Upon reading about some of these other Force traditions, I've taken a rather big interest in the potentiality of these factions, and carry a passing interest into some of the other warrior cultures.
for future reference
there is a blue box at the top of every single talk page that reminds you, that talk pages are not for discussing the topic... I feel bad enough for even partially discussing the topic on the matukai page... ralok (talk) 05:04, March 30, 2015 (UTC)
What's your problem? I had proof both in the form of links and quotes taken directly from the sources, which backed up everything I've said. Yet you're so adamant against it, why (and what evidence fortifies this tedious presumption of yours)?--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 16:44, March 30, 2015 (UTC)
- Basically what ralok was trying to say was that talk pages are for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. What you wrote had nothing to do with a change to the article. If you want to talk about the topic of an article, you should go to a forum site to do so, like the Jedi Council Forums. Trip391 (talk) 09:49, April 13, 2015 (UTC)
What I've said had everything to do with the article. I suggested that what was discovered be mentioned by Wookieepedia's community in their own neutral format in the "behind the scenes" section, for more accuracy and clarity concerning their encyclopedic summarization of the topic in subject.--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 09:59, April 13, 2015 (UTC)
- You arent "discovering" anything, you are just making up insane long-winded fan theories to explain away aspects of the canon you do not like. You identify something you dont like, then try to rationalize why that shouldnt be true through the force users abilities... You might as well be saying "luke skywalkers ship crashed that one time, continuity error because luke is a good pilot" ralok (talk) 20:26, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
The quotes disagree with you, logic as well, and common sense. Why are you so adamant against this, it's already been proven?--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 20:59, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "logic" and "common sense" there is only what the writers freaking wrote. You cant erase some of the writers words by fiddling with the definition of other words. You have proven nothing, you are just dribbling diarrhea out your mouth because you cant accept that a few force-using organizations nearly got wiped out. ralok (talk) 21:35, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, you cant prove that the events of The Empire Strikes Back didnt happen, by saying "luke is a good pilot, therefore its literally impossible for his ship to have crashed", someones skill-set does not mean they are going to succeed at absolutely everything they attempt to do. You say "Seyugi dervishes can never be defeated by the jedi" well, obviously they freaking can... because they were, and saying they they cant wont change the fact. ralok (talk) 21:37, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
Since the Dervishes were created, he never existed within the expanded universe.--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 21:46, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
- Ummmm... no that is wrong for a trillion reasons... Also, how come you aren't acknowledging any of my counter arguements? That is incredibly freaking weird... Are mean are you okay? you seem to be sick or something, because you are completely ignoring the things I am saying. ralok (talk) 21:54, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
Because the quotes back me up, so what's the point in acknowledging the trivialities behind your reasoning for contradicting me?--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 21:56, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
- Why do you think that Matukai, Baron Do Sages, and the Seyugi Dervishes are unable to make mistakes and fail? Why do you think that the empire cant aim a star destroyers cannons at a Baron Do temple and wipe it from the galaxy with one blast? OR the jedi use their own force speed abilities to fight the Seyugi Dervishes? Or for anyone to use a Particle shield to protect them from the Seyugi dervishes? You are taking each of these organizations utterly in isolation and pretending that no other technologies, force powers, or ANYTHING exists in the universe. ralok (talk) 22:00, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
Here, fill in the blank (since you think there is no flaws within the writing concerning this organization):
"The Matukai are known to use the Force in many of the same ways the Jedi do,"
And here's what the spellcaster feat says on their skill-set: Spellcaster "You learned the Force with the erroneous belief that it is magical in nature. This colors not only your perception of how it works, but how to access and apply it." Special: "You must take this feat at 1st level, or before you take your first level of Force adept. A character with levels in a Jedi class may not take this feat." ―Star Wars: Hero's Guide (chapter 46) What's wrong with this?--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 02:13, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
- Ralok has been given a week-long block, and I've already issued an administrative warning as to the continuation of this argument. Please drop it. Cade
Calrayn 02:15, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
Talk pages
Consider this an official administrative warning as to the arguments you and Ralok have been engaging in. I don't care whether he started it or not, let's keep conversations civil here. Secondly, regarding your theories on Talk:Seyugi Dervish, please note that talk pages are not the place for fan theories or the discussion of said theories, as you've apparently been doing with your claims about Padme's death. Please take this into consideration. Cade 
Calrayn 22:38, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
That's not a theory. 900 or more Seyugi running around in the core capitals and territories, and you think it didn't occur to one of them that she's worth a lot of credits, dead? I go by the science behind their abilities and the practicalities behind their philosophies, and I've been right each time. So you don't have the grounds to tell me what's theory and what's not, considering we don't have the same level of understanding. That's not an insult nor anything provocative of the sorts. It's a fact.--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 22:45, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
- It's a fan theory and in fact complete fanon, as it's been clearly established how and when Padme died. You're welcome to continue contributing, but drop the fan theories and argumentative attitude. Cade Calrayn 22:51, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
It was established until they were created (hence why it's a hole in story), which is why I pointed that out. The original movies are their own canon with the Seyugi Dervishes introduced. Maybe you could call it fanon or theory if it was grounded in speculation and not observation based on the information given. But in this case, you nor anyone else cannot.--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 22:56, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
- I... you seem to be ignorant of or misunderstanding the fundamental structure of Star Wars canon, both before and after the Expanded Universe's purging. Nothing trumps the movies, and thus any claim as to how Padme died otherwise is irrelevant. Cade
Calrayn 23:00, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
And this is why I've said "fans have formed a religion revolved around the differentiation of what's considered canon hierarchy." That means nothing in regards to the science behind what these individual organizations can do. The fact that this was stated without contemplating on it shows, the knowledge is there, but the understanding in context isn't.--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 23:05, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
the flaw
look... every single one of your theories you have posted, has been an attempt to prove that the organizations were not defeated by another organization at some point... by proving that their abilities would somehow make that impossible... But the problem is, that you're sources seem to be 90% of the time... RPG books. You even seem to have integrated the RPG stats a few times in your logic.
The problem with this, is that these tabletop RPGs are designed on a fundamental level to be balanced... If a Baron Do sage is fighting an Inquisitor in the game itself... he can lose, every class in the game can lose against a character of another class... because otherwise the game would be imbalanced.
Its a simple fundamental truth of any game, to give the player a undefeatable character that can be used to win the game every time without fail... would break the game, as players would never use anything but this type of character. Thus it is undermining your point when you try to prove that every force-using-organization is somehow invincible with what you think is science.
I try... I try really hard to be nice, and to ignore you... I know its not my business. But you are going to get yourself in trouble eventually bro... And speaking as someone who frequently gets in trouble on websites because I have a hard time dealing with dissenting opinions... its not a pleasant feeling to be banned. ralok (talk) 10:27, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally on two talk pages, you have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "Regarded" means... And if you want to be taken seriously, especially when you are trying to claim what you are saying is scientific... you should learn what the word means. It is a word that refers to separate-entities perception of a specific entity (be it an organization, group, place, or person). Subjective perceptions are not empirical science by their fundamental nature... ralok (talk) 10:36, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
And once again, you didn't read enough of my comment to understand what's emphasized as "science." The science behind what these orders can do are buried within the context of how their tradition differentiates from others. If you have a being that was said to be able to see across the entire galaxy, that stipulates their field of vision is multi-directional during the said stretch (as you can't see the entirety of a galaxy, unless you're looking in all the directions of it).
I never once said they were invincible, however, thinking along the basic sense of conventionalism won't work in many of these cases.--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 13:02, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
- This is a formal administrative warning to please drop this argument. Yashuvoo, I understand your intentions are probably beneficial, but these kind of esoteric debates are probably more welcome at forum fansites rather than our talk pages. Cade Calrayn 13:07, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
"Esoteric?" Ah.. (I just caught that), so you understand the angle I'm coming from? I'm glad you gave me a fair shake rather than just outright dismissing me or anything I had to present. I only replied to Ralok's dismissive comments. My intention behind posting my findings on talk pages is not to initiate debates, nor is it to undermine this site's emphasis on encyclopedic accuracy and neutrality. I only want this community to acknowledge the context of the descriptions given on these different traditions. So that clarity can be given within particular sections that may appear inconsistent.--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 19:32, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
Re:KOTOR II
I didn't think that at all. I did notice that you did not discuss a change to the article, and were merely commenting that you think the Exile was going to be male, but some writer decided she was female. As you already know, talk pages are not for discussions about the topic of an article, per what the talkheader says at the top of the page but are solely for a change to the article itself. It would be good for you to remember what the talkheader says, because if what you write isn't valid, it will be removed. Wookieepedia is not one of the numerous forum sites dedicated to discussions of Star Wars, but rather an encyclopedia of Star Wars content. Trip391 (talk) 08:10, June 27, 2015 (UTC)
Final warnings
That's really enough. You've come here to our site and accused us of failing in our mission to document Star Wars, accused the administration of malpractice, slandered our well-established canon system simply because you find issue with it, attempted to revive long-dead issues despite clear notices and warnings, and generally presented an unpleasant and arrogant attitude with which you try to overwhelm other users with the sheer volume of your text and rambling esoteric rants. This would be slightly more tolerable if you in fact contributed to our site in a meaningful way other than posting your essays on talk pages, often in disregard for the talkheader policy, but you've shown no desire nor effort to do so and instead have stuck to simply pointing out our "errors" and demanding that we fix them. You have exhausted both my patience and the patience of several administrators, and thus you receive the "attitude" that you are taking issue with. This is my final warning to you on this subject and any further topics; future attempts to revive issues like this, to provoke me, to provoke other users in a similar manner, or further violations of the talkheader policy will result in your being blocked for disruption. For your own sake, please do not reply to this message and simply accept the warning; you're on thin ice already. Cade Calrayn 20:47, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
"Provoke you?" You have some nerve even insinuating such a notion, as if you didn't instigate this whatsoever. You provoked me when you labeled my posts as 'spiels' and 'essays' (due to your lack or inability to properly understand what's being shown to you and why it's being said). Basically the same thing Ralok was doing - yet you didn't consider that provocative at all? And then there's the fact you're complaining about lack of contribution? You can see with this conversation as to why I'm reluctant. Considering that you've tried to argue the opening narration for Knights Of The Old Republic II as non-canon - says future contributions toward articles that have already become the subject of controversy will be considered vandalism. As you already think I'm trying to reignite fan battles over the chronological exile, while dismissing descriptive, yet, refined explanations derived from source literature as, hard-to-understand "esoteric ramblings." Since this is your perception on the matter - that meant you technically wouldn't care about anything I may present and archive here - it's dismissible nonetheless (which undermines your excuse). That's not a definitive for disciplinary action (but whatever, you're gonna do what you want).
But to call me arrogant.... this has to be the biggest load of hypocrisy yet. You're the one suggesting that this encyclopedia hasn't made any mistakes with how it summarized information that wasn't given enough of an examination. You're the one using a religion (the canon system) to disregard and overwrite etched-in-stone information displayed by other characters and factions. You're the one who threatened to block me based on a mere disagreement concerning the Dervishes (which you didn't have the validity to do). While you're the one who's actually gonna sit there and lie about me directing false accusations against policies loosely-enforced among an administration that should have the same moral bindings. Yet none of that is related to this pride-based thing we call arrogance? Laughable. So in the end, you'll get slaps on the wrists primarily because your friends are admins.
Since you're going to jump to the bottom of the so-called essay, and block me on the grounds of talking back due to the irritability that might build up from reading this, here's one thing you need to understand. Although you have both an elevated position and status here due to the considerable number of contributions you have given over the years - that does not make you exempt from criticism.--Yashuvoo Sommin (talk) 11:52, July 1, 2015 (UTC)
Blocked
Congratulations, you now have some time off to reconsider your general attitude toward this community. If you continue to issue general insults toward Wookieepedians, such as calling people "bigots" for disagreeing with your personal interpretations of source material, your next block will be permanent. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:27, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
That's all, folks
So as soon as you come back, you start up the same old edit war. You have learned NOTHING, and people who are incapable of learning are not welcome here. Goodbye. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:28, December 1, 2015 (UTC)