User talk:Hanzo Hasashi

{| 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, Hanzo Hasashi!
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.

Please do not remove talk page and forum comments, 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: ~.

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; Chack Jadson  (Talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * }

Reply
Also, you might have to wait a few days to edit the GAN page, still. Good to see you got your account working.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can nominate for you. You get the credit for it, don't worry. ;)  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, it's nominated.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wallen
I struck the sentence, BtS, and Lego objections; you fixed up the first two well enough, and since you can't add anything about the Lego Star Wars game, then I suppose that objection is pointless. However, I cannot strike the P&T objection, purely because it is required, and there's no way of avoiding that rule. Yes, you'll have to force the P&T, and if you have trouble, see about that, he's very good at writing forced P&T's. And what about the two questions I asked? Any quotes, and the redundant BtS sourcing? Cheers, DC 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great, all objections stricken, AC vote given. Great job, DC 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll reword the P&T a bit for you. Unfortunately, the links to the online cards no longer work, so there's not much we can do about that. I'll try looking for them tomorrow. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes - I don't see anything that's majorly wrong with it. But that doesn't mean others with find things to object to. Just keep up the good work, and Wallen will become a GA. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 23:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not the way I work. If that objection was the only thing preventing the article from passing, then yes, I would strike and support. I'm not doing this to be mean; I just want to ensure that this article will be fully sourced. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 21:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't "support it more;" I can either object or support. And frankly, it's not the job of the AgriCorps - or anyone else - to hold your hand and guide you through the entire nomination. This is your work; therefore, it's your responsibility to see that the article contains all the info out there on Wallen. Once that is done, and I'm satisfied with it, then I will strike my vote and support. Until then, I ask you to wait. My first Featured Article nomination took a long time to pass; Good Article nominations can be the same. But Wallen will pass much faster if you take each objection and fix it right away. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in, but I read you're in need of CCG pics for this article. You can probably find the ones you need here.  Good luck! :-) jSarek 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well, but I would like to see Toprawa's and Cav's objections satisfied before supporting. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 12:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, sorry for answering a question on your talk page, Tope. Hope you don't mind. Anyway, AFAIK, you need to be registered for a few days (about 5) to edit the GAN page, regardless of how many edits you have. And mainspace edits are edits to articles, not forums, talk pages, or your userpage. Also, please be patient and stop badgering users to review your article. They'll get to it soon, don't worry.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's understandable that you want it to get passed ASAP.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 22:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Striking other users' objections
Do not strike other users' objections on the GAN page. It is up to each individual objector to strike their own objections. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wallen sources
Sure I can check those sources for you. Give me a few days to go through my collection, and I'll add them to the source list. - Cavalier One ( Squadron channel ) 12:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fanon warning
- Lord Hydronium(Oya!) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not intended to be fanon. Hanzo Hasashi 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Scripts aren't movies. And please understand, the transition process is long and we need to stay organized. Random users moving things willy-nilly is not going to help here. If you want to participate in the process, we'll have sign-ups starting on the 6th. - Lord Hydronium(Oya!) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop adding unverified information to articles, such as Chiraneau. While it's obvious those are all the same actors given it's just reused footage, nothing ever states those are the same IU characters. Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Trooper
I added a note to the article saying the canonicity of the comic is in question.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, probably not. Don't think it matters.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Executor characters
I'm going to politely ask you to drop the subject of Executor officers dying at Endor. I asked you once before when this conversation was ongoing to drop it then. I know you want to believe that every officer on the bridge died, and when you find a speck of information that seems to allude to that, you want to jump on it, but the information just isn't out there. If it was, it would have been added to the article already. Please do not add unverified information to an article unless a source explicitly states that someone died. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry bout that, sometimes I still make assumptions based off of established facts, and no I am not just trying to say what I want to be the case, I just sometimes jump to conclusions about alot of things, like when I tried to say Cane Adiss's fate was unknown because the Databank says so, even though apparently manual of style rules are not to say *insert name here*'s fate is unknown even if an official source says that it is, and when I tried to add in the info that Endicott was at the superlaser just based on seeing him there ROTJ (which you later on indeed added to his page). By no means am I trying to influence the canon or think that I have control of the canon, that was more of a thing of the past during my days as an anon, but I still do make mistakes sometimes. :)Hanzo Hasashi 01:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, no worries. I just want to avoid rehatching old debates. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevar
Thanks for getting that Nevar spelling bit. You'd think 7 people looking at it would have caught it. :P Kudos for having that knack for finding little bits of missing stuff in these CCG articles. :) Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Insider 83
Hey, Hanzo. Do you still have Star Wars Insider 83? Where exactly does it mention R3-O1? Thanks for any help, ~ SavageBob 03:21, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I asked another user to check for me, and he said he didn't find any mention, so it must have been a mistake by the Yodapedia people. I appreciate your help! ~ SavageBob 23:51, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Re: May CAN
Hi, I misremembered. This wasn't a CT, just a discussion on SH, here: Forum:SH Archive/Request for comments: Apparently human characters. It wasn't put on CT, but was accepted by many expirienced users. Common sense rules! I won't object your nomination. I hope an Educorps member will join the discussion soon. Darth Morrt 03:33, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Re: My CAN objections
Done. However, could you, in the future, wait a week before you remind me? I tend to check the nomination pages regularly. :) Cheers. 1358  (Talk) 20:16, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Davod Jon
Struck. Thanks for reminding me; I completely forgot about that. Cheers. 1358 (Talk)  18:52, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Stormtrooper species
Hey, Hanzo. I've been looking high and low for some source that names TIE pilots as Human, but so far no luck. There is this, from Star Wars: The Complete Visual Dictionary, p. 232: "Made up of clones, as well as human recruits, Imperial Stormtroopers are first-strike units sent into critical combat situations in support of both the Imperal Star Fleet and the Imperial Army." This might be a better reference for future stormtrooper articles, since the CSWE alludes to the Human species but doesn't outright say it. I'll let you know if I find anything on the TIE pilots, but I'm running out of places to look... (You could always start a Knowledge Bank thread on it, though; more people would see the question there.) ~ SavageBob 21:58, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, is there a way to cite the Complete Visual Dictionary? And should the articles I just added (RGA-972 and NT-311) be cited with Complete Visual Dictionary, or can I keep the CSWE citations I added earlier today? Hanzo Hasashi 02:23, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * You can just cite the CVD normally; there's no special template for it. As for whether you should keep the CSWE sources or change it, I'd say you can probably leave your older ones as they are, you should probably start using the CVD, and for the ones that are currently nominated, change to CVD only if you feel like it. :) ~ SavageBob 03:03, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Already done, thank you. And thanks for informing me about the Knowledge Bank, too. :) Hanzo Hasashi 04:29, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

DV-523
For the record, please do not come begging me for votes. I will get to the article eventually when I have time. 1358 (Talk)  19:23, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Archiving CAN's
Hey, Hanzo. Just a reminder to follow all of the instructions for archiving successful CA nominations. Go for it! Menkooroo 02:41, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, seems I spoke too soon. Seems like you have it well in hand. Sorry! Menkooroo 02:43, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the reminder anyhow. Hanzo Hasashi 02:45, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you got everything except this. I took care of it for ya, but definitely remember to update it next time. Also, be sure to add successful at the top of each archived nom page, so that it'll be uneditable and look like this. Menkooroo 04:42, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both. With the archived nomination pages, I knew I was missing that part, but couldn't figure out what to do. It did not help that I could not even view the sources of past ones. But I saw that you took care of those by the time I went back to those pages to attempt to archive them. Hanzo Hasashi 05:04, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add the revision numbers at the same time as the milestones. You are not in a hurry, so please follow proper procedure. 1358  (Talk)  19:32, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Self-archiving CANs
Hey, Hanzo. Again, I strongly recommend that you not archive your own noms to the CAN page. It's a conflict of interest in my opinion, since whoever archives a nom and either passes or fails it is supposed to also make sure that all objections have indeed been addressed. There is not a rule against self-passing and archiving, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. In short, there's no rush to get these entries off the page, so if you have a little patience, someone else will archive your successful noms for you. Sorry if this comes off as scolding; I really do appreciate the effort you put into your CA noms, and I'm glad you're so gung-ho about contributing. :) ~ SavageBob 22:20, March 9, 2011 (UTC)