User talk:The Wookieepedian/Archive 2

Palpatine edits

Hey, next time you edit the Palpatine article, do you think you drop a line explaining your little dispute with Copperchair on the talk page? Thanks. Jon Hart 17:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Basically, every time he makes any edit to the page, he removes all references to Ian McDiarmid playing Palpatine in the 2004 version of ESB. He has tried to push his preference for the 1997 special editions on all the star wars articles he edits. All the major editors to those articles have been involved, and have recently filed a request for comment, and, due to his refusal to cooperate, a request for arbitration on him. The Wookieepedian 08:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you want a welcome?

Do you want a {{welcome}}, or do you know your way around ;))? And this isn't ironic... Lectonar

I'll take a welcome. I'm here as a new user. The three indefinate blocks I've received have taught me a lesson. On my new talk page, I've even given a link and stated that I was formerly the bad user known as Adamwankenobi and you could read my old contributions. In my new identity, you won't find the contributions you found in my Adamwankenobi ones. That name no longer has any meaning for me. The Wookieepedian 09:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I know, I looked at it. So here it is: Lectonar 09:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The Wookieepedian 09:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, The Wookieepedian/Archive 2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ... And happy editing... Lectonar 09:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Username

Just a quick note to say I love the username ;) Sherurcij 12:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! The Wookieepedian 10:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Real cool. --Gbleem 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh

Adam, you know that A Link to the Past is going to be monitoring the User talk:The Fascist Chicken, so insulting him there is just a sad little flamebait. Please drop it. Jacoplane 10:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a little private comment on Link to the Past, sharing my experience with him to The Fascist Chicken. It seems they got into one of the old Link vs. Adam arguments. The Wookieepedian 10:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Except it's not private, since he'll almost certainly be monitoring that page. If you want to send private messages, use e-mail or something. Jacoplane 10:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

My Conversation With A Link to the Past

Ha! I just read your argument with that guy. He truly can be at times, one of the biggest dicks on wikipedia! He seems to think only he can be bold as the rules say. Any little change you make to one of "his" articles, he moans and bitches until he gets his way on. The Wookieepedian 08:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What you said is exactly what I was thinking. I don't know why people are even making a big deal over this. I expressed my hate towards Nintendo, and now people are coming after me, I hate fanboys. They need to leave me alone, I stopped expressing my opinion on the talk pages (I did it like twice, and rv-ed one, once) and I thought they would stop complaining at me at my talk page. But now someone else started. The Fascist Chicken 13:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

For one, vandalism that got you blocked a total of ten times is not being bold. For another, Fascist Chicken, you're really reaching for support when you reach towards a user whose original account was indefinitely banned. For another yet again, you wanna know why I reverted your nice little edits? It could be me wanting to keep the article all to myself... However, a conundrum; wasn't it decided by a democratic vote to do the things you don't like that I am doing? Philwelch is doing it, Coffee is doing it. Every single edit I've made to the Star Wars article was only opposed by you and Copperchair (who continues to disrupt the articles). If being a good Wikipedian and attempting to enforce the rules and consensus is bad, what is good to you?

Anyhow, perhaps it's the whole "this is not a gaming forum" concept that got your edits reverted, hm? Wikipedia is not a place to voice your opinion on the quality of the subject of the article, only the article itself. Need me to hold your hand and bring you to where you'd just love it?

IGN

GameFAQs

GameSpot

See those links? THOSE are the places you discuss your opinions. Next time you don't want people complaining about any bad edits you make, consider stopping making those bad edits. It would help both sides. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the quality of an article not affected by the quality of its contents? I don't wish to start another flame war, but my main goal here is the quality of an article (I sense a huge sarcastic remark in return over that). The contents are what concerns me. BTW, I can navigate the net well by myself, you can find me on TheForce.Net as TheAlternateReality, StarWars.Com as Adamwankenobi, and OriginalTrilogy.Com also as Adamwankenobi. Interesting information to you, isn't it? The Wookieepedian 05:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say no. The article is an independent entity. If playable segments, say, were included, then the quality of the game and the article would be correlated or bound together in a causal relationship. But an article obeys entirely different criteria and rules- a good article would be a lousy game, and vice-versa. The game does not determine how well the prose flows, how correct or comprehensive it is, whether or not context and references are included... etc. --Maru (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm? Last time I checked, it was no crime to direct off-topic comments to other forums where they belong (and no, those weren't directed towards you in the first place). And no one cares what you think is quality, apparently. What you think is quality has been found by a majority that it isn't in the best interest of the article. Anyhow, I can't help but laugh when I hear that you don't want to start a flame war. What, you only wanna hide around, making comments behind my back for the sole reason that nobody agrees that you should get whatever you want. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Darn parenthesis!

Thanks for fixing my boneheaded error! Jarfingle 10:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem! The Wookieepedian 09:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Adam/Wookiee

I see you've taken a new name with clear influence from our fair wiki. Well I hope you don't get blocked a fourth time, as Wikipedia needs much cleanup in the SW Dept. --Riffsyphon1024 01:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Like your wookiepedia is the exemplar of that is good and light, eh Riff? *cough*Warlord Zsinj*cough*. Excuse me. --Maru (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey thanks! Yeah, the SW articles do need much work but, they do at wookieepedia more than here, I think. I hope to be a good wikipedian this time around (I have been so far), if I can just stay out of arguments with A Link to the Past! The Wookieepedian 03:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Original research response.

How is the trivia the guy added original research? I saw that he didn't actually show the connection, so I tried to explain what the connection was. That bit of trivia seems to be one of those obvious observations that someone can make that reasonates between the movies. There have been others in the trivua lists very similar to this. It seems that putting trivia, based on observations reallt isn;t much different from those adding "sources and inspirations" to the ANH or TPM articles. The Wookieepedian 19:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Can that comparison be shown to be intentional? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No, but given Lucas' many hidden reasonances in the movies, such a statement may be one such intentional reasonance. The Wookieepedian 20:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, that would be original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wedge

No problem. Thanks for understanding.--chris.lawson 13:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Mental retardation

Could you please help resolve the confusion around this edit of yours over at Talk:Mental retardation? Thank you. Lupo 14:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see what happened. Some anonymous user had been vandalizing the main star wars page, and when I saw the guys history with all vandalism, I reverted several of those. Upon having a second look, I see that those are outdated from months back when the guy did the vandalism on them. Sorry if I caused any problems there! I was actually trying to catch the guy who did those edits in the first place! The Wookieepedian 14:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I see. A manual revert only works as intended if the vandal's edits are at the very top of the page history, otherwise the revert will also roll back any good edits that have happened since then. If you want to excise old vandalism, there's only one way: load the vandal's diff in a second page and check if any of his edits have survived into the current article version. If so, edit the current version and remove the offending bits manually. Lupo 15:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars vandal

FYI, I've reported 131.109.1.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Cheers. -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 18:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I had reported him too on WP:VIP. In theory ever ready admins should jump in and block the bloke. When you see such vandalism, please announce it there, sometimes it helps. Pavel Vozenilek 20:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine

Then why did you accept to leave the Anakin pictures alone, but continue to change Palpatine's? Be consistent in your editing. Copperchair 02:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Because I mentioned that he was played by Hayden Christensen there. The Wookieepedian 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Then mention it there, too. Copperchair 02:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The dabate is about the Episode III appearence change. That has nothing to do with the DVD change. Copperchair 02:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

The {spoiler} template belongs in the Plot summary section of movie articles. The Table of Contents (TOC) does not contain spoilers, and the tag should not be placed above it.--chris.lawson 16:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. The Wookieepedian 16:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Seanwookie's comment pertaining to an offsite issue

And is soon to be banned from Originaltrilogy.com Seanwookie

Why? The Wookieepedian 00:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've protected Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

I've protected the ESB article until some sort of consensus on how to credit Denis Lawson is established. This is an exceedingly silly edit war, and I'm sure some sort of decision agreeable to all can be made. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding this dispute, please bear in mind the WP:3RR rule. I've already admonished Copperchair about this, and I count four reverts from you on Star Wars and five reverts on Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and that's just a quick look. Even if you feel Copperchair is acting in bad faith, you need to discuss it on the talk page(s) involved, not just revert back and forth. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Back

Hello Adam, I see your back. I do hope you've been behaving, and you don't make me wish I never spoke up... keep up the good work, don't be a dick, listen to others, and you'll be happy, and we'll be happy with you. Regards, Redwolf24 (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, Copperchair is going through all the star wars articles and reverting them over and over. A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) has had to put a protection on the ESB page because of him changing the pages. The Wookieepedian 07:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

WTF?!

May I ask what the hell you were thinking when you wrote and uploaded Lumpy's stuffed bantha? This is as non-notable as hell, and the original research doesn't help. I'm not going to just delete; I will put it up for deletion instead as a favor to you. --Maru (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I really don't know what the hell I was thinking when I put that pagfe up. I put the thing up on the star wars wiki and they were adding to it of all things. So I, and I don't know why, wondered if it might be allowed here. And, for some strange reason no one found it. I'm sorry for even adding it. Totally belongs only at the star wars wiki. I'm going to add my vote to delete it as well. It is pretty stupid for the purposes of this website. I'll keep those types at the star wars wiki from now on. It was late at night, and well, I wasn't thinking. The Wookieepedian 00:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Regarding your note on my talk page: thank you. For the attitude, that is. I didn't say I wasn't aware of where the quote came from; I said that I am sure that, if typed, it would not be as ungrammatical as the one posted on the Boba Fett article. The quote, as posted by you, said "I take it you have no love the empire." I'm sure that in reality, it should say "I take it you have no love for the Empire," as I corrected it. There's no need for an attitude when someone corrects grammar or makes a statement regarding how a page could be improved. – Mipadi 02:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Headers in Boba Fett

Also, what was the reasoning for removing the EU subsections in Boba Fett? Those should be subsections; using a bulleted list to set off subsections is improper Wiki formatting, especially when the rest of the section is not in a bulleted list. Either the whole thing should be bulleted, or none; in this case, none. – Mipadi 02:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't include the typical headers, becuase, in viewing the article with them, it really was quite difficult to tell what was what. It cluttered up the article, and the ones I have just seem to work better, visually. They make it easier to determine taht the subcategories of the expanded universe aren't categories of their own. Using ==== really messed the look of the article up. The Wookieepedian 02:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's fairly inconsistent in terms of Wikipedia formatting. I feel that, since the section is clearly broken up into subsections, the subsections should be clearly marked. – Mipadi 02:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As do I, but, as I said before, using typical wikipedia formatting in this case doesn't exactly work well with that article. The Wookieepedian 05:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't it work? The section is long and clearly made up of multiple parts; section headers help increase readability and navigability. This is exactly how headers are used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Why exactly is the Boba Fett article different? – Mipadi 23:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

When a fourth subheader is used, it makes it difficult to distinguish between the third subheader and the fourth subheaders. The Wookieepedian 12:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case, feel free to edit your stylesheet to make the distinction more clear. I'm going to add the headers back in, because it makes more sense to have the headers. It's a matter of content, not display; if you don't like the display, you can change your stylesheet to reflect your tastes. – Mipadi 16:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see. The Wookieepedian 17:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

As you probably know, you have broken 3RR on at least one of the Star Wars pages. I realize Copperchair has provoked you, and consensus is against him. However the rules won't bend. You get a 24 hour block. As the provoker and for ignoring consensus, Copperchair gets a 48 hour block. Cheers. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh well :(, I guess you guys can keep the Copperchair - infested pages clean for the next 24 hours. The Wookieepedian 04:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

He's blocked for 3RR, too. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course! I need to read edits better! The Wookieepedian 05:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Rdsmith4, when exactly will the block expire today? The Wookieepedian 23:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably about 24 hours from the time Redwolf24 notified you. You can also check your block log. The current block list says "(expires 23:56, 4 October 2005)" (for some reason, this isn't given in the individual block log page).--chris.lawson 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but I didn't know when exactly he did it (the actual block). The Wookieepedian 23:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

When an admin blocks a user, the notice left on talk is usually within about five minutes either way, so unless you're counting the seconds until you can edit again, it's not gonna make much difference ;)--chris.lawson 02:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha. The Wookieepedian 12:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Template

I'd rather go with the small one, with the six movies and three categories. It covers all subjects, and is short to boot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually don't mind either way. As long as we don't go back to crowding it with all this other stuff. ;p Coffee 17:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, while I'm here, I gotta say you seem to have matured quite a bit since you were reincarnated as The Wookieepedian. Keep it up! :) Coffee 17:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Copperchair

Thanks for your support. I really appreciate it. Copperchair 04:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your Photo

I have something against poor naming of images, so I was wondering...

Would you be so kind as to upload Image:IM000389.JPG under a better name, such as AdamKingreyPhoto.jpg, for instance. Incidentally, you will need to release that photo under the GFDL if you wish to use it; ALL content on Wikipedia must be under a free license in this manner.

Should you decide to be co-operative and nice, could you then list Image:IM000389.JPG on images for deletion as a duplicate of the new photo? This ensures we don't waste space. Rob Church ^Talk 19:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Adam, you might also consider uploading a lower-def, i.e. smaller, copy of this. Looks like it's over 700k. I imagine a much smaller image would serve just as well. Cheers. -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 00:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have listed my image (Image:IM000389.JPG) here for deletion as you requested, and uploaded a new one under a clearer name (Image:AdamKingreyPhoto.jpeg). I tagged the old one with an ifd template as well. The new one is under the GFDL (user created) license. The Wookieepedian 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Awesome! File name aside, that's a huge difference in image size, and I can't even tell the difference. Thanks! -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 05:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A favor...

Could you please do me a favor and use edit summaries when you edit the ESB article? I've been trying to keep an eye on it because of all of the recent kerfluffle, and it's sometimes hard to understand why you've removed, say, a link to the Star Wars Wikicity. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I had made several edits at once without the preview button. The wikicities thing was removed because the star wars wiki contains the exact same information as the ESB article does here. The Wookieepedian 13:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR violations on Star Wars

I have blocked both you and User:Philwelch for 24 hours each because of your blatant edit warring and 3RR violations on Star Wars. In the future please take out all issues may have on the talk page. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In this case, it was a little of both. On his talk we were discussing it, then reverting back and forth without coming to a concensus on the Star Wars pages. The Wookieepedian 21:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Since it's a community issue, it might be more appropriate to discuss it on the talk page of one of the articles. – Mipadi 22:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I think of it. The discussion just naturally started on his page, as these things always seem to be personal disputes, though I know they are not on a site like this. I read Phil's comments on this on his talk page, BTW, and I agree with him 100%. The Wookieepedian 22:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A call for mediation

I've made a call for mediation in the many style disputes over the various Star Wars articles at Talk:Star Wars#Mediation. Your comment and participation would be appreciated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would love to, but Jtkiefer blocked Philwelch and myself when we were in the middle of a discussion on that very topic. Despite the fact that we were discussing it while reverting, we still were given a 24 hour block. If you want to know who supports what in terms of style. I support having two templates: one devoted only to the star wars episodes, the second would be devoted to the expanded universe and give a concise overview of the content of it. Both would be on the main star wars page, and each of the two would go on their respective pages. Phil wants what is currently on the main star wars page at this time.

I don't know what's up with the cast lists, I don't think Copperchair, who has been the one reverting, has been back in the last few days. The only reverting to those pages has been changing the template back and forth or reverting vandalism. The Wookieepedian 12:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know...

Please don't make false edit summaries. Specifically, I'm referring to this; I know the choice of template is currently in dispute, and this is certainly not a spelling error. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. But, technically, I did correct the spelling, but... Yeah, I know. I'll leave it alone until anyone is willing to discuss it. The Wookieepedian 22:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello The Wookieepedian. A Man In Black has filed a mediation over Star Wars related articles and styles. I urge you to accept the case and follow the suggested injunction, to keep the temperature down. I see this is a pretty big case, so I've assigned Ed Poor, one of our best mediators, to look at it. The case is listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Dispute_over_style_in_Star_Wars_articles . I am waiting for Ed to accept, which he says he's gonna look over and accept tomorrow. Cheers! Redwolf24 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your star wars reverts

Phil wrote: "Sebastian Shaw as Anakin Skywalker in Return of the Jedi." because we know who portrayed him back in 1983, whereas nobody knows the name of the actress that played Palpatine back in 1980. As for my career, my studies make me discuss better, not bend over. Copperchair 00:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

response

I back my arguments with facts, not opinions. Copperchair 01:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that the articles refer to the original releases. The changes can reffered to be there, but in a different section. Copperchair 02:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Because it was made first. The changes are not as important as the original releases, as they are only minor. Copperchair 03:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violation of WP:3RR yet again. Please stop getting edit wars or more drastic measures may be necessary. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It is nonintentional, of course. It seems, though, that most of my edits turn up controversial, due to them being on major articles, or on templates. I try not to get involved with these wars, but some people, won't budge. I include myself in that. My disputes are typically over formatting, which has, if you have seen, become a major issue on the main star wars articles. BTW, what article, exactly did you block me based on? The Wookieepedian 23:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I blocked you based on this so the article would be Star Wars Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. But... the fourth edit was meant to show the guy that I accept some of his content, but feel the other stuff doesn't belong. I had seen his comments on the talk page, and attempted to discuss it with him. I wasn't pulling a Copperchair and blindly reverting. I had a reason for that. But, whatever. The Wookieepedian 23:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sequel trilogy

"The trilogy, made up of Episodes VII, VIII, and IX, would have picked up 59 years after the prequel trilogy and 36 years after the original trilogy." Source? You don't seem to like to use talk there. Marskell 15:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the date the sequel trilogy was to take place can be found on The Star Wars Timeline Gold. I simply found the difference in time between the ST and the PT, then the ST and the OT. That doesn't really need a source, I don't think, since I've already listed the timeline. The Wookieepedian 16:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

All we are doing with the Timeline Gold is privileging someone else's original research in an effort to create original research here. If Lucas said something or officially authorized something, fine. But let me repeat what I posted on the AfD: you don't know what the movies would have looked like if Lucas had made them—it's as simple as that. The plot summary itself doesn't belong. Marskell 17:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that they were even considered is notable. That is the purpose of the article. To say "look, at one point, he had this in mind." Im going to have to check the timline again and see if it gives sources for this. I'm also going to have to email the author and ask him how he found the dates the sequel trilogy was to take place. The Wookieepedian 17:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to revert the conversation to the issue of notability when other criticisms are raised. The main problem is original research. You should read it if you haven't: Wikipedia:No original research. Marskell 12:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Original research may be perfectly true and comprehensive but remain original research. You think it reliable, great—still looks like OR to me and your synthesizing various sources to create a plot summary is surely so. Marskell 15:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The trilogy...would have picked up 59 years after the prequel trilogy and 36 years after the original trilogy."

• "The sequel trilogy was to feature Luke as a Jedi Master in his sixties passing on the excalibur to the next young hope."

Did Lucas say either of these two things? If so, where can they be verified? If not, they should be removed or better qualified.

And why do we a list of movie names devoid of content except to say they were cancelled? Did he claim he planned to make nine? Marskell 16:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The trilogy...would have picked up 59 years after the prequel trilogy and 36 years after the original trilogy." Was then not actually stated by Lucas? Is it possible to view the 83 article? Marskell 09:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Template

Let me explain. A template should be as small as possible without losing content. And the next issue is that you're replacing the current template with one that deprives a user of relevant information. The Extended Universe is directly related to these movies. Can you give me a reason why less information with more size does not equal less quality? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What? The only reason they splitted up those templates is because it would be too big. A template does NOT have to be devoted to the movies. The EU and the movies are directly related. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, Adam, you just admitted that the content is relevant. Are you telling me that less content with more size is a better template? The one I want gives the directly relevant information, the lesser but still relevant information, and actually looks cleaner and smaller. A compact Template is more important than trying to restrict content for no reason other than you want the template in your own way. You seem to have forgotten the lesson that what you want is not necessarily what is good for Wikipedia, and a compact, informative Template holds precedence to a bulky template with information cut from it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you guys argue about this on Talk:Star Wars, so other people can more easily observe and contribute? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Adam, there is a clear consensus towards the template I'm reverting to. Please respect that. If you want it changed, make a suggestion, but don't cause a frickin edit war when there's opposition to it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I can see what you want. But I can't see why you should have full control over the decision! You are a minority in this issue. You cannot say that what you want is how it should be. You have as much of a right to change the templates how you want them as I do to change the SW articles to contain only swear words. There are several people who disagree with that, and you disregarding that is just insulting to the community. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

We know exactly what you mean. We just don't want to do that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You and User:A Link to the Past are both skirting 3RR violations on Empire Strikes Back over this dispute. I've protected it (with the version in front of me; no endorsement implied). Argue about this at Talk:Star Wars#The debate over the correct templates instead of reverting please. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please, please, use edit summaries, particularly on articles where there are ongoing disputes. I figure you are acting in good faith almost all of the time, but I need to keep an eye on what's going on on the Star Wars articles, particularly with the different style disputes and the whole nonsense with Copperchair.

Even if it's a little one-word edit, a minor tag and a summary of "grammar" makes my life easier, since I trust you to use truthful edit summaries. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration against Copperchair

I've opened a request for arbitration against Copperchair, and I'd appreciate it if you could comment, as you're one of the users I've named as part of Party 2. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I need to talk to you about this

Yea, Star Wars starts with "A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." but, who is it to whom the narrator is speaking? Are we sure it was us or is it some aliens many generations after the Star Wars take place? What does Lucas say on the matter? Cheers, Citizen Premier 05:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Either this is sarcasm, or you are serious, and looking at it from a philosophical point of view. Let me know which one, and I will respond. The Wookieepedian 05:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't really consider it 'philosophy,' just a question about the movie. After all, I don't think Lucas wants Star Wars to be based on some Battlestar Galactica-like premise of humans decending from outer space. Or does he? Citizen Premier 07:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was just an acknowledgement that this was fantasy with lasers, rather than hard science fiction. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Garbage Compactor 3263827

They are debating deleting the article on Garbage Compactor 3263827, Thought you might want to know so you can get your Star Wars buddies to weigh in on this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbage Compactor 3263827.—Gaff ^talk 01:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Cool. I just had noticed that you have been doing a lot of work on the Boba Fett article and figured you were the expert on celestial trashcompacters. happy editing.—Gaff ^talk 02:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR (Again)

Hello Copperchair and Wookieepedian, both of you have broken 3RR with eachother again on several Star Wars articles. Please don't argue over who's right or who's wrong, as the point of 3RR is to stop edit warring. Thus, have a hearty 36 hour block for both of you. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not been a matter of who's right and who's wrong. I reverted the pages per the consensus by the article editors (Philwelch, Link to the Past, Clawson, Justin Bacon). I attempted to communicate with Copperchair on his page multiple times, and he ignores my comments, and continues to make reverts without discussion. In fact, every time he starts making his edits, I try to talk with him, and he either refuses, or tells me he will continue, gives his resons, and stops responding to my comments on his page. Anyway, I guess those four will have to keep the guy's destructive edits off the pages for 36 hours! And I know they will. And... by the way, can you point me to the exact page(s) that I was 3RR'd for? The Wookieepedian 03:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The world will keep turning if Copperchair's version sits on the page for a while, and if you have given it an hour, you could have avoided this block, as other users who agree with you are online. Even if you think you're right, please, please, don't revert war with anyone unless it's blatant vandalism (which this is not). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

STOP EDIT WARRING. How about you stop your insistance on keeping the articles tuned to the 2004 versions? If you really want facts in articles, LEAVE IN THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A VERSION PAST THE 97' VERSIONS. Your edits aren't doing any other good to you. They only get reverted, and get you banned. STOP Copperchair 06:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You keep the references to the originals and special editions in the articles because the 2004 version includes the originals and special editions, with FURTHER changes. And why would you want to remove the fact that Jeremy Bulloch played Fett, if he still does in the 2004 version? And you know what? You'll blindly revert all of my edits, regardless of the grammar and spelling corrections, and other contributions by me. Copperchair 05:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You're both wrong. Stop this useless shouting match immediately. If you don't stop, I'll block you, and this goes for you both. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Blade Runner template

I think you got the relevant ones... let's see here, um... I also created Hampton Fancher, Michael Deeley, David Peoples. Your call if they should be included in the template; I would lean towards Fancher being included since the entire reason there was a Blade Runner script to begin with is because of him. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Really?

I don't see the need for coming up with anything original since it is pointless to argue with a 2004 version lover who doesn’t realize it is not what people saw in theatres, and that ignores the fact that they were controversial. Did you notice that none of the actors included in the changes was credited? Look at the IMDb pages, for example. I don't see the need for listing them in the "Portrayers" sections, even though it is obviously worth mentioning in other section of the articles. Copperchair 05:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How about the movies' end credits, as well as the official site's? Does that work better for you? Copperchair 07:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, they don't. Copperchair 08:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In the credits lists they don't. Copperchair 08:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I go by the credits on the movies. Copperchair 08:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

ROTS DVD Trailer

No, I didn't. I didn't even know it was posted until after TheRealFennShysa accused me of posting it. Copperchair 03:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair, did I accuse you? No, I think you'll find that I accused "whoever" posted it... perhaps you should take a chill pill and relax for a moment, my friend... Now, regardless WHO posted the link, or your motivations, the fact is (and this is undebateable) that the trailer was released for now to those with Hyperspace accounts, which is a paid service... if you don't have a Hyperspace account, you don't get access. It doesn't matter if you want to pay Lucas or not, or whether you feel that you're entitled to something or not (which you aren't), you're re-posting stolen intellectual property. Now, odds are, no one's probably going to do anything about it, but (and this is directed at Wookieepedian) by posting that link here, as I said before, you've opened both yourself and Wikipedia up to the possibility of legal action from Lucasfilm - I wouldn't do that again. TheRealFennShysa 15:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I studied Law. So?

What does my profession have to do with this edit war? I am going by the credits, as I told you before, so I am not having it "my way", I am having it the filmmaker's way. If you just bothered to look, you'd find that in each article where it belongs, there is a mention to the respective 2004 portrayer. I just want the "Portrayers" section to go by the credits. It's not like I am erasing every reference to the DVD changes. Copperchair 07:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Darth Vader

See talk page AGAIN. Copperchair 07:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Reversions and grammar

Adam, please take the moral high ground here, and allow Copperchair's grammar fixes to stay. It's a pain, I know, but he doesn't revert those portions if the (proper) corrections are allowed to stand.--chris.lawson 03:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Adam. Seriously. Stop blindly reverting useful grammar and spelling fixes. To do so, regardless of what else you fix, falls within the definition of vandalism.--chris.lawson 23:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comments

Hmm... your training should have allowed you to think clearly on issues such as those involved in this edit war.

I do.

And I suppose George Lucas prefers the 97' editions?

Of course not, but he didn't change the credits for the DVDs.

And there is to the original as well. You only prefer one to be proudly featured, and the other to be noted. That method is not being completely honest to the reader, now is it? Noting only the original actor in the infoboxes implies that the original actor holds a higher place than the new actor. Is it not true that both Sebastian Shaw and Hayden Christensen played Anakin Skywalker in ROTJ? They both did, and deserve the credit for it.

Because the articles ARE about the original versions. If not, why do they mention 1977, 1980 and 1983 as the years of release and not 2004? And no, Hayden Christensen didn't "play" Anakin Skywalker in "Return of the Jedi", as even he didn't know he was going to appear there. Lucas just copy-pasted some footage of his head into Shaw’s body. Does that deserve credit? No.

Copperchair 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Forgot? Please...

And the articles ARE based on the original versions, that is why the changes are mentioned as "changes".

Copperchair 01:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe he forgot. And I like formality, so I will continue to go by the end credits. Copperchair 02:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

One's like should not be imposed on the readers and the articles. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

List of movies

Since you don't seem to like using the article talk pages, I post the following here. It has been sitting on the Star Wars sequel trilogy page for two weeks:

"Does it not seem odd and sort of a waste space to list nine movies without names with "cancelled by George Lucas" beside them? In fact, it's sort of misleading: cancelled implies they reached some state of pre-production which none of them did. People know how to count; insert a sentence to the effect that he mentioned actually making three sequel trilogies (and source it) and leave it in the text. Yes?" Marskell 09:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

But how does a sentence or two not convey that nine (apparently) were planned? The list is repetitive and devoid of real information and as I say "cancelled" is misleading. Marskell 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism.

Please do not accuse people of vandalism, whether or not they are being difficult. Vandalism is described as attempting to do damage to an article, and regardless of consensus, his edits are what he thinks is good for the article. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Repeated reasoning is not an excuse for violating policy. It's an excuse for developing a deeper patience.--chris.lawson 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realise you didn't blank his talk page. He did. Again. Like he has a bazillion times in the past. Just like the situation with the various Star Wars pages. The key point here is to exercise a degree of self-control and patience. Take the moral high ground. Let him have enough rope to hang himself. Every single time he reverts without discussing matters is another strike against him when the ArbCom begins the collection of evidence in his RfAr. Or, in the words of another old cliché, "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."--chris.lawson 04:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair/Evidence. Fred Bauder 19:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Alphax ^τεχ 10:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

War on terror

I'm glad we agree on that matter. Copperchair 14:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring

STOP EDIT WARRING.

I don't care if Copperchair was doing it first, I don't care if he called you a poopie-head, I don't care if he insulted your mother. Edit warring is not allowed. If you're going to restore a blanked section, fine, and make sure you mention this in your edit summary, but don't bother edit warring over the cast sections and over the trivial details about the 2004 DVD versions.

As such, I've blocked you for 24 hours for a cooling-off period. Please consider that the rules against edit warring apply to you as well as Copperchair. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure that's really going to help. He doesn't get the point. In 24hrs, he'll be right back at it. What exactly have I done to deserve ANOTHER block?!? I have simplty been reverting changes that I and others consider harmful. I honestly think you need to lay off trying to be a parent to Copperchair and myself. I am not harming anything! HE WAS REMOVING SECTIONS/DATA! I WAS RESTORING THEM. So, you think that a 24 hour block will cool us down? YOU REALLY THINK IT WILL COOL THIS EDIT WAR DOWN?!? It's been going on for months, until the arbcom deals with him, IT WON'T COOL DOWN! In fact, User:Clawson told me to KEEP reverting and stay away from personal attacks, until the arbcom deals with him (as evidenced in his comments above). And, that's what I've been doing. I have tried multiple times to reason with Copperchair on his talk page, and he won't have any of it. I tried to initiate conversation on the article pages, when User:TheCoffee protected them, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION. I asked Copperchair to come over and discuss, and he refused. HE is the one, as seen in his deceptive dits and outright lies, who is being destructive and uncivil, NOT ME! PLEASE TELL ME WHAT EXACTLY YOU EXPECT ME TO DO THEN, HMM?!? I don't appreciate you categorically blocking me just for reverting his edits, LIKE SOMEONE ELSE SUFFESTED I CONTINUE!. Just tell me, honestly, WHAT GOOD WILL IT DO FOR YOU TO INSTATE ANOTHER BLOCK?!? The Wookieepedian 01:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Let other people deal with it and cool off. (Clawson gave you bad advice.) You've made a number of uncivil edit summaries and reverted countless times without edit summaries. If you don't, it becomes very easy to recharacterize this nonsense with Copperchair as a personal dispute between the two of you, and I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't the case.

In any event, if you're reverting on a dozen articles for any reason other than blatant vandalism (and this isn't it), there's a problem and that problem is at least partially with you.

It does indeed take two users to edit war. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In a way, this is a personal dispute. It is seriously irritating me that he refuses to allow any significant mentioning of any changes Lucas made to the movies. He attempts to keep the articles in a format suited to the 97' versions. Now, he accuses me of formatting them to the 2004' versions, however, that's not the case. I leace in EVERYTHING pertaining to all versions, I don't try to make it as if one version is better than the other, just present what's there. My edit summaries have become so uncivil lately becuase I'm getting sick of the fact that I can't go in and make any seriously useful edits without them being reverted every five minutes by Copperchair. And he refuses to stop! He's been at it, reverting the exact same things for months. For instance I went in yesterday and created a section in the ESB article on the filming of the new scenes for the 2004 DVD's. What did Copperchair do? He reverted them without an explanation. When I asked him on his talk page why, he did not reply. So, I have to resort toreverting to keep the articles balanced. I'm clearly not trying to vandalize them, just the opposite. The guy makes good edits, typically fixing grammar mistakes and such, outside of his destructive edits. However, he often will do this in conjunction with the destructive edits. Then, in his edit summaries, he merely says that he made only grammar changes. And how am I supposed to deal with this? Clawason told me to simply revert until the arbcom makes its decision on Copperchair. If that's not good advice, then what is? Like I said before, reasoning is not an option with Copperchair. The Wookieepedian 02:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What should you do? You are personally (and emotionally) involved, and making a number of errrors as a result, including revert warring and reverting to a preferred version (and restoring errors fixed by Copperchair at the same time as his edit warring).

Once your block is over, just let other people deal with this. Please. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Copperchair "yelled" at me for reverting his good edits, and here's what I told him: "I'll stop reverting your good edits when that's all you make, and they aren't mixed with your harmful ones." I have tried to restore changes by the other editors as best at could, most of the time, since they are neutral, but with Copprchair, I was trying to teach a lesson. The problem is, these neutral editors will come in and unintentionally work on his version, which makes it duifficult at times to revert all of his harmful changes. The Wookieepedian 03:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're trying to teach a user a lesson, there's a problem. Let cooler heads deal with this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was. I told him that I would never revert any of his good edits, unless he combined the harmful ones with them. I told him that I would think that he, being a lawyer, so he claims, should be able to see things more clearly than he does, and be more fair about things. It really would amuse me to see him defending someone! The Wookieepedian 03:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You know what I find amusing? The fact that you are chris.lawson's servant, and you repeatedly get blocked just for following his orders. Copperchair 07:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What the hell?!? After checking the block log, it says you blocked me for 48 hours! LIAR! ;) Get the facts straight please, as I was looking forward to getting back on here today! The Wookieepedian 19:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Weird. Let me look at the log and see if I accidentally blocked you too long, or if it's something else. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you're unblocked. Sorry about that; I meant for it to be a 24 hour block. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ep 1.

Stop adding the copyvio of the hiphop Yoda, or whatever it is. Linking to a copyvio (a temporary one at that!) is almost as bad as it being on Wikipieda itself, and it is not very important. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

SW films lead sections

Just wanted to drop a quick thank you for your changes conforming to my ESB (see, I'm using the abbrev now ;-) ) example. I was planning to do these edits later, just testing their acceptance on one article at first. Thanks again, Kusma (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What happened to "Adamwankenobi"?

Hey, why was it blocked? Someone must've been in a Stalinist mood when they blocked your account. --Shultz 22:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone -visited- Supershadow?

On a WHOIS (or GoDaddy) search, it shows his address (as far as I remember), so haven't any Star Wars fans visited his house to confront him and "persuade" him to turn from the error of his ways? After all, a lot of SW fans live in NC and a lot more have the resources to travel considerable distances to meet Supershadow and shut him down. You'd think when he's hated on the lowest level by SW fans, many of them would be willing to even move Heaven & Earth to stop the guy.

If anyone wonders, here's his address:

2339 24th Ave NE Hickory, North Carolina 28601

(On [Earth], query his address then ZIP Code, and even use the "Directions" feature to find the most ideal way from your place to his.)

And phone #:

(828) 256-7395

Go ahead! Feel free to give him a call! I recommend using a payphone or someone else's phone so you don't get in trouble.

--Shultz 22:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for corresponding on my User Talk page, Adam. Would you care to record your conversation (somehow) with him, and either post all of what was said, or post an audio file of it, or both? If you can't record, can you type it down from memory?

I look forward to reading what was said between you guys. Cheers! --Shultz 23:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. Did you call him yet? Talk to you soon! --Shultz 07:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

How did people get Super Idiots address and number? Ric36 23:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

As with the movie articles, the spoiler warning template should not be placed above the ToC, because the ToC does not contain spoilers. I agree with you that it applies to the whole article, but due to the way Wikipedia auto-formats the ToC, it's tricky to move it below the ToC without also putting it in the first section. I'm going to play around with it a bit and see if I can figure out any way to get around this, but if I can't, I would expect you to leave it in the first section, where it is most appropriate. (For what it's worth, the "Plot summary" section in the various movie articles isn't the only section that contains spoilers there, either. That doesn't mean the tag should be moved back above the ToC, though.)--chris.lawson 07:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No, what is says is "Plot and/or ending details follow". That's pretty much the same thing. Besides, it looks bloody ridiculous above the ToC.--chris.lawson 07:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

My name

lol, Sadly no, I am not lumpy from Happy Tree Friends. Martin 09:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice...

The barnestar of humor

...Username. I was on a Star Wars history page recently when I saw your username on one the edits. Enamored about it, I came to your page and was pleasently surprised at how you set it up. Also the WTF?! comment was hilarious. I present this award for making me laugh my head off. Also note i've added you to my watchlist- please feel free to leave a comment on my talkpage as well.-MegamanZero 20:22 20, November 2005

• No, I haven't seen it yet, but i will take a look at it. In the meantime, I did however take a gander at the "edit warring" comment above- that was stupedous. I'm still laughing....-MegamanZero 21:41 20, November 2005 (UTC)

Caught in a banthoo fodder of dumb

Hey there, the wookieepedian, I was wondering if you saw this: [[1]]; I thought it was humorous despite the fact it was malicious vandilism.-MegamanZero 16:34 25, November 2005 (UTC)

GWOT scope

• (though technically not part of the War on Terrorism)

Hi Wookie,

Rather than reverting that back and forwards, maybe we need something more like

• (but see also [2])

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

In the future, this kind of talk might go better on the article's talk page, rather than a user's page others probably don't care to read, as well as the consensus-building taking place on the other page. Good thought though. JG of Borg 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way....

How's Star Wars editing going with that Copperchair fellow...? I read the situations on his userpage, and it seems he was not agreeing to concensus (as well as being blocked a few times)....I hope he stopped reverting the pages.-MegamanZero 3:48 27, November 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, that's good to know. I wonder what happed to him..? And furthurmore, why was he so stubborn in his dealings with RPA, RFC, etc., as well as having been told by 4 administrators to cut it out...?-MegamanZero 3:53 27, November 2005 (UTC)

• Hehe! I noticed he did it on the War on Terror article too.-MegamanZero 4:07 27, November 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine Article

Sorry I didn't mean to revert your edit--User:Jedi6 November 27, 2005

"Questionable Future" Article in "Star Trek, other storylines"

Hi, rather than just simply reverting to an earlier version of the article, can you please, instead, address my questions regarding the inaccurate, incomplete and misleading links in this article? We should be able to resolve this via the Talk page for the article Star Trek, other storylines by actually communicating. Otherwise, I'll have to take this to mediation. --Carlos 05:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This is hilarious.

Man. You must be obsessed wiuth star Wars. Thats cool, I mean, I like it to, but....damn (you can see my home page at www.freewebs.com/nicklikesstarwars). YOu have been, like, all over the Star wars articles. Anyway, its just hilarious. -Nick Warren

• I don't understand. What's wrong with having a strong passion for something you like..? I absolutely love Mega Man, espescially Mega Man Zero, and I think people should be free to like what they want, no matter how much. You keep loving Star Wars, Wookieepedian.-MegamanZero 18:46 30,November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

The HD stuff wasn't new to me, but those were some quality screen shots. And reading the book isn't terribly important for Blade Runner, its the only instance I've come across where the film is as good, if not better than the book. BOC that depends on literary taste; as I didn't get too excited when I read the book. I tried to sign up to the forum, but no dice on the e-mail as yet. Oh well, I spend too much time online as it is. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection of your userpage

I took the liberty of protecting your userpage (for a little while), as I grew bored even of using the rollback button.... Lectonar 11:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As you're around, I've unprotected now... Lectonar 12:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, vandalism, when I asked numerous times to cease that behaviour, is utterly unacceptable. Were I an admin, that comment alone would have earned anon 82.44.178.12 a one week block. What's it going to take to get the message across that his behaviour is unacceptable and wrong? Isn't it blindingly obvious at this point that he's simply not going to desist his destructive acts of vandalism..? Can he not be blocked for such misuse of wikipedia...? He's certainly not contributing anything constructive...-MegamanZero 20:55 1,December 2005 (UTC)

Darth Vader

As you have contributed to the discussion previously, I invite you to comment on my proposal as to the fate of Darth Vader. You are welcome to make a counterproposal as well. — Phil Welch 21:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Movie

1. I don't care how long you've been a contributor to Wikipedia.
2. I designed the Template:Infobox Company and the Template:Infobox Celebrity. The former is one of the most widely used and standardized templates on Wikipedia.
3. As I said before, learn how to fix small problems before blind reversions. Blind reversions are ignorant and reprehensible. If you do not understand how to completely edit the template, I suggest you learn, or remove yourself from attempting contribution to the template.
4. Do not revert the template again. Do not revert the minor syntax fixes I've made to many articles already. If you continue to do so, I will seek administrative response.

Adraeus 07:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I apologize if I came off strong, but often on Wikipedia, that's what you have to do to get things done. Adraeus 08:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the current formatting is standard. Adraeus 08:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not, and I won't argue if the title is repositioned because I don't care about that. That's for someone else to get uptight about. There are good psychological design reasons, however, for positioning the title above that which the title concerns. For instance, the subject title should be positioned above the infobox to name the infobox, so that users understand that the subject name is not part of the infobox content, but the name of the infobox in that article. Technically speaking, the <caption></caption> tags should be used for the subject name, but at Template:Infobox Company, where we argued about this same issue, we decided the infobox looks better with the subject name enlarged above the infobox. Adraeus 08:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if I were you, I'd hold off on making any further changes until the recent enhancements have settled in. Adraeus 08:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Amidala article picture

Is there a particular reason you rv my picture change in the Padme Amidala article? If there is a good reason, it's fine. If there isn't, I'd like to use the new picture. The newer picture is larger and clearer (not to mention that it looks better). It's been properly cited so I'm not sure what the disagreement it. -Tjss 22:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh

I know you and I don't always agree - but I must warn you that User:Copperchair is back and reverting pages - you edited ROTJ after he did (make massive changes), make sure nothing he did slipped by you. Beware also any reverts he may make (like he just did on War on Terror) JG of Borg 06:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Some did - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Episode_VI%3A_Return_of_the_Jedi&diff=30090965&oldid=30089277 - check out line 112 especially... it's clear he just reverted to his last version, which you then edited without realizing it. I'll let you fix it though, I am not a big Star Wars fan and you'd know all the changes made better. JG of Borg 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, with the good comes the bad... and that doesn't only apply to the Force! ;) JG of Borg 07:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW - you catch the ROTJ edits I pointed out? JG of Borg 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Gasp! He's back! And up to his revets again...looks like I'll take a little trip over to his rfa page.-MegamanZero 10:39 4,December 2005 (UTC)

rfa? I assume that's a typo?

Regards, Ben Aveling 10:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The return of the chair made of copper

Yes, I know. I've already had to revert the changes he made here, unfortunately. Thanks for warning me though. The Wookieepedian 08:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Aye. After weeks of waging the Copper wars, peace reigned...for a time. Now, he returns, and his rage upon wikipedia's star war's articles is swift and painful. Where's my Z-Saber..? -MegamanZero 10:58 4,December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. But this one is even worse then the Maverick wars, the Repliforce war, and the clone wars combined. :) -MegamanZero 11:06 4,December 2005 (UTC)

• Still it isn't helpful to be rude to him. Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Page layout in Firefox

Your userpage breaks in Mozilla and variants (Firefox etc.): The language templates get overlayed with the table of contents. After looking at your page in IE, I realize what you want to do; sadly, I don't know how to fix that in a browser-compatible way. The safest bet would still probably be to just replace the language boxes on the left by the usual right-aligned {{Babel-2|en-N|es-1}}. A lot of this image and box placement seems to be very browser-specific, as you can see in the Star Wars peer review discussion. Unfortunately I don't know if this is related to a bug in Firefox, in IE, or in MediaWiki. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Works perfectly. I can actually read the TOC now. Thanks! Kusma (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Wookbot

is User:Wookbot really yours? if so please get permission for it first and remove the content that is copied from my own bot page. Martin 13:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If you hadnt falsly added your bot to the list and taken the material from my own bot page I might have done. Martin 13:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC/poll

Hi there! I hope you're well. Frankly, yes: given the lengthy discussion to this point, I believe it necessary if we want to garner as wide an input as possible to resolve this absolutely. To that end, I have been placing this RfC/poll note on major, relevant pages (probably a dozen or so), but will not be doing so on all of them. I write this with some experience: using a similar model, I've mounted a successful vote on a completely different topic, with self-evident results.

Moreover, this is not spamming: including unnecessary, irrelevant wikilinks or matter is. Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And may the force be with you, too. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A short message in your native language

RRRAAAUUUUGHH! RRrrauhhh ruff grrrrrrrrrr. Graaauuuuugh! :) — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• In Binary: 000000000001111111000011110000000000000001111111111111111111100000000 :) -MegamanZero 22:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Film

Please explain your reversion. I feel you may not fully understand what you've broken. -- Netoholic @ 22:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So far, you haven't made a single edit to the Film template that worked. Please post problems on the talk page and let someone else do it. -- Netoholic @ 15:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

I was surprised to see you are not apparently watching the peer review of Star Wars you created. I note this as some of the spelling errors I pointed out over a week ago are still in the article. :) Please take a look and possibly respond to my point on the PR page, so we can work towards making the page better. Thanks. Turnstep 03:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Death Star

TNEC says that at one point in its construction, the viability of the Death Star's superlaser came into question, so Tarkin constructed Maw Installation and built the Death Star prototype in order to see how feasible the station's superlaser was. Jon Hart 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Image placement vote

Hello, it's MegamanZero, and I've gotten into a conflict with the Orgy over his needless image placement and excessive quotes on the Iori Yagami page. So, I've decided to hold a vote (like you did on the Ryu charaacter page) concerning which version should be used. The vote can be found here. Please vote your opinion on the matter and thanks for your time! -MegamanZero 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Obi Wan Kenobi

Regarding your edits there, it is important that we remember that this is an encyclopedia about the real world. Obi Wan, as a major character in a popular movie series, is certainly worthy of a long article. However we must be careful not to treat him like he is a real person. Adding 'biography' up front makes it look like that. It's much more important to focus on the part he plays in the Star Wars fiction. We should move birth and death dates down the article. DJ Clayworth 19:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Independent Films

The original trilogy was independent but the prequel trilogy is backed by a corporation, Lucasfilms. Also Lucas actually uses people from the guild like Speilburg in the films. Jedi6 16:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bantha vandalism

Heheh. Yeah, I remember that. I was going to add it, but forgot. Thanks for adding it! Another too funny not to list entry, yet I forgot to list it! :O ;) The Wookieepedian 19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Me as well. I have a "odd edits" section, similar to your "too funny not to list" section, and I'm going to add it in as well. BTW, take a look at my odd edits section (found here) and tell me what you think of them. Finally, notice anything different about my user and talk pages..? :) -MegamanZero|Talk 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's cool the way you've got your user and talk page formatted. And I'm going to add that list of strange edits to my "too funny not to list" section. The Wookieepedian 20:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 20:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

List of characters link

Now that you say it, I don't see how I could overlook that link. Thanks for the correction! Kusma (討論) 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Holiday Special

I deleted stuff for a REASON - the "trivia" about Artoo's doors in incorrect, Target's webpage IS Amazon's (they supply all the books, music, and video for Target), and I can tell you as a former artist and sourcebook contributor for West End, they weren't any plans for a Wookiee sourcebook that I know of... if you can cite a reference, do so, but please remember, I'm not making arbitrary edits here... if I remove something, I have well-thought out reasons... TheRealFennShysa 07:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Star Trek

Hello! I hope you're well. I started to write a paragraph or two, but ended up writing a frackin' article! Forgive the delay.

I've tried to structure it logically ... of course! Much of the information is morphed from the online source cited (in some cases, verbatim), so I'd appreciate your thorough review and commentary. Thus, please do not post the full text as an article just yet! After your review, I will then condense it into a paragraph or two and we can include that after the 'Canonicity...' section in the Star Trek article and a full article (better sourced) at the redlinked title/locale.

A segue: if you look at the history, you'll note that it was already vandalised (even though it's a private endeavour for now. I don't know if I should be impressed or just confused. :)

Anyhow, your feedback is appreciated. Thanks again, and may the Force be with you. :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks for your prompt feedback; I appreciate it! The intro is derived from that online (US government) link, but I need to research that monetary figure (I know I've seen it somewhere, but know not yet). Please feel free to gut the article ... but not like a taun-taun, though. :)

Shortly (next day or two), my intention is to condense the entire article into no more than two paragraphs, rolling together some concepts, and will proceed as above. Merci beaucoup! E Pluribus Anthony 03:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been a little tardy, not to mention intoxicated!, but I haven't forgotten about this. I'm still sourcing facts in the article and will put it to bed soon. I may need you to take another gander when it's complete; I'll let you know soon. E Pluribus Anthony 07:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that great picture of me :) - I'm gonna keep it on my talk page. --Alf ^melmac 15:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars

I see that the structure has improved out of sight on that article! Well done :-) Say, are you able to get that article better referenced? Try using {{ref}} and {{note}}. Also, what about the history of the originals? At a glance there doesn't seem to be enough... I could be wrong though. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Polls and holes ...

Ha! Happy new year! How are you? Yes: the poll has ended, but there's no reason to 'close' the poll and not collect additional votes/input. I'm preparing a summary based on total votes up to 23:59, 31 December 2005 (and we can clearly distinguish those). Also, we have to proceed carefully: in Wp, consensus usually entails a supermajority of 60% or more. There's no doubt that the two-article option garnered a majority (TWO=26, ONE=21, NA=1; TWO=54%), but some may challenge a split based on that. The summary will address this: essentially, a consensus does not support the status quo (one article) and a 'clear' majority supports two articles, etc. Make sense?

As for the split, Silence created two articles weeks ago (check the history); we should use those to start, and retrofit them with anything updated in the current article. I haven't made any editions yet, but he's fine with me doing so and likely anyone else. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 07:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Merci! Regarding Star Trek, read the diff above!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 08:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter Un-civility Unit

Wikipedia:Counter Un-civility Unit is a new wiki-project I have thought up. I was wondering if you thought it was a good idea and if you wanted to join up. I need some users backing me before I construct a wikiproject, and you seem to share my views on subjects such as concensus, civilty, etc. Reply on my talkpage if you're interested. Thanks, -MegamanZero|Talk 16:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA?

I must say that you are extremely dedicated to your work here on Wikipedia. Virtually every Star Wars article I have on my watchlist has been edited and made better by your work. You seem to do a fair amount in seeing that those pages aren't vandalized, either. I'd like to nominate you for adminship, and I think you'd make good use of the tools. What say you? By the way, I'm playing Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and just started up a Star Wars: Battlefront II clan with my friend. If you're interested in any of these things, drop me a line. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Indicate your acceptance here and I'll list it to RfA. May the Force be with you ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to answer the RfA questions before it progresses too far. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your support and kind words on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 11:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

About SW

Sorry about our back and forth edits on SW pages. I have great respect for SW fans, especially avid ones such as your self. May the force be with you. Starogg 15:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Opening Crawl

Is it that necessary? I wouldn't waste too much space on a picture of the opening crawl. Bibliomaniac15 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indiana Jones 4

You're reverting edits based on more updated information on the plot of this film. The FAQ you cite is outdated, as it is based on Frank Darabond's screenplay. That screenplay has been rejected, so any information pertaining to it should be removed from the article (other than for historical purposes, and this distinction should be made). Nothing is known on the new screenplay, other than who wrote it (Jeff Nathanson) and the quote from one of the film's producers stating that the setting in this screenplay is the 1940s. Absolutely NOTHING else about this screenplay is known. It is entirely new. Nothing about Nazis, commies, plot, or anything else is known. For this reason, any such information based on previous screenplays for this film should be discarded. --Ilyag 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Award

Deckiller to The Wookieepedian: Excellent work on the Star Wars articles! Have a Barnstar!

Hey man, I'm very impressed with your extensive amount of positive contributions to the Star Wars pages. More people need to be awarded on this site, and I believe you're one of them. Excellent work! Deckiller 22:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, you earned it ^_^ Deckiller 22:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wookieepedia

Hey there. I've noticed that a good number of Star Wars articles on Wikipedia have had content copied over from Wookieepedia by you. This is allowed under the GFDL, but requires attribution to the authors who worked so hard over at Wookieepedia. Please use {{wookieepedia}} on the talk page of articles going forward and any you find going back. Thanks. --SparqMan 16:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Z-Saber and Lightsaber

I wrote an article on the Z-saber (found here), and I've anaylzed it in comparison to the Star Wars's lightsaber. I believe that the two are very similar in design and capabilities, but an anon has botched my thesis and says "the two are nothing alike"... As a Star wars expert, what do you think...? -The Megamanpedian 19:56 15, January, 2006 (UTC)

It is helpful indeed. Now that the God of Star Wars knowledge has established this fact, we can garner concensus. Thanks for your input. -The Megamanpedian^Talk 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of changing to "God of Copperchair reverting", as I've been reverting the blatent blanking of his page for quite awhile now. :) -Zero^Talk 23:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Consider it a blessing; the reverting of his talkpage took 24/7. See his History.... simply incredible. I considered getting him blocked from his own talk page... -Zero^Talk 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. :) Matter of fact, User:Jgofborg and I actually made a competetion out of it...Which reminds me- what happened to him...? His user account is gone. How....odd.. -Zero^Talk 23:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Bespin and Battle of Bespin (Clone Wars)

I found that Battle of Bespin (Clone Wars) has a merge tag, requesting merge to Battle of Bespin. However, that article seems to be talking about a different Battle of Bespin, so I guess that article should be moved to Battle of Bespin (Someconflict) (you probably know a good name for this) and then Battle of Bespin turned into a disambiguation page for these different battles.

Of course I could just list this at WP:RM but I thought asking one of the main Wikipedia Star Wars experts will be faster and give better results. If you don't want to do anything about this, please drop me a note and I'll raise the issue at WP:RM. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 11:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I wasn't sure anymore what the official name for the Ep. V conflict was. Now everything is as it should be. Kusma (討論) 13:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Star_Wars:_Clone_Wars#Main_events cleanup tag

Hiya. First of all, thanks for your tireless work on all the Star Wars articles. I'd like to ask what your reason is for removing the {{cleanup}} tag I added to Star_Wars:_Clone_Wars#Main_events. My reasoning was that the section is just a long list and might be better presented in prose style, as I mentioned in the talk page. Thanks again. Cheers. !mAtt™ 22:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)