. The thing they want to change is trivial, but the fact that he has, for all intents and purposes, gotten away with using sockpuppets to influence the vote after he realized he couldn't just bully it through is driving me nuts. We all know that the only time any of those people will post again is to sway any other vote Starkeiller wants to pass. And yet Starkeiller's even bragging that he's going to get more of his friends to do it until he has enough votes. Please, reconsider removing their votes, or at least discounting the outcome of those who don't contribute something within a month or few weeks or whatever. I've had sockpuppets used on enough of my articles on Wikipedia to really hate the practice even when i don't really care about the outcome. Kuralyov 02:51, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • I've tryed this once already and he started bitching about it and only with the recommendation of another Wookieepedian, did I retract and readd the votes, however, I agree that voters should at least contribute something before voting, to prove that they are not just socks trying to help him win over an already existing majority. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:24, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Please stop calling them cronies and sockpuppets! It's really rude, you know? You keep talking about what a disgusting guy I am, sockpuppeting and bullying, bragging, bitching, please be at least polite, okay? And you claim tou know that the only time any of those people will post again is to sway any other vote I, their despot, wants to pass, speaking for other people too. Have you farseen it in the Force? Please, these people are here to contribute, they have already, they ARE NOT SOCKPUPPETS. These baseless accusations really annoy me. Let's do what QuentinGeorge suggested before I am accused of being Hitler in disguise! --Master Starkeiller 18:47, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you please point out the articles they've done for me? I'm curious to see what they did that I missed seeing in the 'Recent Changes' section. Kuralyov 18:57, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Gianakin has added some things to the mirroring of R.o.t.S. and A.o.t.C. with the other movies, Koumbari Vrouves has contributed in the Dathka Graush page and all the others have said they will contribute something. --Master Starkeiller 19:58, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Source or Appearance

Hi Riff. I've been agonizing over whether I sould put those reference guides under Sources or Appearances. The reason I chose appearances was because the Sources section is supposed to be used by the author of the article, to say where he/she got his/her information from.

Since I didn't write the articles myself, I have no way of knowing exactly where the information came from. So that is why I listed them under Appearances, not sources.

While we're talking about this, I'm thinking maybe we should include reference guides in the Appearances section anyway. Shouldn't the Appearances section be a complete list of where to read more about a specific subject? --Azizlight 01:56, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Appearances are defined as where the subject shows up in literature, such as novels, movies, video games, etc. Sources are the Essential Guides, RPG books, Visual Dictionaries, other DK books, websites, etc. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:06, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok fair enough. I just thought that the Sources section was like a bibliography, that's all. Thanks. --Azizlight 02:15, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Just trying to keep the articles all similar here. ;) -- Riffsyphon1024 02:26, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Goodo :-) One more question, do Holonet News articles (both Insider and website) go under Sources or Appearances? I'm guessing Appearances? --Azizlight 02:30, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • Well I'm not too sure about it, but I'd think that since Holonet News is In-universe, then it will work as an appearance. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:29, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Awards?

I haven't noticed that any awards are on the awards page, just the proposals. Aside from WotM, are there any "official" awards I can give? Shadowtrooper talk 03:12, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I've really tryed to get them finalized but noone else has voted. If you can round up some people to vote and get them on the awards page. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:20, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Grievous Sith Lord without the Force?

65.79.196.90 has done some edits having Grievous as a "Sith Lord without the Force". Now that smells stnkowif! Fanon that is... You might want to keep an eye on this... --Master Starkeiller 22:11, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Battlefront 2 Page

I was the one who was constantly putting Leia and Han in the Battlefront 2 page, now that they are both confermed could u please unblock the page so we can update it? Unit121 10 Sep 2005

Year pages

Currently the pages for in-universe years have four categories (events, battles, births, deaths). Would it be allowed to add another (out-of-universe) category for books/movies/etc that take place during those years, at least for years that actually have something occuring then? Kuralyov 11:52, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure about it. I've tried to make those as IU as possible (even though the BBY system is technically created out of universe, unless it's been proven that the Rebels created it). I think adding OOU literature would clog them up. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:08, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe the BBY/ABY calendar was implemented by the New Republic circa 25 ABY. I would agree that adding literature would kind of clog things up. With the current system, one can find books from certain time periods by going to the various event articles and looking at their respective appearances. – Aidje talk 02:48, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

"Populate this category" template?

Hi Riffsyphon, I'm not sure if I was imagining things, but in the past I think I remember coming across some categories with a tag/template saying "Please populate this category". I would like to add this tag to the Sourceless category, but now I can't find this elusive "Populate" template, if it ever existed. Could you please point me to where this template might be, if in fact I was not dreaming? If i am dreaming about Wiki, then I definately need to get out more :-) --Azizlight 07:44, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • If you don't mind me answering instead, it's at Template:Popcat. MarcK 08:12, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Awesome, thanks MarcK! --Azizlight 08:17, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • I should add that template to the category of underpopulated categories, so that you might not continue to dream. ;) -- Riffsyphon1024 17:50, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)