User talk:Trip391/Archive1

Talk pages
Hey, just a heads up when leaving messages on talk pages, please note the timestamp on the comment you're replying to. The comment you replied to on Tie/LN starfighter was from 2005. Thanks, Supreme Emperor (talk) 11:36, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey, thanks for helping me out by correcting my mistakes in The Lawless. Cheers, -- XXLVenom998 ''' (Surprise me!) 18:28, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

If you are worried about lack of references in my additions to the Jar'Kai article (which I did put in), please consider either leaving a note about the article needing references or putting them in yourself. --Milar Kayne (talk) 18:58, March 13, 2013 (UTC)Milar Kayne, 1:57 PM CST, 03-13-2013

Revert on Anakin Page
Ever read The Rise and Fall of Darth Vader? It's not Fanon.Garrett Atkins (talk) 00:37, March 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not read The Rise and Fall of Darth Vader, but seeing as how there was no source or link for Mochot Steep I thought it was fanon. Also, Darth Maul was confirmed to be alive (whether you agree or not) in canon, making that part fanon. Trip391 (talk) 01:10, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Redirects
Hey, if you're going on a redirect-fixing spree, please try and mark your edits as minor, as they clog up the Recent Changes feed. Also, you don't have to post the edit summary every time. Thanks, Cade    Calrayn  00:49, April 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry about that. Trip391 (talk) 01:17, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Novels
Hey Trip, just wanted to say welcome to Project Novels. Supreme Emperor (talk) 13:55, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Doghouse
But that doesn't explain why you moved it down a line.&mdash; Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 22:04, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I must have slipped and hit the enter key when adding the indent, since they're right next to each other. Whoops. Trip391 (talk) 22:18, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Anon
Ah, okay. Thanks for the heads-up!  Trak Nar  Ramble on 06:52, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Mission to Tatooine disambig
The disambig page has been moved. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 22:32, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Project Novels
Hey Trip just a heads up when you remove/create a redlink here please move it to the novels archive here or notify someone to have them do it. Thanks. DarthRevan1173 (Long live Lord Revan) 23:34, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I wasn't 100% sure, but now I know. Trip391 (talk) 00:29, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no problem just figured I'd give you a heads up. DarthRevan1173 RevanTOR001.jpg (Long live Lord Revan) 00:35, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you just archived the list, so should I just make new scroll boxes for my info? Trip391 (talk) 00:43, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * I archived some of the newly created articles. There's no need to make new scrollboxes though, just add whatever needs archived under the correct section. DarthRevan1173 RevanTOR001.jpg (Long live Lord Revan) 23:55, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Message to Trip
I didn't know that. I looked at the category and it said Category:Dantooinians on that page. I wasn't the one who added that category. This is seems to be mistake.--151.75.31.121 20:23, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Re:
In that case, I'd recommend moving it to the bottom of the page and giving it a new heading. Removing it altogether is counterproductive to the point of a talk page, especially when it actually does suggest a change to the article. Menkooroo (talk) 05:05, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

The New Guy
Hey Trip391, I am Legoguy1, I am comparatively new to Wookieepedia editing, wondering if you could help me out a bit. I have been a fan of Star Wars for about seven years, and a Wookieepedia reader for two. Thanks. --Legoguy1 (talk) 06:17, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Duranium
It is not vandalism if it is correcting a problem. The behind the scenes section of Duranium is false. Even if the name was used in another scifi universe that does not mean that it had any bearing on its usage in this one. It is also impossible for anyone to claim that the substance came into existence in this universe because of star trek. So to say that it was first used in an episode of Star Trek that aired 11 years before Star Wars is inane because it is a fictional substance and its use in the Star Wars scene was not dependent on its "discovery" or invention in the Star Trek universe. To aimlessly remove my edit for this material without considering the logical reason for its removal is sloppy and inconsiderate to say the least. I hope you make future changes with a little more forethought.
 * You were asked not to do it, then you did it again. 1 1/2 years ago you were also asked not to do it, also. The content was just not placed there randomly, (ie. not irrelevant), removing it actually is considered considered vandalism because you are lowering the quality of the article. Trip391 (talk) 17:55, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Duranium
Just because something was not placed there randomly does not mean that it is not irrelevant. It cannot be lowering the quality, if material removed has no bearing on its use or introduction into the Star Wars expanded universe. I always imagined that the point of the Wiki was one of information of the material presented in the given universe. How can something be background information if the information being used is disassociated from the substance used this universe. In other words what Im trying to say is that just because they share a common name does not mean that either universe was influenced by the other. They could have been just as easily concieved of it independant of one another. To use statements like it was first mentioned in the Original Series episode "The Menagerie," predating Star Wars itself by nearly eleven years is more akin to trying to claim some sort of bragging rights. A look at me kind of statement. Had they left it at it was first mentioned in the Original Series episode "The Menagerie." I would not necesarrily have cause for complant. Also I was unaware that any request was made 1 1/2 years ago for me to not delete anything. It was not my intent for Vandalism mearly to try to keep the atmosphere clear of comments which could be construed as someone trying to claim supremacy of one fictional universe over another by claiming that they came up with a supposed material first when the idea could have easily been an independant one. After all isn't Duranium simply the word durable with a -ium thrown at the end? Yes I know that this one small area isn't sufficiant enough to cause any harm but I also know that enthusiasts (me included) can be rather fanatical about these things and if you give them a foot in the door they tend to try and take for all its worth.
 * As Jang said. Trip391 (talk) 20:02, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Re: IRC
Hey Trip; sorry, but I currently have no access to IRC. I'm actually on vacation and using a tablet to browse. If this is regarding the recent reverts to the anon editor, then you should know that he is serial fanoneer (if that's even a word) and my restricted editing capability meant that I was more concerned with removing his erroneous information than anything else. - Sir Cavalier of One ( Squadron channel ) 09:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

jabba's unnamed jawa slave
hey why do have my page on Jabba's unnamed Jawa slave(a real star wars character) on the The speedy deletion list. I've seen him in the movie return of the Jedi if you don't believe me watch the movie.--Jedi ginga (talk) 17:23, June 15, 2013 (UTC)the angry Jedi Ginga

nether did freaking attark and how do you know the gammorean guards names

Fan-fiction?
Ok! I understand, but I didn't know what I did wrong. I think this is a misunderstanding. The editor that created Alim'Gen. I thought that individual affiliated with the Galactic Republic. So I only fixed the infobox. That was only it.--99.56.53.134 22:16, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

AT-ST
You really should stop going behind my back and editing in Bill George's name as crediting him with the design of the scout walker.

A little history, Bill George did not even work at ILM as a model maker until Return of the Jedi. The scout walker was first introduced in Empire. It was Joe Johnston, the art director who created a plastic model of the first 2-legged walker which George liked so much he decided to have it thrown in at the last minute, requiring a hastily made stop-motion armature to be made for it by Jon Berg and Tom St. Amand. He told me personally it was the only model in the Star Wars universe that was made in 3d first, using off the shelf model kit parts and it preceded any concept art of a 2-legged design.

Even my ILM book states Joe created the first scout walker. So please, don't take my word for it - research this yourself so people aren't misinformed and give Joe the proper credit for creating this design, which was his way of creating a vehicle that varied, but was inspired by the 4 legged walkers.


 * MORE*

Ok so correcting your false info is now vandalism, eh? I'm not being threatening, I'm just frustrated this is the second time I've had to correct you and I won't stop until you get your head out of your butt and acknowledge your mistake. This site is set up to provide accurate information to the public, you don't have any ownership over the page so please remove your ego from the equation.

You just admitted that Lorne Peterson's Sculpting a Galaxy book is your only source for this erroneous Bill George credit. You should possibly consider due to the man's age that he made a mistake recalling things from 30+ years ago. There's another source of info you may like to consult, young man, it's called Cinefex, issue #3. This is the most respected sci-fi magazine publication in history and they interviewed the very people involved with the making of Empire Strikes Back, SHORTLY AFTER FILMING. In it, they describe in great detail the creation of the AT-AT scenes and it's mentioned the original AT-ST walker Joe created only made a brief cameo in the background on Hoth because the main shot they were planning got ruined due to a backdrop shifting. And yes, in this issue Joe is credited with the design, Dennis Muren can be seen standing next to it. Now tell me, how could Bill George, who George Lucas did not even know of at the time create the first AT-ST walker model? If you knew anything about Bill George, which I doubt, you'd learn about how he got hired at ILM in 1981, AFTER the first scout walker was already seen on Hoth in Empire. Look at his IMDB page, he was not working for ILM during Empire at all in '78 and '79 when the first scout walker prototype and AT-AT's were made.

Disastrous Campaign (Kazdan Paratus)
Hello. I have declined your speedy deletion tag on this article because I cannot recall any precedent of a battle, campaign, or similar conflict being judged as non-notable by the community. As the first such case, I feel that it needs to be discussed by the community at large since there is no precedent. I have therefore started a TC thread at Trash compactor/Disastrous Campaign (Kazdan Paratus), in which you are welcome to argue your case for deletion. Thanks. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Jedi Council Chambers 17:13, June 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, Great battle (Kazdan Paratus) has also been declined and has been combined into the same TC. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Training Room 17:34, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
Of course its NPOV. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", and from another point of view the Sith were liberators---even Zenith felt used by Tai Cordan who found the first excuse to send him offworld rather than give him a place in the government. This is your first warning. 24.52.194.108 09:05, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

My page
Why was Club Penguin Star Wars Takeover deleted? I'm curious to know why. Did I break an editing policy? --Knc1w2h3n4c5t (talk) 21:04, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Categories
Hey, Trip. I see you're adding the Gallofree products category to all GR-75 medium transport articles. It would actually be more practical and less redundant to subcategorize the GR-75 medium transports category under the Gallofree products category, to avoid adding both categories to all individual GR-75 articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:21, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

CEC
Any reason why you keep reverting my edit, and without giving a reason? I clearly stated why I think the list should stay but if you're just going to edit it back without giving a reason...... Alpha-1437 (talk) 22:04, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Department of Military Research
Please do not remove material that is in the article body if it is listed in the infobox. All infobox material must be repeated in article body. Thanks. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 00:34, June 25, 2013 (UTC) All infobox material must be detailed in the article proper, with the following exceptions: The out-of-universe "era" field The "prev," "conc," and "next" fields of event infoboxes, which are not necessarily relevant to the article →See Wookieepedia:Mofferences/November 11, 2012 &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 00:44, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there has been some misunderstanding regarding this:
 * Please note that I have reinserted the infobox material into the article body. In future, instead of deleting, please reformat any lists into sentence form if their information is listed also in the Infobox. I have done this for you this time because I do not like leaving an article unfinished. Lists are less desirable, but it does not justify removal of entire blocks of content. Thanks. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 01:23, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Consider its worth...

 * Gentlemen...Unless it is policy at Wookieepedia to remove those discussions from days gone by, they will be responded to by myself and others. What purpose do they serve to remain? What is the point to start "new" topics on the same subject and to continue them. These discussions and unanswered questions will stack and build if we let them, and eventually may reach decisions or provide information someone can use. Allow the content in question to remain in their headings, the subjects stay the same because they are. Perhaps no one will see the recent contributions to the Talk pages. Perhaps...More likely...Others will visit the talk pages, see their content, and help build despite the age of the discussion. We continue to talk about Threepio...For forty years we have.  Consider this, speak to the administrators if you feel that you have a conclusion one way or the other. I will continue to scour the information source you have provided, and leave behind what advice qualified and appropriate for Wookieepedia.  And that is if you, or your son, picks up the conversation where it left off or not. Some of these old chats are records of debate and deliberation on Wookieepedia. They can culminate and cultivate new reasoning, better understanding and articles. Thank you for your forbearance in this matter. If you continue to be dissuaded in this rational consideration, I will here your judgement, and cease to contribute to the growing talks on Wookieepedia. But is that silence what you desire or this site requires?  Good day, responsible responders to the bylaws of this database. Thank you for your concern. But see truth. 99.188.36.80 01:20, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what's going on. This non-account editor is spamming. I was going to leave a message to the effect of a polite warning, but I see that the user has ignored several such polite warnings... and posted lots of discussion spam. Yeah, removal is the best thing in this case. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 03:07, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Chak mistake
Sorry about that. That definitely was not my intention to remove anything. I must have mistyped or something. I'm new at editing. I'll be more careful in the future. I am learning.--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 18:21, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

New user need help
Hi! I been learning about how to add references. I've been reading the guide and I found what I did wrong. Those two characters were never seen in the The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia. I got your warning, and that kinda scared me. Do you know any references that can truly be added? Please!--64.134.180.97 20:38, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

CSWE rewrites
Thanks for rewriting those articles I created, I will write any more I make in my own words. Cheers! --Vandar Tokare42 (Talk to the hand) 23:59, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Lists deletion.
Hi.

I agree that we shouldn't have lists on the wiki, but there has to be a better way of fixing it than just deleting them outright, especially regarding military aspects. We could always try doing paragraphs going in-depth about the specific divisions and equipment utilized, or for various products developed. I actually did just that with the Imperial Navy article. Of course, it left me a bit exhausted, but I figured it was worth it. I think we need to do something that solves the problem with lists, and yet at the same time does not delete information outright. What do you think? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:27, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

question
so what you are saying is that i can't ask him a question but that it is okay for him to ban me from 2 wikis for correcting spelling mistakes that he made. --Jedi1994 (talk) 21:32, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

RE:
so i can't ask him why he decided to ban me when all i did was correct a spelling mistake he made on a page

RE:
disregard what i said above i'm still a little angry that he banned me for no reason thats all --Jedi1994 (talk) 21:41, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Not Mixer image
Hey uh this is Chromo67, just wondering, should I make an unidentified clone trooper page for him if he isn't Mixer? Thanks! Chromo67 (talk) 01:09, July 12, 2013 (UTC)Chromo67

Thanks!
Thanks for fixing my post on the knowledge bank. I missed the memo about putting your signature after the text. It just says: "Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (99.188.36.80 21:03, July 12, 2013 (UTC)) or by using the signature button" And I practically took an oath to stay off of talk pages or I get in trouble, so pretend I was never here... 99.188.36.80 21:03, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Apologies
Trip391...Is it droid? My apologies for provoking you earlier. I am unsure whether or not you were the one who called for my block, but either way I did not intend to misrepresent myself by telling you to go to the administrators no matter what. I have posted a final, parting challenge and surrender for the administrator who did block me. If it is your desire, you can see the end of my one-man protest there. However, know that what I meant to express to you before my block was that I was done. My statements on going to the administrators was not meant to provoke anything more than thought. I wanted you to think about what I said, and take your conclusions to Wookieepedians...Peacefully...Not to get me shoved out. But that was partly my bad for not being direct. I think I confuse people when I write so much. The admin who blocked me was bewildered by my response. Again, I'm done going to all but maybe one person on Wookieepedia to speak to them. But apologizing for miscommunicating my intentions was in order. Thankful for contributing to this datasource, please assist in my questions on the Knowledge Bank if you can, and have a good day. The Force will be with you...Almost always. Add a Ysalamir. You know? 99.188.36.80 23:28, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Trip. Just wanted to let you know that I appreciated you commenting on my talk page. It may not have had the intended effect you were hoping for, but I think you definitely had the right intention and I wanted to thank you for that. And to clarify your he/she problem, I'm a man :-) -Thunderforge (talk) 10:03, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Merging Fiber Cord with Fibercord
Ah, I didn't realize there was already an article by that title containing similar information! And yet, I spent considerable time with the "Search" function typing in things like "cord" and "fiber cord" and "lightsaber cord" and this page never came up! Stupid useless search. Anyway, how do we do the merge?--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 02:23, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thank you kindly for your help.--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 15:49, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Tf
I would like to let Tf' own words speak for him (bold is my emphasis): "I do not plan on restructuring the entire template section if there is no need… Yes, I did recently move Template:GG to Template:Galaxy Guides since it's an obscure abbreviation not commonly used (unlike KOTOR, for instance), and thus possibly hindering to editors… I don't plan on restructuring every template in the same way."

- Thunderforge on restructuring

This is in his own words that he plans to do restructuring, indicating that he will make changes as he feels the need and in the manner that he sees fit to suit. Also, are you absolutely sure that he did not get IRC approval to move the GG template, and that the approval sought was for the bot to redirect? His statements are more than mis-wording if that is the case: "Yes, I did recently move Template:GG to Template:Galaxy Guides since it's an obscure abbreviation not commonly used (unlike KOTOR, for instance), and thus possibly hindering to editors. I checked on IRC if that would be alright and I was told it would be, so I put my rationale in the edit summary."

- Thunderforge on restructuring

Is it possible you could be mistaken, or are you sure there was no such request made? &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 18:33, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to harass you on the subject. I was simply asking if it might be possible that some information may not have been accurate and Tf could be given the benefit of the doubt. What you state and what he states did not make sense together, and I was only seeking clarification. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 04:14, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

CT Discussion
This is a discussion on letting a single user start a personal project to make broad-sweeping major changes to templates without notice to the community and as that user sees fit, having such changes protected and non-revertible without consensus track to reverse them. Please stop by and vote for or against. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 04:13, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Council
Sorry for the delay. The article has been semi-protected indefinitely.  CC7567  (talk) 08:50, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Your uninvited involvement in the dispute resolution of others
I politely and discreetly asked you not to help in a dispute resolution, and you seemed to have, at first, responded well to my suggestion to stay out of it. However, you got into the middle of this from the very beginning, and continue to bring it up: Please stop meddling. It's fine if the community likes the name change. I don't argue that. I personally don't like it, but I accept that the community does. That is what a consensus is, the agreement of at least some to keep a matter despite their unfavorable position toward it. However, if there were more dissenters to the template change, you would have no basis for your current comments. Also, in SH (which, apparently, you have not examined fully), he was not advised on how to move templates. He was advised concerning creation of new templates as to what guidelines for naming them were (of which no guidelines exist for a reason), since that was the understood premise of his post (the SH discussion is about the guidelines, not about changing the guidelines). The community that agreed 13 to 1 did not have your information of (what you imply as) possible lack of IRC assent at the time of their voted comments. The indicated duplicity that could possibly have been used to garner consent, had that been revealed at the outset, could have resulted in a different Tc decision. Who knows, it's closed? At this point, that isn't the issue, and I would appreciate you not continuing to bring it up. Telling me that the Tc I posted was a "farce" is stating that I am either the author of a "comedy" or that I am "absurd," "stupid," or "extremely unreasonable." I seriously doubt that you are saying that I am funny. As for unreasonableness, I have even (if you haven't noticed) agreed with the called closing of the TC, and directly requested an admin to do so&mdash;with the votes remaining as they were. I have also changed my position in the CT. Please be careful not to accuse PA on my part, as you seem to be on shaky ground yourself. Saying that the TC didn't last two days shows you don't think that was long. Then such a consensus process shouldn't bother you by your definition. However, it seems to me that you are taking point against anything that may be my position, and I would like you, please, to concentrate only on the facts and policies in the matter and quit assigning motivation. As to your final comment, you imply that I am not a part of this editing community or have a voice in it. You maintain that the community decided to keep the template change&mdash;your definition of the entire WP editing community in this case is the 13 you favor. That is a fraction of the the whole WP community, just as when I bring an issue to the floor as the fraction of that community and can rightfully state that this is in the interests of the community. You can not say that the whole community is represented by only 13 when you state that 1 may not represent that same community. However, I am very much a part of this community and indeed have consented to the changes voted on by the community of which I and 13 others are a part. The "agreement of the community" is not my policy, but this wiki's, so although I may use hyperbole in bringing it forward, this is not my personal position. Do not discuss any of this any further with me anywhere nor involve yourself in any dispute resolution that I may be having with another editor. Your involvement has turned into a dispute between us itself, and I would rather disengage myself from the exchange than continue discussing it. Let us, please, consider the matter dropped from this point and not bring it up again. Thank you. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 20:08, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) While Thunderforge and I were civilly trying to resolve our initial dispute (of which I properly began by placing a very appropriate tag on his talk page designed for the very action that he made), you jumped in and involved yourself in a dispute that had nothing to do with you.
 * 2) While I was responding favorably to Thunderforge's stated gained assent on IRC (and expressed my misunderstanding as causative of my objection), and when it was explained to me that IRC was acceptable by Tope and Culator, you again jumped in and ruined all of that stating with authority that Thunderforge never got assent for moving the template (indicating that he lied).

Talk Pages Again?
I've left the four tildes each time. Once I left them off on accident and went back to correct it right afterwards. But I've been doing it each time. Can you tell me where I'm not...Aside from a couple weeks ago when I did them at the front instead of the end. That might help me to figure out where you are seeing them and where I'm not doing them. Unless, of course, you looked at the edit history and the pages current form on one of my posts. I'll be careful, though. Thanks for your attention and concern. 99.188.36.80 20:21, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Vibro-ax Melee weapon category
Why did you remove the "Melee weapon" category from Vibro-ax?--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 17:44, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm. I thought when you click on a category, you should see all weapons in that category. Wouldn't it be good for a user to click on Category:Melee weapons and see all melee weapons?--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 17:51, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is, when you click on the Category:Melee weapons, you should have a nice complete list of all major melee weapons. We shouldn't force the user to click on a subcat to see a major weapon like a vibro-ax. (I noticed vibrorapier is in the Melee Weapons category).--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 18:07, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking to have "everything" listed there. Just the major weapons. For example, I would include vibro-ax, but NOT Acidic Paragon vibro axe or BD-1 Cutter vibro-ax or Ceremonial poleaxe or Clan Groogrun vibro-ax.--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 18:14, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

WotM, August 2013
Congratulations, Trip. Feel free to add User_WotM to your user page. - Sir Cavalier of One ( Squadron channel ) 15:02, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * :D  JangFett  (Talk) 15:05, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Trip. You're doing a great job on the Wook. Your future looks bright indeed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:43, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Senor Trip! Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  18:54, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Trip, you most definitely deserve it. Keep up the great work :) Supreme Emperor (talk) 22:59, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Three revert-rule
You need to cool it with the reverting, Trip. You're now one reversion away from violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Jorus C'baoth. Talking about how to pronounce the article's subject most definitely does not violate the talkheader, as pronounciation keys are often included within article intros (see Empatojayos Brand and M'iiyoom Onith for examples). Additionally, responding to old discussions is no reason to remove a talk page comment. That will be specifically encoded in policy if the current CT passes, and until it does, the only rule we have is the one found in Msg-talkr and W --- that is, do not remove any talk page messages. Do not remove the comment from Talk:Jorus C'baoth again. Menkooroo (talk) 07:58, August 3, 2013 (UTC)