Welcome, SoWhy!Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 
Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask me on my talk page. May the Force be with you! —Grunny (Talk) 12:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
RE:
To be quite frank, I'm not sure where it's written or if it's even written at all, it's just done as a long-time precedent. For example, Luke Skywalker's infobox image is of Mark Hamill, Han's is of Ford, and Leia's is of Fisher when they are obviously of more advanced age in the more IU-current novels because they are the most IU-current LA pictures of them. Because that is the only LA picture of Mara, it's used as the infobox image and since I moved the TEA picture to the body, there's no harm done by following the precedent anyway. NaruHina Talk 
22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and also, if you still wish to change it to the TEA pic, put it up for a vote on Mara's talk page first. NaruHina Talk
22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it's been explicitly stated to me that it was because they were the most IU-current LA pictures, not because of them being G-canon. I found out about the precident while I was wondering why Hayden Christianson is used for Anakin's Infobox when Sebastian Shaw was his oldest IU picture. (It's because of the change to the end of ROTJ) NaruHina Talk
08:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it's been explicitly stated to me that it was because they were the most IU-current LA pictures, not because of them being G-canon. I found out about the precident while I was wondering why Hayden Christianson is used for Anakin's Infobox when Sebastian Shaw was his oldest IU picture. (It's because of the change to the end of ROTJ) NaruHina Talk
Signature
Wookieepedia's signature policy stipulates that your signature may only have one font color. Please correct yours to fit within the accepted guidelines. Thanks. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 16:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- And here I was thinking German Wikipedia's guidelines were strict about signatures (my sig is conservative by English Wikipedia's standards btw^^). But I've never been one to break guidelines deliberately (without a very good reason at least), so I'll change it. ;-) Regards SoWhy 17:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Kenth Hamner
Certainly you can add the part about him escaping his quarters, incapacitating the four Jedi, and then confronting the Jedi Masters before he tried to disable the hangar door. I reverted your edit because it wasn't factually correct. Feel free to add the information, but make sure you do so accurately. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:05, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, I've tweaked it to clarify that he incapacitated only two Jedi outside his quarters, and the next two he incapacitated were outside the hangar itself, but it looks good. Cheers, Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:42, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
In use tag
Hello. Firstly, Wookieepedia does differ from Wikipedia in using the {{Inuse}} tag. I understand Wikipedia's usage is intended for short periods only, while here we apply the tag while working on articles which can, in some cases, extend for several days, weeks or even months. In addition, Bwua'tu is a Featured Article, which means that any additions must be sourced and formatted according to our policies. As the original editor of Bwua'tu's article that reached FA status, it is my responsibility to update it accordingly, hence the in use tag. We generally have an understanding that any Featured Articles tagged for update are "off-limits" until they are updated by the original editor. As for the edit that I allowed to pass - it was merely removing a "Mentioned only" tag. It was not changing the article in any significant way.
The edit summary was not meant to be rude or offensive, but is a standard reply that we use when reverting such edits to inform the user of the reason for the reversion. I will not be reverting to your edit. Despite there being no activity for two days on the article (which is not an unusual occurrence here), I was in the middle of editing the article, and have had the editing window open in another tab for the past couple of hours. So, as you see, the possibility of an edit conflict was apparent, and I have had to take steps to avoid it. I hope that clears things up. Regards, Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 12:55, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
- If I might add, often I have the editor open for days, sometimes over a week, and edit conflict in these cases would be really annoying. –Tm_T (Talk) 15:55, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
- If the {{inuse}} tag is designed to be for keeping an article without changes for a long period of time, it should reflect this in its wording. Many occasional editors, such as myself, who come here from Wikipedia (when there has been another one "delete all the fancruft"-tantrums for example) know this tag from its use on Wikipedia and thus will assume it being used the same way here. When I saw the page with the tag on it not being edited for some time, I naturally assumed that Cavalier simply forgot about it. Most of the editors will not know about those "understandings", so it's hard to assume they will act according to them. As for the responsibility of updating an article, imho it shows a poor understanding of what a wiki is if only the original editor should be allowed to update an article. After all, the point of a wiki is that everyone should work together on creating and updating content, not just single people. But I will respect it if local consensus is otherwise. Regards SoWhy 16:22, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
- "Some time" can be understood many ways. (: There's no need to feel a need to defend what you did, as how I see Cavalier One did just revert it and did let you know why in all good manner, no harm done for how I see it. About "only nominator is allowed to update", I don't take it that way, only that the nominator is (usually) expected to take responsibility to do it and make sure the article is kept per the status article standards. Atleast I welcome all help on that job, but I also do keep close eye that the edits does not reduce the quality. So, how I see it, the responsibility of nominator doesn't mean others are not allowed to edit, just that it's good to discuss additions with the nominator first to ensure the quality and so on. Hopefully this clarified atleast how I see things around here, and feel free to ask if something needs further clarification. –Tm_T (Talk) 09:50, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
- If the {{inuse}} tag is designed to be for keeping an article without changes for a long period of time, it should reflect this in its wording. Many occasional editors, such as myself, who come here from Wikipedia (when there has been another one "delete all the fancruft"-tantrums for example) know this tag from its use on Wikipedia and thus will assume it being used the same way here. When I saw the page with the tag on it not being edited for some time, I naturally assumed that Cavalier simply forgot about it. Most of the editors will not know about those "understandings", so it's hard to assume they will act according to them. As for the responsibility of updating an article, imho it shows a poor understanding of what a wiki is if only the original editor should be allowed to update an article. After all, the point of a wiki is that everyone should work together on creating and updating content, not just single people. But I will respect it if local consensus is otherwise. Regards SoWhy 16:22, August 11, 2011 (UTC)