User talk:R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2

Starkeiller, welcome!

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:
 * Internal pages:
 * Community Portal
 * Manual of Style
 * Online sources
 * Wookification
 * Things to do
 * Jundland Wastes Sandbox
 * External Wikipedia pages:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~. Four tildes produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Community Portal talk page or ask me on my Talk page. May the Force be with you! - Sikon 15:51, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC).....

Darth Venimis
I thought the source cited for Darth Venimis came from an official statement from Random House. Might I have been mislead? 173.51.117.61 19:58, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what has been officialy released: STAR WARS: DARTH PLAGUEIS mini-excerpt #1, STAR WARS: DARTH PLAGUEIS mini-excerpt #2, STAR WARS: DARTH PLAGUEIS mini-excerpt #3, STAR WARS: DARTH PLAGUEIS bonus mini-excerpt, Star Wars: Darth Plagueis unabridged audiobook excerpt, Star Wars: Darth Plagueis excerpt Nothing on "Darth Venimis." If you are aware of any other official sources, feel free to add them to the article. I haven't come across any, though. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 21:50, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Maul
Please do not engage others in edit wars in mainspace articles. Your edits in Darth Maul should be taken to the article's talk page if you feel that the information JRT2010 is adding into the article is incorrect. Keep it civil and polite and try to resolve this dispute without any unnecessary mannerisms. Thank you,  JangFett  (Talk) 20:11, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a 3-revert rule. I didn't violate it, and had no intention of doing so. I provided my sources, and vouched not to edit it out again. So what is the problem? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2	 21:40, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read the novel and Plagueis specifically told Sidious not to train Maul as a true Sith Lord because doing so violated the Rule of Two. By the way, Plagueis only wanted to end the cycle of "apprentice killing master" started by Bane and Zannah, but he still kept the number of Sith Lords at two, which he intended to do forever (pg. 252). Sidious assured Plagueis that Maul would only be trained as a weapon (assassin)&mdash;someone to do the dirty work without Plagueis or Sidious risking exposure (pgs. 250 - 251). Even Maul confirmed this when he thought to himself about his suspicions that Sidious was holding him back. He was worried that he wouldn't be able to carry on the Grand Plan in case Sidious died because he didn't have the right training (pg. 302). Hence, Maul was more of a dark acolyte or a secret apprentice than an actual Dark Lord of the Sith. Take Galen Marek for example. He was given Sith training, but we don't call him a Sith Lord because there were already two (e.g. Sidious and Vader); the Plagueis novel reveals that the same applied to Maul now. If you have anything that could counter my sources, then I'll drop the matter. If not, then "Dark Lord of the Sith" has to be taken out of the Maul article because based on the sources I've provided from the Plagueis novel, Darth Maul wasn't a true Sith Lord. JRT2010 14:41, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot point you to a specific page, for I only own an electronic copy of the novel, but I will point you to the final chapter, where Sidious explains to Plagueis that he tricked him and trained Maul as his Sith apprentice, the "true intermediary" of the Grand Plan. The original arrangement was, as you said, that he would not be trained as a Sith, but as an assassin to do the Sith dirty work, an assassin who was to know nothing of the Grand Plan, but the original arrangement was not honored by Sidious, who bestowed upon Maul the title of Dark Lord of the Sith, as is explicitly stated in Star Wars Journal Episode I : Darth Maul and mentioned in the article. The fact that there was an extra Dark Lord alive at the time does not in any way invalidate his Sith-hood, no more than it invalidates Plagueis's Sith-hood in the case of Venamis, if indeed Tenebrous bestowed the title upon him as well as upon Plagueis. Remember that The Tenebrous Way reveals that Tenebrous never really trained Plagueis. They just violated the Rule of Two, like most of the Sith it applied to, as the novel reveals. -- R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 15:38, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * You make some good points, but there's still one problem: Darth Venemis admitted that he wasn't a true Sith Lord, despite his training and the "Darth" title. When he confronted Plagueis, he said, "Your death will legitimize the title". He confessed that he wasn't a true Dark Lord of the Sith because the role of master and apprentice had already been filled by Tenebrous and Plagueis. Also, you have to consider the fact that Star Wars Journal Episode I : Darth Maul is an older source, written long before the plot was created for the Plagueis novel. My understanding of the situation is that the Plagueis book reveals that Maul was only led to believe that he was a Dark Lord of the Sith; he never knew that Sidious still had a master. What's more, I've read the whole book, including the last chapter, and no where does Sidious specifically refer to Maul as a "true" Sith Lord. He simply says he'll continue to use him as an assassin; someone who'll take all the risks that Sidious couldn't afford to take. But if the Maul article still refers to him as a "Dark Lord", then it should at least be clear that he wasn't a Dark Lord under the Rule of Two. Neither was Venemis since, as I said before, he admitted to his own illegitimacy. JRT2010 22:40, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * That he was a Dark Lord in violation of the Rule of Two should, of course, be mentioned (which is very interesting when we consider that the Rule of Two was first mentioned in reference to Maul), but the older sources identifying him as a Dark Lord of the Sith should not be discarded, since there are no contradictions. I believe no source mentions Galen Marek as a Dark Lord of the Sith, and the Venamis situation is yet unclear, so the cases are not really comparable. Whether Maul is a "true" Sith Lord or a Sith Lord in name only is a conversational topic; his right to go by the title of Dark Lord of the Sith is, on the other hand, of encyclopedic importance. Remember that the only authority in the Sith world are the Sith themselves; there is none to impose the Rule of Two other than the two it refers to, so, if you think about it, to ask them not to violate is like telling a child not to eat off the cookie jar you have placed on its bedstand. Sidious chose to violate it, and indeed he violated it by training Maul as a Sith and making him a Dark Lord and a Darth. Perhaps Tenebrous violated it with Venamis, perhaps not. Again, if we go down the "Bane purist" path, per The Tenebrous Way, Darth Maul has a far more solid claim on true Sith-hood than Plagueis ever did. -- R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 23:09, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether Maul had more claim to being a Sith Lord than Plagueis is debatable. In terms of power and knowledge, however, definitely not. The fact that he was the apprentice of an apprentice does not help his case if we look at it in the "Bane purist" sense. But as for the Dark Lord stuff, I have no further objections, as long as it's made clear that Maul was not a Dark Lord in accordance with the Rule of Two. JRT2010 23:35, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, although I think that the correct phrasing would be: "Maul was a Dark Lord in violation of the Rule of Two." -- R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 10:34, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Wookieepedian of note
Just curious as to what contribution to Star Wars canon you have made.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 03:29, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I was one of the co-authors of the backstory for Olana Chion and Silya Shessaun through What's the Story. Now that was fun. But alas, Lucasfilm's SW policy has changed since then, and a visit to SW.com will make it clear to anyone that the devoted SW geek is no longer a priority for the company. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 12:54, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't realize that Hyperspace was discontinued. I took it for granted that it was a part of what being a Star Wars fan was all about. I wish I signed up when I had the opportunity to do so some time ago. Going to a university doesn't exactly lend itself to maintaining hobbies that require expense.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 15:17, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, What's the Story alone was worth the price of Hyperspace. The whole Ep. III era was a great time for the Star Wars community. Sadly, Hyperspace is now gone, and gone unsung at that. Going back to SW.com is depressing; all the content us gone, replaced with flashy Flash effects with big letters and pictures that pre-schoolers can understand. And I can't even log into my account. Company policy has apparently changed a lot since then, and all I see is: target the kiddies. I guess this site, for all its constipatory shortcomings, is a ray of SW geek sunshine, isn't it? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 15:36, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified Muun youngling
Hi, please note that is generally frowned upon to make large changes to an article that has been nominated for, in this case, Comprehensive article status. If you think changes should be made to the article, then the proper thing to do would be to raise objections on the nomination page. Thanks,  nayayen ★talk  22:41, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the info. I didn't know. But what exactly constitutes large changes? I didn't move around any paragraphs or so, only corrected mistakes (we don't know whether he was from Muunlinst, and the article claimed he was, the Damask residence linked was a different house, and I changed a few words that were repeated too close to one another). --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 22:53, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am OK with the changing, so thanks for clarifying things. 501st Dogma Republic_emblem.png( Comlink ) 22:55, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I was only making corrections, yes, a few stylistic ones, but basically I saw errors and that's why I hit the edit button. I didn't even notice the tag. I appreciate you walking me through the bureaucracy, Nayayen, I'd just like to know if my changes were considered "major." --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 23:00, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the diff link I posted must change with subsequent edits, I was referring to these changes where you added a whole new paragraph at the start which almost entirely rewrote the first few sentences. Small changes like grammatical fixes in a copyedit and correcting links are fine, but anything more should really be raised as an objection to the nomination. That being said, 501st Dogma is fine with the changes and it isn't immediately obvious at first that raising an objection first is the best thing to do, so there's no harm done really. Just keep it in mind for the future =)  nayayen ★talk  23:10, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I will. But again, my changes were corrective in nature, not stylistic. I removed the Muunilinst info, which was unsupported by the source material, and added a timeline placement in its place, with a supportive note. Then I just separated the paragraphs to let the text breathe. That's why I rewrote the first sentence, because there was nothing in the published source to support it, it was in error. I'd like to know, in a different case than this, even if I know a particular detail to be in error, does etiquette still demand that I not take outright action? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 23:30, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * For regular articles, there is no issue. However, with Featured Article, Comprehensive Article, or Good Article Nominations, it is a bit different. Most single-instance punctuation or grammatical fixes&mdash;or even a minor edit to fix a cited source or template use, etc.&mdash;are considered okay and called "sofixits," a term that is even put into the edit summary of the fix. However, fundamental changes to all or part of an nominated article&mdash;when the nominator who will receive credit for making sure the article meets the criteria set for FANs, CANs, or GANs&mdash;is generally considered intrusive. Reaction varies with the individual&mdash;I am usually okay with additional help, and apparently 501st Dogma is, too. Just be aware that not everyone is and, in fact, most are not.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 05:03, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * That I understand. But my question was about corrections: I stepped in because there were errors in the article. Are editors not supposed to take immediate action beyond "sofixits" even when there are errors? If, for example, we had a Featured Article on Napoleon that claimed that he was from Sardinia, not Corsica, should I not step in with a patent disregard for whatever restriction? Of course, I offer this merely as an example. The errors in the article in question were, unlike the Sardinian Napoleon, minor, as, I maintain, were my corrections. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 12:19, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Gethralkin summed it up quite well. Leaving an objection means that the nominator can handle the changes in the way that they'd prefer and, if necessary, can explain why they might disagree with such changes. Personally, if it were my nomination, I'd rather you didn't "step in with a patent disregard for whatever restriction". If explicit factual corrections need to be made, you should point them out to the nominator as the onus is on them to correct them. Saying to the nominator, "How very encyclopedic to assume. Let me help." and proceeding to make a correction which the nominator had previously reverted is not how to handle it.  nayayen ★talk  14:48, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Then I shall not be worrying about the quality of this website's articles from this point forward. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 15:08, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there is a misunderstanding concerning noms, here. There is only a limited time for the nom to pass or fail. The nominator gets the privilege of adding the credit of passing a nom. If a nom fails, then it means that the editor that nominated it did not meet the objections and bring the article up to the quality needed to pass. Voters making objections actually help establish standards that go on record (and are archived), whereas making sofixits without comment do not receive the same dignity. In this way the nominations and their objections actually improve the standards of other articles written. Does that make sense?  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 22:36, March 8, 2012 (UTC)