User talk:Riffsyphon1024

 See Archive1

Millennium Falcon?
hey, should i not add the falcon as han's primary vehicle? seems like it should be there, thanks. TK-421 23:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's some dispute right now as to whether "Vehicle" should remain in the character info box template. See Template talk:Character for more info. – Aidje talk 03:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Tense
I hope you don't mind if I say this, but I'm going to be completely frank and say that the tense thing, where everything has to be in the past tense, is completely unnecessary and, well, stupid. It feels like I'm reading about a historical event when I'm looking through all of these articles, not a Star Wars encyclopedia. It should be like a normal encyclopedia, where only actual historical events should be past tense. Planets don't happen, they are there. I think, as an encyclopedia, this should be written like it's from the standpoint of somebody who is in the Star Wars universe recording information on the Star Wars universe. Is there somewhere where I can, like, challenge the official rules or whatever you call them. Besides, I see that at least the Coruscant article is written in present tense. Bob rulz 04:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Bob rulz, the primary problem with writing in the present tense is determining at what point the "present" is. The most forward chronological book? What about characters that died, like Jabba the Hutt? What about planets that were destroyed, like Alderaan? By writing all IU articles in the past tense we avoid a confusing mixture of tenses commonly found in Star Wars resources. Further, most encyclopedias are written in the past tense with the exception of topics like ideas. Here, we have chosen to write even those in past tense to give us the furthest removed perspective, and therefore the greatest NPOV. Some articles, like the Coruscant one, are in present or mixed tense because they were copied from Wikipedia, had contributions from a new user unaware of our style, or a mixture. --SparqMan 04:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, in every encyclopedia I've ever seen, only historical events or things that use to exist but don't anymore are written in past tense. With planets that were blown up (like Alderaan), or with historical events, yes, I'll agree that they should be written in the past tense, but I believe that everything else should be written in the present tense. It just makes more sense, because we're recounting what we know of the Star Wars Universe from reference books, novels, comics, games, the movies, etc. I believe that they should be written in the present tense, as that is standard encyclopedia formatting. When I read something like "Naboo was a planet in the Star Wars universe" it makes me feel like I'm reading about something that doesn't exist but use to. Sure, it most likely never did exist, but that doesn't mean anything. As of what we know FROM a Star Wars universe perspective at the moment, Naboo, Velusia, Coruscant, Tatooine, etc, all still exist. If some author decides one day to blow up Tatooine IN the Star Wars universe, then we can go back and change it all to past tense. But until then, I believe that it should be just like every other encyclopedia. Bob rulz 11:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no point in writing about planets in present tense, as all information we have about them could have easily changed during the course of "a long, long time". For example: how do we know Naboo didn't mysteriously explode in 2000 ABY?


 * How do we know that some huge star 500 light years away from us didn't go supernova 499 years ago? See, it's counter-intuitive. Let's say that theoretically the events in the Star Wars universe really DID happen a long, long time ago. To the best of our knowledge, everything is exactly as it was mentioned in the latest book, or whatever, that updated our knowledge on that specific thing. For example, to the best of our knowledge, Coruscant is still overrun by vegetation and was altered by the Yuuzhan Vong, and Luke Skywalker is still alive and well. Until authors update certain aspects of certain planets, characters, etc, I believe that it should remain with as much information as authors have decided to create for it. Bob rulz 11:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What's the point, other than for the sake of keeping it in present tense? To write it in present would only create a needlessly long timeline. --Imperialles 12:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How would it create a needlessly long timeline? Really, help me out on that one, because that makes no sense. Bob rulz 12:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be a large timeline because we would have to cover the information about a planet from "a long, long time ago" to 2005. --Imperialles 12:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Um...no. A planet isn't an event. A planet doesn't happen. A planet is just there. EVENTS happen. PLANETS do not. Therefore, PLANETS are not EVENTS. I never said that we should write events in the present tense. Bob rulz 12:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I edited out the part that confused you. --Imperialles 12:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, the whole thing confused me. We wouldn't have to cover the information all the way up to "2005." Bob rulz 12:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You make some good points, Bob rulz, and certainly we shouldn't dogmatically stick with our guns. Everything is in flux. Here are my questions: How would you recommend we deal with issues that are unclear on whether they belong in the past or present tense? Equipment, for example. We are rarely given enough information to determine if a starship class is completely out of use and therefore should be written in the past tense. Are ARC starfighters still in use somewhere by the end of the NJO books? Maybe. What about characters that are not explicitly killed or revealed to be dead? Maybe they died, maybe not. The point is, the Star Wars universe is fictional, but not finite, and creates an atmosphere that promotes the use of mixed tense. Using the past tense is not inaccurate and certainly makes for a more consistent read. --SparqMan 13:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what did I miss? -- Riffsyphon1024 15:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm currently figuring things out with SparqMan on his talk page. Sorry if I came off a little harsh...but I really feel like this needs to be changed at least partially. Of course, if I lose, then I will conform to the standards here, and I will always contribute no matter what. But...I think it's worth a shot... Bob rulz 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well everything works off of majority here. The proposal must go through a vote first and if more people are against it, then it won't happen. Don't you just love democracy? -- Riffsyphon1024 16:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good job
...on the "technical" pages. It was a seriously needed section here. I'd give you the Pit Droid of Diligence award, but I don't have the authority to do that. Instead you get my (unoffical) Administrator of the Month award! We couldn't have done this without you. --Imp 18:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no problem. it always helps when you have both Wikipedia and Wookieepedia open at the same time, plus those redlinks were annoying the hell outta me. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 18:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

On the other hand, it's a good resource, and it'd probably be a good idea to put relevant nav-computer.com links in as external links (maybe with a template, similar to how we do things with the databank?) -- Silly Dan  01:08, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I left an open space for a Nav-computer source template on one of the template message pages. Also, note that when I provided that source for information regarding galactic geography, it was based on the maps he made, which were fairly detailed, especially in the inserts. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:16, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The correct page is Star Wars:Template messages/Sources of articles -- Riffsyphon1024 01:18, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's comprehensive and reliable, but not official, which is why I think it should only be listed as a reference alongside the official publications (which the webmaster lists anyway). -- Silly Dan  01:35, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I was also wondering the same thing, particularly in regards to a rehaul of the Galactic Civil War page which I've been working on (essentially using the maps on nav-computer.com to show fleet movements, or at least informing on). Although now that I think about it, it's not such a good idea, since the map may still be dubious and star wars is always in flux. -- Falmarin 01:21, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How can the map at Nav-computer be dubious? He has researched all sources of information quite well from what I've seen. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:23, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, but the Star Wars universe isn't very um, shall we say, "reliable." I'm still leaning towards using the maps, but I suppose it really depends on how complex the GCW article is in regards to mapping fleet positions, etc. -- Falmarin 01:27, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well first let's make sure we know where everything is before we start mapping fleet positions. The Sectors, systems, and planets should all be arranged beforehand. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:53, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check your email
Just wanted to let you know that I sent you an email. I dunno if it's an account you check very often or not, so I figured I'd give you a heads-up. cya, WB
 * Well I've been on Wookieepedia all night so it would have been better to send it to here. I think Aidje is a good choice. He helped out alot in the beginning. And I would also like to see Shadowtrooper and SparqMan receive an honor in the coming months. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:45, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Re:Dashes

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

Banned from Wikipedia
One of my enemies, a Wikipedia administrator named Snowspinner indefinitely blocked - banned me from Wikipedia. I'm sorry man, my time on Wikipedia is over. Remove me from your Wikipedia user page's Star Wars Contributors and Others lists right now! -- John-1107 20:34, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC) My user page does not have wasteful, unnecessary piles of crap! It was already deleted by Snowspinner. My user pages are personal, not public and using it only traditionally to keep track of things better are boring to me partially because i have too many Wikipedia user contributions. I am discontent with the concept of simplicity because it is also boring to me. -- John-1107 00:44, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for your user page? --Imp 20:38, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well you have to admit it John. Your user page was a little more than over the top. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:47, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Look man, no one besides me can edit my user pages. My user pages were privacy. I'm banned from Wikipedia forever. -- John-1107 15:43, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you suppose I do about it? -- Riffsyphon1024 23:55, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)