User talk:Rokkur Shen

{| id="w" width="100%" style="background: transparent; "
 * valign="top" width="50%" style="background: silver; border: 2px solid #000000; padding: .5em 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em"|

Welcome, Rokkur Shen!
Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Wookieepedia aspires to be a reliable source for all Star Wars fans to read and draw information from, and as such, fan-created continuity and fan fiction are not allowed within our articles. All in-universe material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Do not remove talk page and forum comments, including your own, as they are part of the public record. Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~.

For an optimal viewing experience, Wookieepedia recommends using the Monobook skin. For help changing your skin preference, see Help:Skin.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask me on my talk page. May the Force be with you! &mdash; Trak Nar  Ramble on 08:32, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * }

Slow down for a second
Hold on with all of your date editing for a minute --- you're removing sourced statements and replacing them with unsourced statements. Before you continue, can you explain why you're asserting that there's no difference in months between the GRs and the GSc? Where exactly is that coming from? Menkooroo (talk) 09:15, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'll start a thread in the Senate Hall to see where the 35:3:3GrS date originally came from, just in case there was a source for it. In the meantime, it looks like the references you've been removing should stay --- for example, here, the reference note beginning with "{{Ref|" would still be valid, even if GRs and GSc start at the same time --- it just states that there's a 35-year difference. Cheers. Menkooroo (talk) 09:30, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaand the thread has been created. Feel free to chime in. It's not that I don't trust you; I just want to make sure with absolute certainty that the three-month difference doesn't come from anywhere. :) Menkooroo (talk) 09:35, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

BBY
Hey there. Due to the nature of the BBY dating system, something like 21.5 BBY is 22 BBY, not 21 BBY. Something twenty-one and a half years before the Battle of Yavin would be in the twenty-second year before the Battle of Yavin, not the twenty-first. Cheers. Menkooroo (talk) 13:59, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

Calendar
Hello, you are probably right about your edits but you can't do it like this. Revert your edits on the ABY/BBY pages and wait for a consensus on the forum before delete other content. Hk 47 (talk) 14:19, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Revert you edits. You have to convince the others before or it will be considerd vandalism. Hk 47 (talk) 14:38, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

Moving pages
Please don't rename articles by cut-and-paste. The page history must be moved along with the text. Use the "move" function to rename a page instead. Thank you. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Holocomm 03:11, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

Removing links to sites containing the scripts
Even though those sites are fanon, the scripts still exist there, and thus we use them as a source. The site itself isn't a source, but the scripts are. Please do not remove the links. If you found a better site with the scripts available, feel free to change the links, but don't remove them entirely. Thanks.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 08:56, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Menk might be able to shed some more light on this one.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 09:02, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been some question in the past on how verifiable the scripts are, but I don't think we've ever been able to come up with a definitive answer. I think the best solution would be to add a disclaimer along the lines of "According to the scripts presented on the fansite starwarz.com" (similar to what's written here) rather than removing the links altogether. It's a dissimilar situation to the timeline gold one --- the timeline gold, as a fan project, can't be used as a source for in-universe information, but these scripts can be used for out-of-universe, behind the scenes information, provided they're the real thing. Menkooroo (talk) 09:29, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Reverts
Since I only reverted edits on three articles, I thought the intention was pretty clear that I had personally checked and confirmed these names as being accurate. If I was attempting to undo your work or disagreed with it, I would have reverted everything. - Cavalier One ( Squadron channel ) 10:22, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Both Nishr Suppression and Nishr Campaign are single source articles, and therefore do not need 1st tags as they are the only appearance for either battle. And Battle of Tiems has a 1st tag on the top-most entry. - Cavalier One FarStar.svg( Squadron channel ) 10:31, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Single source appearances/sources really do not need any identifying 1st tags unless you are contending that there is some confusion as to what source the information comes from when only a single appearance is listed? By common sense, a single appearance means that the information comes from that source. I see no reason to add the tags. If you want to, go ahead. But if you put the templates on those three articles again, I will remove them and lock the articles if necessary to prevent edit-warring. If you want to start a CT on the issue, be my guest. - Cavalier One FarStar.svg( Squadron channel ) 10:43, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the Senate Hall. You're asking for a discussion on the subject, rather than a clear vote. CTs should only be created for clear proposals with voting options. As you are asking for opinions and a discussion on the matter, the Senate Hall is the more appropriate place. It can always be restarted as a CT once clear options are discussed and presented. - Cavalier One FarStar.svg( Squadron channel ) 11:18, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Chabosh.
Do you honestly think I'd put it there as an appearance and removed the 1stID without a reason? Yes, it is mentioned in the game, and yes it's called the Battle of Chabosh. I'd rather you not accuse me of falsifying info, and there is a Conjecture tag for a reason. Cade  Calrayn   02:42, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Confirm templates
Before you go adding templates to every single article, please check its sources. If the battle is not named, a Conjecture template would be more apt. Otherwise, please do not add templates to every single article without first checking its sources to make sure that the template you're adding is indeed correct. Thank you.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 08:40, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of those articles weren't from Dark Forces, such as the Mission to Mon Calamari, which is sourced to The Glove of Darth Vader. If the title isn't specifically named in the book, then a Conjecture tag would work better.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 08:50, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Date removals.
Hey.

Next time you try to remove dates you feel are speculatory, make sure you at least address the issue to the guy who created them first (in this case, probably Cade Catalryn) before doing so. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:29, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Rokkur, I suggest you take this up to the talk page instead of edit warring. You should know that three reverts is enough for a block. Cheers.  Stake black   msg 12:38, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Adumar
It's fairly obvious that you're not even paying attention to half of what you do, as I clearly modified the GrS dates to reflect the removal of the 3-month difference. They aren't speculation, it's logic, as the reference clearly explains. Cade  Calrayn   23:24, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * What else should we call it? It was a battle, and it happened during the Galactic Civil War. Ergo, Battle of Duro with a conjecture tag. Just because the title of the page is "Battle of Duro" doesn't mean that we're saying straight out that is was called the "Battle of Duro". It's a title, and the conjectural or canonical title is the bolded part in the intro. Cade   Calrayn  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg 23:52, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * ... that's why it's got a Conjecture tag. Cade   Calrayn  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg 23:56, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * I w under the impression that it did have a conjecture tag, and for that I apologize. You have caught me at a bad time, and the fact that you are adding the tags without doing the research yourself comes across as kind of lazy in my opinion, and that irritated me. If you do intend to do the research, then I apologize, but as I said earlier I'm not in the best frame of mind. Cade   Calrayn  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg 00:21, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I must second this assessment. Adding those tags to whatever battle that has a conjecture tag on it, without propper evidence, will not solve anything and contributes in nothing to the Wookieepedia. The Conjecture tag works as "Not Identified in any material" and that itself already provides proof. If you can dispute that claim, then sure go ahead and add the ID tag. If not, then you shouldn't add it as it is futile. It's like adding a "Needs sourcing" to every single article that isn't fully sourced.Winterz (talk) 00:53, January 17, 2013 (UTC)