User talk:Gethralkin

 Find archived discussions here: 1 2

Re: Battle of Patitite Pattuna GAN
I'm waiting for a resolution for the discussion on Talk:88th Flight to see what to do. I'm of Cade's opinion that we need to have explicit confirmation that they appear in the episodes listed, so if and when that is supplied, I'll gladly add it to the battle article.  CC7567  (talk) 19:05, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Gethralkin, I am well aware of the ongoing discussion on the 88th Flight talk page. Please keep it there.  CC7567  (talk) 05:23, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Images of based on real people
I don't understand why you've removed a category I created only to re-add it to the same images. Huh? Jartka&#39;irn (talk) 10:42, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you have removed your Talk Page discussions, I will answer this question here. It is obvious that the category belongs there, which is why I replaced it directly after I accidently removed it. Nuff Sed. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 14:41, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Ewoks
I'm sorry for trying to expand the wiki but what is the point if we cannont add pages. Why did they have to be deleted. Just because they didn't have a name? Creating the page now saves having to search through endless unattributed images later when the character is finally named. Should not all characters that appeared in the films have a page? I suppose we should go an delete all the the other unidentified character pages (such as the unidentifed woklings - pages I did not create mind you) until there are no pages left on this wiki? Having a page with visual images and what little info we have on such characters plus the time they appeared in the movies would allow others to gather more info on these characters than if these pages did not exist at all. Jartka&#39;irn (talk) 10:47, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion is hard to follow without searching your archives, I will answer your post here. You created several characters that have very little notable context in the body of their articles. In fact, the articles' texts each have/had no more than one sentence to describe. This is contrary to the policy of notability that this wiki has. Additionally, you have not given any of them the attribution that they deserve. I explained all of this in the edit summaries. In one of them, in which you did finally follow proper procedure and discuss the reasons for keeping the article on the Talk Page, I elaborated on the reasons. Some agree, some don't. If it comes down to a consensus that the article should remain, then it will remain. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 14:46, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Re: Warning
Its not my opinion its just common sense. Regardless all you've managed to teach me is not to 'god forbid' edit any of the pages on your watchlist. Thanks Jartka&#39;irn (talk) 11:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense or not, re-reverting is very much frowned on here... especially if you do not even bother to open up a discussion on the talk page challenging the revert. If you follow proper procedure, you shouldn't have very many problems. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 14:48, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Notability
They can't get more notable than in the films. They're the highest level on canon we have and I remind you that using "Unidentified" to attribute names to characters that have yet to be given an official name is quite acceptable as seen Naming_policy here. Notability issues refer to fanon (see Notability_of_fan_projects here not official sources such as the films. So once again I do not understand your motivation to add the delete tag. Jartka&#39;irn (talk) 11:26, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I am answering here because you are hiding your Talk Pages. The problem is not that they are not named, but their significance compared to the events in the film/novel/game/etc. that makes them individual. If they are just on of the background characters, then they are part of a collective and not individual. Anything created by an editor that is not specifically identified by the canon is fanon. So making assumptions about, say whether a wokling is ugly or an Ewok looks sick or the accessory on an Ewok is a holster or a hat on an Ewok is from a chicken, then you need to have attributable proof to support it. Otherwise it's fanon. As for one case, I took the time to research and found an attributable source to verify that one of the Ewoks did indeed have a blaster with a holster, and the article was edited to reflect that. I have had many article that I worked on reverted because I did not have an attributable source to verify the claims made by the information I put in. It is how it is here, and I believe that it is a good thing. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 14:58, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

The last straw
How contrite. As you did not address anything I previously posted on your talk pages, just stop. This conversation is ended. Jartka&#39;irn (talk) 06:40, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to be getting the message. I do not want any further contact from you. Walks away from computer... Jartka&#39;irn (talk) 06:43, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * As to responding to your comments, please refer to the caveat above which informs every visitor to my pages that my answers to User talk page comments will not be immediate. Especially if you just "edit" my talk page without clicking "Leave Message," preventing me from receiving notification of a new message. Just so you know, the proper way to leave a comment on a user's talk page is to click "Leave Message" at the top of the page. This not only let's the user know that a comment has been left, but also prevents your message from being attached to a previous commentator's posts. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 15:12, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Re: A certain user
Currently, the matter is being discussed on IRC. Once we reach a consensus, then things will be dealt with. Technically, he hasn't necessarily done anything wrong. Annoying, yes, but he is archiving his talk page, which is acceptable. It doesn't make the matter go away, though. If this devolves into a petty edit-war, though, I or another admin will do something. Until then, we're watching the situation.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 07:26, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Just a tip: Accusing people of sockpuppetry is not really a good idea unless you have a proof. The talk page matter has already been investigated. 1358 (Talk)  12:29, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

A certain user, part 2
These passed couple weeks have ended with the blocking of a certain user, due to his active vandalism for the sole purpose of being blocked. He had finally gotten his wish, though, the matter is not settled, as there are two sides to this whole thing, and I am now addressing your side.

First and foremost, your attitude is toeing the line of acceptability. Take care to keep your IRL attitude from becoming your Wook attitude, else you'll end up in the same situation as the aforementioned user. When he asked you to leave him alone (prior to his active vandalism), you continued to bother him. If you are having a problem with a user, please get the administration involved. We were watching the situation, and aside from his talk page archiving, he was not doing anything legitimately wrong. That doesn't mean that you should take matters into your own hands and essentially egg him into misbehaving. At that point, you were antagonizing him and it would have been best if you let the matter be.

Outright accusing that user of sock-puppetry was a bad move, particularly if you didn't have evidence on hand to support it. Not every admin can check for socks. Please avoid taking that route with other users in the future, unless, and only if you have evidence to present up front. And even then... go to an administrator first.

I understand that you are quite protective of the PocketModels. I have a few subjects on here that I am protective of, too. But, please avoid letting those projects cloud your judgement. So, a user doesn't quite believe that you had a hand in the PocketModels. Hey, for the record, I'm still shocked over the fact that Topps had shown an interest in my portfolio. Granted, the process is still ongoing, but I'm still trying to believe it. After everything is all said and done, I'll be as protective over the sketch cards line as you are over the PokcetModels. But, that should not cloud our judgement.

In short, please be mindful of your attitude and try to avoid edit-stalking users. If users are making mistakes, please correct those edits and alert the administration to their behavior. If users ask you to leave them alone after you had said your piece, please do so (unless they are actively vandalizing). Correct any erroneous edits, but avoid antagonizing them either through talk page messages or edit summaries. Thank you.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 02:35, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

"Bazookaman"
Thanks for pointing it out, I will keep it in mind. But did you correct those pages where the link was put (eg. Revival)? --XXLVenom998 (talk) 07:37, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL it was me who corrected the links, just after I wrote the message to you. But no problem. Everything's fine now don't worry. --XXLVenom998 (talk) 16:55, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Friends nominations
Hi, you were wondering if people even pay attention to Official Friends of Wookieepedia/Nominations. My experience is that without a bit of legwork it will be left without attention. So perhaps try again a bit later and make sure people are aware that there's some voting that really is worth paying attention for. (: – Tm_T@Wookieepedia:&#126;$ 05:10, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I was under the impression that nominations are voted on by any who follow the page and that inviting editors to vote on it is looked down on as campaigning. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 15:04, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Re: CAN to GAN
I'd be happy to archive it for you, though anyone is allowed to archive CANs. It's rather simple really, as there is an archive checklist that is linked at the top of the CAN page, which gives you step by step instructions on how to do it. Let me know if you want me to archive it, or if you are going to do it yourself. 501st dogma ( talk ) 22:03, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it looks like Menk got to it. 501st  dogma ( talk ) 01:09, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Hey, I wanna wish you a happy new year! :) --XXLVenom998 (talk) 10:50, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 17:14, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Re: X-wing Miniatures Game source template usage (fixed)
Nice work, but there's a problem with the template. When I click the link I get a 403 error page with Access Forbidden. - Sir Cavalier of One ( Squadron channel ) 14:35, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Adminship
Thanks, Geth. :)  JangFett  (Talk) 19:57, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Proton Torpedo Launchers
Hi.

Question about the Mobile Proton Torpedo Launchers (Great job expanding the articles, BTW): Which variety was used to ambush the Blizzard 1 in the Zaloriis Battle in Galactic Battlegrounds (ie, regular or heavy?), and when are they used during the events of Galactic Battlegrounds (I know they are most likely used during the Empire, Rebel, and Wookiee campaigns, but that's about it, and by "when are they used," I mean in which missions?)? We need to expand the history sections of both variants' articles to make sure its up to date. That probably includes the Empire of War games as well (although that only being the case for the enemies, obviously). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:02, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Lists
Generally lists are frowned upon and should be avoided. Recently, it's been a common procedure to remove lists onsite. As for the information from infoboxes, you may jot them down in detail (as in sentences) in the body of the article.  JangFett  (Talk) 00:49, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that he only reverted you once, which is technically not an edit war. Basically he wasn't the first to remove a rather large list; others have removed even larger lists than that. While it's true that they could remake the list into a paragraph or two, it's not a necessity. I thank you for turning the list into sentences, though.  JangFett  (Talk) 01:14, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

R5-K6
Cheers! The X-wing Miniatures image was a cropped version of the Card Game one which had a wider shot of the image. - Sir Cavalier of One ( Squadron channel ) 10:25, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello. Please be mindful of accusing people of committing vandalism in your edit summaries. A good-natured, yet contested edit should not be considered vandalism, and one starts to get into some murky waters when that word gets thrown around too liberally. Try to assume good faith and take any content issues to a discussion. Thanks. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:10, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration. Please also understand that one cannot violate consensus if a consensus does not exist. Making a unilateral change to a template, for example, is not a violation of consensus, no matter how controversial the edit may be. In this case, there is no current consensus regarding the treatment of this contested template, so a user is free to amend the template as they see fit, as long as the edits made do not descend into obvious vandalism. One is also not required to seek a consensus to make significant change to the wiki. This falls under Be bold in updating pages. When a certain change becomes controversial, as is the case with this template, then it is strongly recommended that the feuding parties seek resolution through the Consensus track or the Senate Hall to avoid disruptive edit warring. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:40, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * On the CT page, find the text box next to the "Add new topic" button. Insert text for your desired name for the title of the forum, and it will take you to an editing page. Simply lay out your proposal in an intro paragraph and then create voting options. For example: ==Voting==

Comments
Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:09, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:25, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:36, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Deddite
I tagged Deddite with a verify tag because it had no appearances or sources section. If you add either, feel free to remove it. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:00, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed it had a notes and references section, but it needs an appearances or sources section as well. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:07, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * The Verify tag is hardly "useless"; it states precisely what the article is lacking: "This article does not have a list of sources or appearances and therefore is pending source verification as possible fanon." I've added the Appearance list for you. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  03:14, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * For posterity, I am stating here that while the template is on a page, making changes to the article someone else is editing is discourteous. Additionally, and relevant to this topic, the Wookieepedia's sourcing guidelines confirm that verifiability of canonicity is in the "Notes and references" section where such source citations are listed. Please take this into consideration before arbitrarily popping in Fanon templates. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave  04:06, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the Layout Guide, an Appearances and/or Sources list is required in every in-universe article. I'll look into making this more clear in the Verify template, so as to avoid such a disagreement in the future. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  04:26, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that. I also agree that the Appearances and Sources section must also be listed, however, I will also keep in mind that it is not always apparent to others that one is in the middle of editing, and will therefore use the Inuse template when creating articles. Forgive my frustration over this ordeal, but trying to create just two articles used more of my time than was necessary and the results would have been the same. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 04:29, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Unilateral Changes
I was quite surprised to receive a message about making changes which were marked as vandalism (especially since it doesn't match any of the criteria on Vandalism). They were most certainly done in good faith and I'm glad that eventually you realized that and corrected yourself. I had waited several days for further discussion on the talk page for Template:FFGStarWars and, seeing no further comment, I decided (apparently wrongly) that it was time to be bold and make the changes. Since it was not the time, I'd like to know what needs to be done in order to determine whether or not we're ready to make the changes. We can further discuss this on the talk page.-Thunderforge (talk) 18:58, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Moving Templates
I know that you mean well, but I think you are in the minority opinion about my actions on moving templates. When splitting the Fantasy Flight Games templates, several others indicated that me splitting the templates was an appropriate use of being bold. Changing the Galaxy Guide template a few days ago seemed to me to be a similar level of being bold, given that it was an obscure template and most of the pages had not been edited in some time. If I were wanting to move a high profile, widely used template, I would most certainly use a consensus track.

To be sure that moving Template:GG to Template:Galaxy Guides was okay, I went onto the Wookieepedia IRC and asked if it was alright to move it, with me eliminating the redirect on the pages that it was linked to. Three different people indicated that it was okay, so I went ahead and did it.

You mentioned that there are clear naming conventions and linked to this page. This recent senate hall discussion says that there is no policy for template naming, so it wouldn't normally apply, but even if it did, my change to Template:Galaxy Guides follows those guidelines (be precise, spell out words instead of abbreviating).

Again, I know you mean well, but I think you are in the minority opinion. I've done my research and asked others on IRC before making changes. You'll note that I even put my thoughts on the talk page of two of the Fantasy Flight templates before making any changes (and that's just about the extent of my plans for changing templates, by the way). It seems that you are the only one who has issues with what I am doing and, unless further guidelines are written or others tell me that they disagree with what I'm doing, I kindly ask that you let me continue editing. -Thunderforge (talk) 06:36, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not misinterpret my words. I have no malevolent intent and do not wish to subvert the will of the community. Like I said, I went on IRC before changing the name of the Galaxy Guides template in order to ensure that I did have the will of the community. I expected some discussion to be generated on the Fantasy Flight templates, so I posted on the talk pages to ensure that interested parties were okay with me making the changes.
 * Furthermore, I have no intent to mislead anyone. I asked the users on the Senate Hall what the policy was for renaming templates and had no intent to mislead anyone, just to have the question answered at face value. When I made the comment that I believed a consensus track discussion was not necessary, I meant exactly what I said at face value: it was my understanding that this was not an edit that was meriting a consensus track discussion among the entire community, just discussion among those who frequently edit it.
 * I feel that your comments are beginning to become personal attacks against me. If you disagree with my changes or my ideas posted on a talk page, calmly talk about what I have done and the reasons for which you disagree with them. Please assume that I am acting under my best understanding of Wookieepedia's policies, that I have no intent to subvert or deceive the community, and that I am acting to improve Wookieepedia. -Thunderforge (talk) 07:32, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * In the hopes of not having our disagreement escalate any further, I took a look at Dispute resolution to best understand the recommended ways to diffuse disputes. I think the best thing for us to do is to both step away from these disagreements for a few days, then calmly work out our differing views on our talk pages, both for the templates in question and for how we believe general template editing should work on Wookieepedia. It's my hope that we can find a mutually agreeable solution to this dispute. You've done a lot of great work on the Fantasy Flight Games articles and templates and I hope that we can both work together to improve them. -Thunderforge (talk) 07:58, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer your question on your talk page, I did feel that I was being personally attacked, even though you (hopefully) didn't mean it. For instance "I see now why you suggested that I not bring it up for a consensus" made me feel as though you were accusing me of an ulterior motive, rather than assuming that I was editing in good faith. "This matter will be made public and the community will have a say" made me feel as though you were going try to turn the community against me. I felt that my moving of the Galaxy Guide templates was unrelated to my Senate Hall question and I felt like you were trying to make others believe I was deceiving them, again to turn the community against me.
 * I apologize for anything unkind I said from believing that these were personal attacks; I just wanted to let you know why I felt that way. I'll assume at this point forward that you did not mean to make any personal attacks and that was an unfortunate pairing of misinterpreted words and strong feelings about this matter. I hope that you'll feel the same way about my comments. Now, please let us put this matter aside for a few days and return to it another time. -Thunderforge (talk) 08:43, July 14, 2013 (UTC)