User talk:Jack Nebulax

Jack Nebulax, -- Riffsyphon1024 00:07, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Second Battle of Coruscant
Why did you change my pics? It all wrong now! The battle in sector four has nothing to do with teh capture of Palatine!!! Themelle444 20:16, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I simply moved them because they screwed up the text. While it has nothing to do with the capture of Palpatine, it looks better there. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:19, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * If it screwed up the text (wich it didn't) just adjust the "px" so it looks better!!! Themelle444 20:24, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, first: Chill out. Second: It did screw up the text, so leave it alone. It's perfectly fine the way I have it. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:27, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please don't mark controversial changes as minor. Changes should be marked as minor only if they can be safely skipped when viewing edit history, like spelling corrections. Thank you. - Sikon 01:23, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Source for info on OOM-9
Could you please provide a source for the information presented in the second paragraph of OOM-9's article? Thank you. – Aidje talk 05:06, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly what I found, but what it said for on the CIS page on Wikipedia. In the section under the Key Members section, it says: "General OOM-9: General of the Trade Federation Army up until the Battle of Hypori" or something like that. So, since I thought that was true information, I added it to OOM-9's page. If that is not actual information, however, I'll gladly remove it. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:34, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wookieepedia. It would probably be best to remove this information until it is verified by an official source. – Aidje talk 20:09, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears that that information was taken off the CIS page so you might as well remove it from OOM-9s section Unit121 8 Sep 2005
 * Information removed, forgot to notify everyone here. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:41, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Basilisk War Droid
Why did you revert the BWD back to it's original, un-detailed version. My information was accurate, coming from the Essential Guide to Droids and the Mandalorian history article in Insider 80.If it was not written to your likely, I would have been happy for you to clean it up in your way. However the information I had was accurate.--Darth Nuke 16:49, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * It just sounded a little, how should I say this, "different". I myself don't have the Essential Guide to Droids, but when I saw that, it just seemed a little fan-made or exaggerated to me. Usually, what I do here is look at articles and if some material doesn't make sense to me, I remove it until a source is stated. However, if this is, as you say, official information, then I apologize for reverting it. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:19, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but the info is indeed offical and from the Mandalorian History Article and the EGTDs.--Darth Nuke 01:04, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Dark Side, dark side
Check Star Wars talk:Community Portal/Sides of the Force and Star Wars:Manual of Style -- the rest of the wiki appears to have decided to use "dark side" rather than "Dark Side". Cheers, &mdash; Silly Dan  23:02, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * That's just stupid, though. You don't say "jedi knights" or "dark jedi", you say Jedi Knights and Dark Jedi. Therefore, the sides of the Force should be the same. It should be Dark Side and Light Side. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:48, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It *is* stupid - I totally think it should be capitalized. But that's not the way Lucasfilm does it, so it's not the way that we do it.  jSarek 02:54, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Buzz Droid
I would just like to thank you for helping me flesh out the Buzz Droid page, I figured the cute little droids needed more info and wanted to take a stab at it, I do have 1 question, why did you remove the picture of the droid folded up into a ball, granted it was a picture of the toy but it also looked that way in the movie as well? --sithlord123 17:34, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) I'll see if I can find a movie picture of a Buzz Droid, was/is it against Star Wars Wiki rules to use Toy pictures?--sithlord123 11:07, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, because it was the toy. However, if you could find a picture of it in "ball" formation from the movie, you could put that in. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 18:17, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's against the rules, it's just preferred that better images than toys be used when possible (and it's not always possible; see All Terrain-Ion Cannon for an example). jSarek 11:13, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm mad, as I said Thank you for you help but what's with the quote erasing? other pages have them Leia has a quote from Yoda "There is another..." I was trying to base the Buzz Droid on that page since it's a featured article, or are Droid templates not treated as flesh and blood templates?--sithlord123 11:46, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * What quote? I don't ever recall seeing a quote on the buzz droid page. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:33, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

sorry I thought it was you that removed it it was Anakin's quote "I see them . . . Buzz Droids." --sithlord123 21:26, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Star Destroyer subclasses
Please go to the Imperial-class Star Destroyer discussion page. I disagree with your claim that the classes are Imperial I and Imperial II since that would imply two separate classes of ship, whereas the Mark I and Mark II designations imply two subclasses of the same class (i.e. Imperial-class).--SOCL 12:30, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, "Imperial I" is "Imperial-class Star Destroyer, Mark I" in a shortened form. Also, it's the same for "Victory I" and "Victory II". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:41, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

From SOCL to Jack Nebulax
Hey, I'm not sure if you have a personal grudge or problem with me, but it sure would be nice to know what I did to tick you off so much (if I did). I might be misreading you, but you seemed rather hostile to me in two of the discussion pages. If there is a problem, let me know, would you?--SOCL 23:23, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC) Oh, okay. Well, allow me to extend a heartfelt apology for reacting rather badly to what I perceieved as being a hostile comment.--SOCL 16:11, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no problem, SOCL. I'm actually enjoying our discussions on the Talk:Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet page. As for the Talk:Imperial-class Star Destroyer page, I was just trying to tell you that it is in fact called Imperial I and Imperial II-classes. There's no grudge or anything. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:33, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Things get a little tense here. Sometimes people take things way too seriously. I've done it before. But seriously, don't worry about it. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 17:32, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right about that. I never thought debates over Star Wars could get as bad as political debates.--SOCL 17:48, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * If you thought this was bad, you'd better check out the Battlefront II Talk page. When all of that was going on, we had to lock up the page a few times to prevent people from changing stuff during the page's edit war. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 17:50, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Refering to ships
Hey Jack. Regarding your changes to Mon Mothma (starship), our Manual of Style outlines that the definite article "the" is not used before the name of the ship. Thus "Mon Mothma was a starship" is correct; "the Mon Mothma was a starship" is incorrect. I hope that clarifies that for you. --SparqMan 20:17, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'm just used to referring to ships as "the (ship name)". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:18, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Rookie One
Just wanted to ask where do you know from that Rookie One piloted a Spearhead during the Battle of Yavin MoffRebus 01:39, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen it in many places. There were two Spearheads in the battle, one piloted by Rookie One and the other piloted by Jake Farrell. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:34, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the deal; we see them fly A-wing-shaped craft at the Battle of Yavin. However, we know that the A-wing wasn't developed until AFTER Yavin (Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, other sources), that the R-22 Spearhead was the look-alike ship that the A-wing was developed from (New Essential Guide to Characters, and that Yavin Base was equipped with several of them (Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy).  Thus, Rookie One had to have been flying a Spearhead. Q.E.D. jSarek 06:54, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the R-22 Spearhead was the pre-A-wing A-wing. Plus, the Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy clearly show two R-22 Spearheads that would later be flown by Farrell and Rookie One. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:50, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I know we see 2 A-Wings and the one belongs to Farrell, but how we know that the other one is Rookie's? He is flying an X-Wing in the game and Blue Squadron had more pilots than Farrell and Rookie. The second A-Wing could be anyone's. Who tells us it's Rookie One and not Ru Murleen? MoffRebus 23:56, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said before, not everything in the games are true. Of course Blue Squadron has more pilots than those two. Blue and Green Squadrons were a mix of fighters at Yavin. There are plenty of sources showing that it was Rookie One's. Just go out and find one. You'll see. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:34, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, such as? I can't think of a single source mentioning Rookie One by name other than the Rebel Assault games themselves, let alone what ship he was flying. jSarek 07:15, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. I know that R.A. is S-canon but who says that Rookie flew Spearhead and not X-Wing (as shown in the game) or Y-wing? Who tells us it's Rookie and not anyone else? Who tells us the second Spearhead must belong to the Blue Squadron? 'Just go out and find one source' isn't helping much. MoffRebus 10:03, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, MoffRebus, I know there are sources, because I wasn't the one that put in here on Star Wars Wikipedia. So, why are you asking me? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:39, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the 'History' of the article, it was you that made the change X-Wing > A-Wing. If it wasn't you I don't know who did it and what sources did he have? Anyway.. Truth will be revealed. MoffRebus 22:41, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably my brother. He's on a lot under my name. But I remember seeing a source for that, actually&mdash;I just can't remember where. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:02, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nested categories
Hey Jack Nebulax. For the clone commanders, there is no need to categorize them in the general Category:Old Republic characters because the category Category:Clone trooper commanders is sorted inside that category, making it redundant. --SparqMan 21:59, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC) They did, which is why Category:Clone trooper commanders is categorized under Category:Galactic Republic military officers. --SparqMan 23:30, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I just thought it would be better with the "Old Republic characters" category because they served the Republic. Oh well. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:01, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. Didn't realize that. I'll go fix it if it hasn't been done already. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:32, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Heavy trooper
Unfortunately, the reason I'm "screwing up" is to clarify how Battlefront II has screwed everything up. In the video game, they take the armor of Commander Bacara and standardize it for their so-called "heavy troopers". Heavy trooper is actually a nickname for ARCs because the are heavy'weapons commandos. And because the "heavy troopers" in Battlefront II take the armor of Bacara (leader of the Galactic Marines), to avoid confusion I have called the Battlefront II "heavy trooper" a "Galactic Marines heavy trooper".
 * Well, there's one thing wrong&mdash;it's the 501st Legion, not the Galactic Marines. Therefore, I had moved it to Clone heavy trooper to avoid confusion. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:44, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Heavy Trooper 2
There are no such things as "clone heavy troopers" other than the nickname for a ARC. And under clone heavy trooper I noticed you have stolen all my writing and pasted it there. At least write your own page about these troopers if you're goign to redirect my page. - Ty
 * What? The only reason I had all of your writing (some of which I had to fix, by the way) on that page is because it was NOT a Galactic Marines heavy trooper, but a clone heavy trooper. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:52, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Again I see you have taken my work. Please at least ask next time you tell me my information is wrong and then copy and paste it onto another page.
 * This is wiki: your work is not your own, it belongs to the community the moment you hit 'Save page.' – Aidje talk 08:08, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But I'm glad we finally worked something out&mdash;Galactic Marines Heavy Trooper is a candidate for speedy deletion, and clone heavy trooper has been fixed. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:37, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

May the Force be with you. Ty 13:12, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Death Star I
Andeson's books confirm that this was the prototype. Lucas would gladly accept it, seeing the excuse he gave. It was an offhand comment that he made, anyway. Adamwankenobi 13:06, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * So, it came from Lucas HIMSELF. He is the creator of Star Wars, not Anderson. Adamwankenobi, you can't admit that you're wrong. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:07, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I've made a compromise on the page. Explaining the different sources. See, I'm willing to be fair. Adamwankenobi 13:19, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That's better. Sometimes things get a little tense... All too many times... Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:20, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. Adamwankenobi 13:22, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap
You live in PA? I live in Bucks county--Xilentshadow900 21:15, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? I've been to Bucks county a few times myself. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:16, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't been here long, just since february.--Xilentshadow900 21:19, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, I'm in Cumberland county. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:21, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * About all our arguments- I'm sorry that I've been kid of edgy. or ridiculous. I think we can both agree that we're two star wars fans trying to do what's best for the site. --Xilentshadow900 21:23, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize as well. We seem to have a lot more in common now. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:09, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * We can drink to it at the newly enhanced Battle of Ithor page.--Xilentshadow900 00:30, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:31, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you--Xilentshadow900 00:33, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:34, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just bought that NJO three pack with the first three books. Now I need to buy agents of chaos. Have you read the NJO books?--Xilentshadow900 00:35, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Only the first three. I was about to read the fourth, but that's when The Joiner King came out. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:37, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * How come you didn't continue? I mean, doesn't skipping a few books leave you wondering what happens? Ever since 2003, I've been on a quest to read (most of) the star wars books after return of the jedi. I've read (in order): Shadows of the empire, The bounty hunter wars, Truce at bakura, The X-wing series, courtship of princess leia, the Thrawn crisis, I, Jedi (instead of the Jedi academy trilogy, which I heard was terrible), the hand of thrawn duology, and now, the NJO series, which i will finish in forever. A shame I hadn't heard of this website sooner, as its so much easier to document things while you're reading about them. I've taken it upon myself to write the articles of all the battles in the NJO series so the people who don't want to read it can keep up with it anyway and skip to the legacy era, and some awesome mandalorian action.--Xilentshadow900 00:42, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I myself at first didn't like the whole "extragalactic Yuuzhan Vong threat". I was hoping for more Imperial warlords. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:44, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I think its a great change, and, like Elegos A'kla i find the Yuuzhan vong characters to be fascinating. Just wait, you'll find my skeleton mailed to you with jewels in my eyes... But seriously, I was getting a bit tired of the imperial warlord business, especially after the x-wing series. But that's just me.--Xilentshadow900 00:48, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I myself actually liked the whole Elegos A'kla's skeleton deal and the Lambda shuttle covered in whatever that was. I could picture that in my mind, that is, the way the shuttle looked. That I liked. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:51, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That was pretty cool. The sad thing is, I could visualize the skeleton pretty well, and it was a sad moment for me, because I've read about elegos ever since Corran found him in I, Jedi. What a sad end to such a nice person. I'm looking forward to the siege of coruscant though, and the death of Borsk Fey'lya. I've been waiting for his death for years...--Xilentshadow900 00:55, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Those arrogant Bothans... Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:08, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove tags?
Why would you do this? They are quite useful. Please explain. --Azizlight 00:35, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no point to include those tags when we know that he appeared in those movies. All it does is add small text that says where he first appeared, which doesn't matter. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:37, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It's like when there was the pronunciations on certain pages. You don't need to know how to pronounce something when you're reading it, and you don't need to know their first appearances, either. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:38, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It IS useful information that many people DO want to know. It's nice to be able to look at a list of appearances and immediately be able to tell which was their first, or when their name was first identified. This is especially useful for the more obscure aspects of the saga. You did it to the Ailyn Vel article, and it was useful information there. I agree that it's probably not required for the Darth Vader page, but I was just doing that for the sake of consistency. --Azizlight 00:53, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal page to see what other Wookieepedians think. --Azizlight 01:56, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * My apologies, then. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:04, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * None required :-) And sorry if i sounded a bit rude earlier. It's just that I thought it was a great idea when i created it, and I got a bit upset when you deleted it straight away. Cheers :-) --Azizlight 12:40, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you didn't sound rude. I understand that you felt a little upset. The same kind of thing happens to me every so often, and not just here. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:42, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Just Checking
Someone with the UK-based BT ISP 86.128.153.190 edited what looks to me like inaccurate special-pleading into the Cygnus Spaceworks article in between your two edits. I've noticed a problem with similar stuff elsewhere, also from BT ISPs. I, um, hope this isn't you. Let me know before I report anonymous vandalism! --McEwok 23:16, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's not me. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:10, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --McEwok 00:11, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:11, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Plo Koon image
I can't figure out how to make a new section because I'm new here but I wanted to point out that your comment about my Plo Koon edit was rude. I was only trying to help. Something like "image doesn't fit site standards of quality" would have been much more appropriate. "Removed image that ruins the entire section." is harsher than is really necessary. Was the problem that it was a picture of an action figure or that the picture was not good enough? Be helpful not insulting. Also, I noticed your comment in the plo koon edit history right after I posted the image back up. (Feel free to edit this so it is in its own section. Sorry for my wiki incompetence.)--DannyBoy7783
 * Well, the thing is, it messes up the flow of the article. When saved, the text is stuck between both images in that section, and I had previewed it in other spots in that section, but it doesn't quite fit. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:54, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I thought it looked fine personally but I'll yield on this. The Jedi Power Battles picture makes the point well enough anyway. Thanks for the helpful comments. DannyBoy7783 13:01 EST, 10 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:30, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Just wanted to offer my thanks for your support on the issue of the Executrix debate. Quite frankly, I'm surprised there was a debate, given the evidence. And I'm really annoyed that I had to explain myself three times.

Once again, thanks.TIEPilot051999 21:53, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's what I'm here for. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:55, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Humans or humans

 * Admiral...

It SHOULD be Humans, but IS it? Every source I know has them as humans. --Master Starkeiller 18:45, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's a place where sources don't really matter. If it is a specific species, it should be capitalized. Example: Hutts, not hutts. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:47, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I think sources matter in this case too. I'm not a fan of the idea, but when the sources speak, what can we say? --Master Starkeiller 18:50, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that it appears like that, it really should be capitalized no matter what, and we all know that. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:53, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know... I'm inclined to trust the sources... --Master Starkeiller 18:55, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the sources were wrong? Admiral J. Nebulax 18:58, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I perfectly understand your position, but I still think that if they use it in all the books, we here should also. --Master Starkeiller 19:00, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * But Starkeiller, we know that Humans are a specific species. The only reason they are spelled with a lowercase "h" in the sources in because the authors didn't care about it. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:02, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I know, and I didn't say otherwise. I'm just saying that if they don't care about it, we shouldn't care about it as well. They define what's official, not we. Whatever the reasons, that's the way they write it. --Master Starkeiller 19:06, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * ...despite the fact that we know it's wrong&mdash;the reason why the "h" should be capitalized. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:09, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, despite the fact that we know it's wrong. Call it... uhm... blind obedience. --Master Starkeiller 19:11, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * So, do you think this matter is solved, Master Starkeiller? Or must we pointlessly debate when we know what is right here? Admiral J. Nebulax 19:13, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * — Silly Dan is scouring the sources. If most sources say human, that's what we'll use. If most sources say Human, that's what we'll use. There is no right or wrong. Only the sources. Actually, there is, but the sources take precedence. For example, that stupidity about the Universe being formed earlier than 13,5 billion years ago... We have to accept it. --Master Starkeiller 19:17, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I still say it should be Humans, no matter what. Please ask him to stop over here and view our dicussion. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:20, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, he isn't currently scouring the sources. I recon he'll be back tomorrow with the results. When he does, I'll direct him here. But he's looking for a source that capitalizes the word so we can have an excuse for capitalizing it here. If he finds one, I'm with you. If not, I think we should keep it in lowercase. I have a source, but it's in Greek (Anthropos instead of anthropos) and I can't know if it was capitilized in the originial version. --Master Starkeiller 19:22, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, then. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:24, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:28, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * The statement that I would check the souces tomorrow was only true from a certain point of view. 8) Watch Talk:Human for my findings.  &mdash; Silly Dan  17:55, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

My page
If you would be so kind as to move the "info" box on my page under the box with the black bar across the top on the right I'd be most grateful. I'm having a hard time. --DannyBoy7783 21:11, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's possible. It just happens. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:02, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

501st Legion
Why did you deleted my references to 501st battles on Mygeeto, Felucia and Utapau?
 * It's not needed at all. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:07, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Emperor Palpatine "self-declared" emperor
Emperor Palpatine not only declared himself emperor before the Galactic Senate, but also anointed himself emperor in the aforementioned bodie's presence. This change in diction is more revealing, but should be considered a minor edit/improvement not to be debated. Why is that it seems you revert any contribution I make? --24.253.120.206 1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to. 2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration. 3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention. Palpatine was never anointed so self appointed fits perfectly.--DannyBoy7783 03:45, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it would be better another way. Nontheless, "self-declared" is much better than "self-anointed". Admiral J. Nebulax 21:13, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, Jack and Unnamed-Series of-Numbers. What about self-appointed? One can be appointed to a government position (Palpatine did so for others many a time). Can it not be said that he appointed himself to the position of Emperor, and the lapdog Senate approved? Or not. I just thought I'd toss it out. I happen to like self-declared better, since most Star Wars material I've read since childhood phrased it in terms very similar - or exactly like - that. But it really won't sink the article either way. Erik Pflueger 21:19, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I have "self-declared/self-anointed". But I'd gladly go for "self-appointed" if this user agrees. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:21, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * An anointment is a more specific type of declaration, one by ritual. The ritualistic nature is appealing. While my edits are first class, I will agree with "self-appointed". --24.253.120.206
 * I will go add "self-appointed" now. At least this was solved. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:29, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Blessed is the peacemaker... ;) Erik Pflueger 02:14, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to stir up any trouble and I know this has been resolved. I'm simply commenting that appointed makes more sense. a·noint tr.v. a·noint·ed, a·noint·ing, a·noints
 * Or "self-declared", as I had said. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:12, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Or that too :)--DannyBoy7783 14:13, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Premiere Limited and other SWCCG set names

 * We've only recently had articles for the various sets made, which is why few articles link to them yet. I've been making an effort to add them in when I come across articles that need them, but haven't made a comprehensive effort to get the ones I *haven't* come across, hence the lack of set names in some articles. jSarek 03:42, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * My apologies, then. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:13, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Databank tag
I noticed you placed the 3PO page's Databank tag under 'External Links'. But the tag page says it needs to go under the Sources section. This would avoid the fugly contents box, too - Kwenn
 * In all the articles I've seen, it's in "External links" because it is, in fact, an external link. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:51, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but then again, so are any links to HoloNet News, but on that page, it's been decided to place those links under 'Appearances'. And it's not as if it's just linking to a fan page or further information: info is actually taken from the Databank, making it a source - Kwenn
 * Of course. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:02, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please enter in at least a basic edit summary. I grow weary of always checking version differences to see what changes you made. --SparqMan 21:45, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) Then please mark them as minor with the checkbox below the edit summary box. If most of your edits are minor, you can set it to be checked by default. --SparqMan 03:45, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Usually they are only minor things. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:46, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:22, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Screen resolution
Jack, can I please have your screen resolution so I can take it into account in the placement of my pictures? We seem to constantly disagree, if I had your screen resolution we can avoid future arguements. Mine is 1280 * 1024 pixels. --Master Starkeiller 15:52, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. I won't move the pictures anymore; it's just that it seems a little, well, odd. But the point is to get the information and fix it, not the pictures. So if it looks good on your computer, I'll leave it alone. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:59, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, know what my screen resolution is so that if something looks really bad to you, you may be able to see it as I do. --Master Starkeiller 16:03, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Jar-Jar

 * So, let's tak about Jar-Jar. Why yousa no liken him? --Master Starkeiller 15:57, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Simple&mdash;he's annoying. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:59, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but isn't Gunganspeak awesome? --Master Starkeiller 16:03, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Sort-of. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:04, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I'll try to speak as Boss Nass from now on. --Master Starkeiller 16:06, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a start. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:08, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I kid you not, folks: the first thing I did that made my fiancee interested in me, according to her, was that I did a Jar Jar impression. I know, I don't get it either. All I said was "meesa sorry." I know there's no accounting for taste, Jack, but Gunganspeak pays dividends! ;) Erik Pflueger 19:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll try it though... --Master Starkeiller 19:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, Erik. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I know! In fact, I just showed Yvette what I wrote about that incident, and she laughed until her face hurt. But she said, "You know, it's true!" God, I love her... :) Erik Pflueger 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're a lucky man, then, Erik. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Get a room Erik (kidding!)--DannyBoy7783 06:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Erik, is she a Star Wars fan? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

R4-P17
Thanks for removing that bit I added about R4-P17 being almost destroyed on Yavin 4. I was just about to remove it myself. I had assumed it was the same droid: you know, R2 dome, identical coloring. Then I read the bit about R4-P17 being the template for all Jedi starfighter astromechs, and it seemed unlikely that the droid would be rebuilt after what happened to it. --Canley 01:46, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. That droid had been R4-G4 anyway. Admiral J. Nebulax 02:07, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Period on redirect
Hey there. Why did you place a period at 212th Attack Batallion after I made it into a redirect? --SparqMan 19:07, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It originally had " #REDIRECT 212th Attack Battalion" instead of the redirect with the arrow. The period makes it into the version with the arrow. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:09, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Table of Contents
Do you know how to put it? Revan 06:02, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears automatically when you have a certain amount of sections. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:40, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Please Be Kinder
I have noticed the responses you put about numerous Wookieepedians, making them feel like idiots or saying they ask "stupid questions". Could you please be more respectful of others' thoughts and opinions? Many of us learn our information from the SW books or video games as well as just the movies. Often conflicts will then arise between the movies and these other expanded universe sources. Instead of saying that SW fans' info is "completely wrong", try to be a little more considerate and ask where they got their sources or why they believe what they do. Thank you. --Anonymous Whoever started this discussion is 100% correct. You people with "encyclopedic knowledge" are so obsessed with a fictional space fantasy saga that you don't care about other peoples feelings or ideas. - unsigned comment by Ghost1591 I am not obsessed with it to the point i think of nothing else, and i do not put Star Wars above everything else in my life. - unsigned comment by Ghost1591 Maybe your right, but nothing he's said to me has proven it otherwise. And ever since I joined this thing he's been on my case, and I've only been here two or three weeks, and I'm probably half his age (at least, I'm only 14!). And no, from what i've seen, he is NOT trying. Either that or he's failing miserably. In case you havent noticed, i only created TWO things of fanon, of which i admitted that i did. I also did not know that fanon was not allowed. What about the clone assassin page? that has as much innacurate stuff as my fanon did, and your not on their case. And Star Wars IS fanon. It is all make believe. My fanon just wasn't official. VERY BAD. Hmm. Nebulax, i think you need to find someone who can teach you about ethics. VERY BAD is when you rob an old lady. MAKING A MISTAKE is what I did. You take star wars to seriously. AND I remember that you guys were all over my fanon so quickly it was probably only there for six hours MAX. Other stuff that YOU know is fanon is STILL up there, like the CLONE ASSASSIN article. So that makes it appear to me that your just a big bully who knows everything about star wars.
 * Well, the reason I do it that way is because usually the people don't give up. Then I call them idiots for keeping it up. I give them a chance, but when they keep it up and they don't get the point, I speak my mind. That's allowed here. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:28, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Even so, no one likes being shot down and discussions are more important then getting your own point across which you should arise in a non-intimidating manner. The site is a compilation of the info on all aspects of SW; it is not as if any of it is real or should be taken so seriously as to be actually annoyed at the person on the other side of the argument.
 * "it is not as if any of it is real or should be taken so seriously as to be actually annoyed at the person on the other side of the argument." With this kind of thinking, why are you even here?--Xilentshadow900 05:21, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey Xilentshadow900, that was rude. I don't know about Jack, but you need to be kinder, Xilent. Telling someone who is here why is he even here is not only rude but counter-productive. We need more Wookiepedians. --Master Starkeiller 12:14, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * To the anonymous user: Listen, when I need to get my point across, I get my point across, especially when the other person keeps it up, whether they're wrong or they don't listen. Now, I do not need to be lectured. When need be, I say these things. I understand what you're saying, but I can handle myself. And the reason I argue is for th good of the article, not to sound like I'm in charge, because I know I'm not. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:27, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * And don't forget Jack is a member of the Imperial Starfleet. He values efficiency more than politeness. http://forums.starwars.com/share/img/emoticons/wink.gif --Master Starkeiller 12:31, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Now excuse me, I have to go command my fleet... ;) Admiral J. Nebulax 12:36, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess It's too late now, but my point was this: If you aren't going to take the Star Wars universe seriously, should you really be editing it at all?--Xilentshadow900 17:18, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Who was that directed at? Because if it was directed at me, I do take the Star Wars universe seriously. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:09, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * That was towards mr. anonymous. Sorry bout the confusion.--Xilentshadow900 15:58, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Expecting people to be nice when confrontations arise here is like asking someone not to get angry when some jerk on the highway cuts them off. People have anonymity here and confrontations arise quite often I am noticing. I'm all for people being friendly and diplomatic but expecting it is a bit naive. Telling Nebulax to cut it out isn't going to do anything but annoy him :)--DannyBoy7783 07:58, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, DannyBoy. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax 12:12, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I owe Xilent an apology. I misunderstood. What he said wasn't rude, he said it in a way that made it sound very rude. He meant something else entirely. Sorry. --Master Starkeiller 16:42, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * This really isn't the place for it, Starkeiller. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:13, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the place where the misunderstanding took place, this is the place for the apology. --Master Starkeiller 17:16, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to apologize to Xilentshadow, his talk page is the appropiate spot, not mine. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:18, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I apologized, it's over, no hard feelings, happy ending. --Master Starkeiller 17:19, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no point to apologize to someone on someone else's talk page. So just don't do it again. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:23, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping I won't have to, Jack. --Master Starkeiller 17:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:39, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * See? This is EXACTLY my point. I mean look at yourself Jack, your getting annoyed at someone because they're apologizing to someone else! --Anonymous
 * What is your problem? I'm just saying that this isn't the place for someone to apologize to someone else. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:07, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack is right. It's his page so shove off. This place is full of over sensative teen agers and older users who don't care what people think. Stop apologizing to everyone and just go edit a wiki or something. jack's talk page isn't a message board for anything except Jack related matters.--DannyBoy7783 20:49, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DannyBoy. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:02, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack does have anger issues, but he's trying. And if you weren't obsessed with it too, you wouldn't be here. And for the record, I have yet to see proof of anyone with the sw-4 tag actually having encyclopedic knowledge. CooperTFN 21:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor do you have the least bit of proof that Jack is like that. Being rude to people is completely unrelated to those things. CooperTFN 21:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've been screwing things up and creating fanon. That's why I'm "on your case". I don't say to people "Please stop screwing this up" if they keep it up and keep it up. And for your information, I have not failed. It's just that no one puts up with fanon-creators and/or vandalizers. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Two things of fanon is still very bad. And Star Wars is made-up, not fanon. Fanon is when something that is not correct is made by a fan. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You claim that it's a fanon name, yet you clearly stated that you have no source to back up your claim. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ships
Why do you keep omitting the "the"? - Sikon [ Talk ] 14:43, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Because that's the way it is done on most of the other starship articles. I originally kept adding the "the" in front of the names, but I found out that it was not supposed to be like that. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:47, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I'll raise the question in the Community Portal. - Sikon [ Talk ] 17:06, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Sikon, please look at the section here titled "Refering to ships". Admiral J. Nebulax 17:08, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Articles that need images
Hey Jack, is there a way to find out what articles need pictures? Is there a listing for this?
 * I'm not sure. But try looking for pages with an tag. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:56, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Slave V Firespray
If you are going to remove the Firespray Attack.jpg image from the Slave V page you should also remove it from the Firespray-class starship as well. Though the image has already been discussed and approved by some users at the discussion page for the firespray. Do you have any evidence that it is actually fan-made or are you assuming? In the image discussion page they site the source being a model kit retailer website.--DannyBoy7783 21:33, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The evidence is that it shows a Boba Fett-paint job while it's Slave I in the Geonosis asteroid belt. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:38, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Coruscant images
Take a look at this and you will understand why all the pictures have to be on the left:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b153/Starkeiller/1-2006-01-07-20-07-22.jpg

--Master Starkeiller 18:12, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow... Please see Talk:Second Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars). Admiral J. Nebulax 18:14, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

sorry
sorry about the Asijj ventress thing. P.h 03:15, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)p.h
 * Don't worry about it. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:38, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks P.h 22:37, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)p.h
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:25, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Fullstops
Check my talk page. There's supposed to be a manual of style or something that says captions should have fullstops and we're supposed to follow it. --Master Starkeiller 16:26, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, every time an article has a picture, there are never periods in the captions. It's been like that for a long time. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:21, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Image Question
Hey Jack, I was wondering if there is any actual policy against putting images inside of a paragraph? Starkeiller did it earlier for the Boba Fett weapons sections and I noticed you undid it. I personally find it very annoying when trying to edit when the images are in the middle of a block of text. Is this just a personal preference thing (you reverting it) or is this an actual site thing (if not it should be!)--DannyBoy7783 00:17, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's just me. Admiral J. Nebulax 02:31, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Fanon names
I noticed you disagree with my edit for those fanon names. Did you put them back for all 6 pages that had them? I really don't think they should be here at all because they are fanon, regardless of whether or not it is a warning. People should know better not to listen to SuperShadow and if they want to put his crap in here we can remove it and tell them it is fanon. This looks like a slippery slope for people to include information in the behind the scenes section for any fanon stuff they want and then just add that it is fan made and it will be ok. Including those names on those 6 pages creates a dangerous precedent. For more on this please see [User talk: SFH]--DannyBoy7783 00:49, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, people do believe SuperShadow. This way, any more vandalisms with these fanon names will be avoided. If you check Dooku's and Grievous's pages histories, you'll see that the fanon names have been added into the articles numerous times. I put those paragraphs in to hopefully avoid any further vandalizing. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:51, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand why the names are in the Behind the Scenes sections. If they must be there that would be the best place but I think the way it is worded now only serves to leave a door open for fans who wants fanon included here. By simply putting a "fan made" disclaimer after it they can post whatever they want in the Behind the Scenes sections at this site. Where do you draw the line for stuff like that? We'll never stop fanon from coming here and I think that what is there now serves as a foot hold. At the least the wording should be more negatively slanted towards fanon inclusion. --DannyBoy7783 01:03, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. We'll never stop fanon from being posted, because there are idiots that will do it no matter what. That's what we're here for. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:06, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I just checked the Dooku article again and I think the wording is much better. Are all 6 articles like this? What about Palpatine's page?--DannyBoy7783 01:09, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The only pages I know of are Dooku, Grievous, and Palpatine. But Palpatine's is good. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:11, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * [| As you can see] Jard Dooku tried to edit more than those 3 pages.--DannyBoy7783 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

watchlist
Hey, is your watchlist messed up too?--Xilentshadow900 20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's only showing five articles. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's the same for everyone else. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mine shows nothing. Perhaps they reset it?--Xilentshadow900 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope not. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I got mixed up on the B-wing edit. But i'm not an idiot fanon lover. I'm 100% canon. -User:Bwingfreak
 * Let's hope so. But just don't do it again. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Slave IV
Why did you remove the picture? The user who uploaded it sourced it as being a Lucasarts image. Do you have evidence to the contrary?--DannyBoy7783 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a picture of Jaster's Legacy, not Slave IV. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hiya Admiral. I've noticed that several of your edits are fairly minor. I hope you don't mind me asking that you tick the "this is a minor edit" box for such edits. For example: edits that involve adding a comma or period, or minor link changes, or minor infobox changes. Nice job on keeping an eye on the anons btw. Cheers. --Azizlight 12:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WOTM
Congrats Neb. The people voted you February's winner. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Jack. Keep up the exhausting work! --Imp 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/35.gif --Master Starkeiller 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm honored. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats Admiral :-) --Azizlight 07:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just Wonderin'....
If I make up a fake biography of me which I did, can I make up my fake flagship on a whole different page? What are your thoughts about xanga and do you have one. -Bwingfreak 01:32, 1 Feb 2006
 * Well, I believe you can make a user subpage, but I'm not sure how to. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just make a page called User:Bwingfreak/whatever. CooperTFN 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll make it that. -Bwingfreak 07:28, 2 Feb 2006
 * I might make a subpage of my own, then... Admiral J. Nebulax 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer
You do good work, you're just very...snappy. I know the newbies can be frustrating, but you get a lot more accomplished if you remain polite (though you do seem to be a lot better lately). I just got into a big debate with a guy over the Mando'a page, to the point of us reverting each other's edits several times, and I got quite annoyed, but if I'd just called him an idiot or something (which I've seen you do several times in the past), we wouldn't have been able to iron things out amicably. Just try to be more patient with people. CooperTFN 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, I try to be nice in the beginning, but there are some people who keep it up. Then I resort to the namecalling. And thank you for responding. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Never resort to namecalling. At least not as strong as "idiot". There are two kinds of trouble on a site like this: people who want nothing other than to screw around, who'll eventually get banned anyway, and people who just misunderstand things and could eventually become more productive. Calling one of them an idiot drastically reduces the chances of that happening. CooperTFN 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Similarly, your recent note to Jibers was perhaps a bit too harshly worded, and not specific enough. I understand that you're annoyed with him, since his only contributions are apparently newbie-type "who's toughest" questions, but just telling him to keep his opinions to himself doesn't tell him why you object to his posts.  It just sounds like you're trying to scare him off.  He may well just be a kid who doesn't know any better, you know. &mdash; Silly Dan 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed: User_talk:Jack_Nebulax--DannyBoy7783 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * DannyBoy, I had asked CooperTFN to post this. And I wasn't trying to scare him off. To tell you the truth, I'm just frustrated with some of these people who post these kind of things. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ahh, apologies then. It seemed like a rehash of an old topic. I know how you feel Jack, it's annoying having to check every edit to make sure it isn't f'ed up by some anon or a kid who doesn't know better.--DannyBoy7783 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'm actually trying to be kinder. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck. (I don't mean that sarcastically)--DannyBoy7783 20:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

hello
Hey, Admiral. I just wanted to say hi, and tell you that I'm a big fan of your work. I'm new here, and you will probably start seeing my comments in various discussion pages. Also, how do you do that infobox thin on your biography?--General Antilles 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As for the infobox, I copied it from a character's page (usually one with the color you want) and pasted it on my user page, changing the information to have what I want in it. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

oh,okay--General Antilles 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

how do you do that thong that says what language you speak and stuff?--General Antilles 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's usually not in a character infobox, but a species infobox. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Known duels section
I noticed that you removed all the Known duels sections in all three articles it was present. Don't you think that you should ask OTHER people before you remove entire sections? That section was useful if you look specificly for their respective duels. - TopAce 17:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Those duels are already in the person's biography, which is why the sections were pointless. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Mdmccombie. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You could still ask some other people, this is why the discussion page is there. - TopAce 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? If the duels are already in the article, what's the point of that extra section? Admiral J. Nebulax 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The date of birth and death are also in the article, so what's the use of the blurb (or whatever it is called)? - TopAce 17:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's actually information about the character and is very important. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not about a piece of information being important or not, it is about that ONE piece of information is inside an article twice. - TopAce 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, yeah, it is. Things that are important, such as a character's birth year and death year, can be repeated. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I don't mind if that section exists or not, it may not contribute much to the article, but if one is only interested in the duels specific characters fought, why read the whole bio and pick all the duels one by one? This is very annoying if you deal with long articles, like the ones from which you removed those sections. - TopAce 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A separate article can be made for duels, then. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

San Hill
I know it's behind the scenes, but the paragraph in question starts out in past tense and switches to present, so I corrected it to be internally consistent.Yrfeloran 21:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, though. It could be either way. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:R7-series astromech droid
Please see Talk:R7-series astromech droid. Thanks.--DannyBoy7783 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize about that. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundant infoboxes
Why in the world are you putting the redundant infoboxes back? The boxes on Ro-ti-Mundi, Radiant VII, and Allegiance are useless. They don't say anything that the class article doesn't already state. Infoboxes for individual ships are pointless unless those ships differ notably from other ships of the class, as is the case with Wild Karrde and Action VI transport or Millennium Falcon and YT-1300. &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They are important, whether you like it or not. Infoboxes are always helpful, no matter what. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But it only seems logical to either have them on every ship or none at all. Do you want to put them on every other named starship? I'm certainly not going to. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  02:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to. But you're the one going around putting the new infoboxes on all the ship classes. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Classes is the key word. We have about ten times as many individual starship articles as class pages. It seems like an incredible waste of effort to put an infobox on any of them if they're not known to be different from the standard specs for their class, but it seems silly to me to have them on only some of them. I think the best course of action at this point is to remove the (thankfully few) redundant ones that are already there and restrain the use of infoboxes to class pages unless a specific ship is known to differ from others of its type. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  19:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, we have infoboxes on specific droids, in addition to their type. If there is enough information for an infobox, there should be one. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But droids are effectively characters, and characters have always been treated differently from ships and equipment. And the infobox for starships has a LOT more fields than a droid infobox. Hmm... Maybe we should whip up another collapso-box for individual ships, with just a few fields that would normally differ between ships like affiliation and known usage dates... I'll have to think about this one. I'll leave the individual ship pages alone until after my current projects are done. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  19:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Maybe we should whip up another collapso-box for individual ships, with just a few fields that would normally differ between ships like affiliation and known usage dates..." Not a bad idea. I'd be honored to help you out when (and if) we do it. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Plolicy

 * Nebulax please provide a link for this supposed image policy that you keep quoting on Talk:New Republic. It is not covered in Image use policy. If it is unofficial, then why don't you let an admin enforce it? Great work, by the way, now you have User:Redemption removing good images all over the wiki...--Sentry 22:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's nowhere. I was told that when I first became a Wookieepedian. And I did not tell Redemption to remove all those images. Redemption did it on his/her own. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Guidelines for fanmade images, if we're allowing any, might be a good thing to take up at the next meeting. (I think we should allow fan images like the b/w logos some articles used to have, but be very very strict about what circumstances we allow them in.) &mdash; Silly Dan 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I re-inserted the New Republic and CIS logos that Redemption removed. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hi, you asked how I got that picture, I posted a reply on my own talk page, I don't know if you saw it. It's a Jedi Academy screenshot edited by my friend. Nice biography, by the way. I'd like to read more. And congratulations on being the Wookieepedian of the Month! Aiddat 21:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delta-6
Hey, first let me give you a reason why I changed the title. I was trying to clean up some of the red links in the Darrus Jeht article when I came across the Delta-6 Aethersprite as it was named in the article. I checked CUSWE and they had it listed as such also. That's the only reason I changed it. I hadn't read the talk page, so that's my fault. Anyway, could you perhaps explain to me why we have it at Delta-6 starfighter instead of the other title? Cull Tremayne 22:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no source for "Delta-6 Aethersprite". Admiral J. Nebulax 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This article seems to suggest that the Delta-6 is from the same line as the Delta-7s, wouldn't that make it the same class? But then again, the description of the Delta-6 in this article makes no sense in comparison with the description we have now. Cull Tremayne 03:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, just because two fighters are from the same line does not make them the same class. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While the Delta-7 is an "Aethersprite," the Delta-12 is called a "Skysprite," which seems to hint that another Delta-series ship would have a different name. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  13:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You just beat me to saying that, Darth Culator. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a better example? The Skysprite is a two-man fighter so naturally it is a different class. The Delta-6 is a one-man fighter just like the Delta-7. Cull Tremayne 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice that they're all in the same line, yet there are two different classes so far. The point is, there is no source for "Delta-6 Aethersprite". Admiral J. Nebulax 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll yield. It still seems to me that logic would put it as an Aethersprite class, but you're right, no source. Thanks for the discussion. Cull Tremayne 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Signature test.
Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There we go. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To make a link to your talk page in your signature you have to go to Preferances> User data> Click "Raw signatures (without automatic link)" so that there's a tick in the box, then enter the text Admiral J. Nebulax (talk)]] &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Testing... Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah well, Jaymach told you. Congratulations! :P --Imp 15:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
In the Imperial Remnant article you capitalized "head of state" and "fleet admiral". Neither one of these are proper nouns. I can see how "head of state" can be seen as a proper noun, but its usage in the article is simply talking about the "person at the head of the state" and not a title or position of "Head of State." It's the same way the President of the United States title is "President" (proper noun), but he has the powers of "head of state" (common noun). Also, military ranks are not proper nouns unless they are being used in place of someone's name (for instance, referring to Pellaeon as "the Fleet Admiral") or if its being used as the person's title/rank in conjunction with their name (i.e. "Fleet Admiral Pellaeon"). The usage in the article is simply talking about being a fleet admiral, in the same way I would say, "Daala was an admiral in the Imperial Navy" or "Thrawn was one of twelve grand admirals in the Imperial Navy." Just because it's a title, doesn't mean it has to be capitalized&mdash;it always depends on usage. That's why I keep lower-casing them after you capitalized them...--SOCL 03:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's different here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Is there something I missed in the Wookieepedia style policy? (not sarcastic; honest)--SOCL 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's in there, but there are certain things that I have learned since I came here; this being one of them. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Something you picked up or personal preference? Look, the plain and simple fact is that I am using grammar rules and techniques that are not only common but correct in the English language.  Unless Wookieepedia style policy says differently, it would seem logical to use those techniques.--SOCL 04:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It was something I picked up. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So what you're telling me is that it's correct for me to not capitalize it in the same way that you capitalize it(?).--SOCL 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Databank uses capitalization for "Grand Admiral" regardless of usage. See . --Azizlight 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, but I expected Grand Admiral to be brought up. Actually, check it, but Grand Admiral isn't quite the same case as regular ranks.  The same goes for Moff, Grand Moff, and Supreme Moff.  All these ranks are closer to honorary titles than true ranks.  Granted, Grand Admiral is a true Naval rank, its elite status makes it capitalized.  The same goes for the rank of "General of the Army" in the United States Army&mdash;it is always capitalized.  Ranks below that, though, are not.  The argument, though, is valid, but can be explained.--SOCL 04:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Um ok, sorry, I guess
So Jack Nebulax, I will admit it was my first addition to Wookieepedia so I was just figuring things out that's why it screwed up the text but I fully intended to fix it and was in the process of doing so when you deleted them all.

I thought this was place to give Star Wars fans more input on all subjects Star Wars but I guess I was wrong. There was discussion on that subject that other users were requesting pics of the Imperial Palace so its not like I went nuts all of a sudden posting pics. It was requested.

Perhaps your a real Rebel at heart and hate the Galactic Empire and saw what I was doing as Imperial propaganda I don't know, but for what its worth, sorry. Next time I'll just watch and not touch.
 * The thing is, the images you had added were covering parts of the text, and I realized that the only way to see the text was to remove the pictures. But I actually love the Empire. Perhaps a Gallery of Imperial Palace images could be made to put all of the images in, however. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a place for the extra Imperial Palace imagery, I added a link at the Imperial Palace page so that it would be easily accessed. Bear with my editing, I'm just learning this Wiki thing. - Darth Trini.

Spoiler
Hey, I'm Darth Cow. yes,. Anyway, I believe there should be a spoiler warning on Sev's page, since it gives away the ending to a game! Please don't remove the message again, as I think people won't want to know the endind before they get it/there. Thenks,
 * No. General-use spoiler tags are only for new books, comics, etc. that have just come out. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The game isn't even new anymore so for that reason alone no spoiler tag is necessary.--DannyBoy7783 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal page
Hey, Admiral (or do you prefer Jack?) how do you put that box with the stuff about your homeworld, era, etc. in your bio? Same for the box about your knowledge of Star Wars, what groups you like, etc. Thanks for helping a new Wookipedia. (My name is Commander Jake if you want to check it out.) Okay. Thanks--Commander Jake 14:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what I did was I took the infobox from Palpatine and changed all of the information to what I wanted and stuck it on my page. As for the info box on person stuff, I'll post up what you should do in a little bit, as it is kind of long to explain. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Cestus Commandos
Why did you change the Cestus Squad back to clone troopers? the Cestus Deception names them clone commandos
 * It also names them ARCs. They have the standard CT designation, making them standard clone troopers. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Appologies
Hey, I am really sorry about my immature behavior earlier. I said somethings that were wrong and I truly am sorry for the way I acted (and by the way, i did NOT make up that article on Elite Clone Troopers. The fanon part was XilentShadow's opinion, and he never presented any SOLID proof that they are fanon, and I swear I did not make it up).Ghost1591 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept you apology, and I believe you about the elite clone troopers. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for believing me and accepting my apology. Ghost1591 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Commando Troopers
In Jedi Trial, Page 13, Paragraph 2, Hardback edition, it calls the commandos of Squad Seven "commando troopers". I was wondering if that is just referring to them as normal troopers carrying out a commando operation or maybe if they are a new soldier. If they are a new soldier I would like to make an article about it. Just wondering. Ghost1591 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Squad Seven was normal troops as far as I know. It's probably just commando operations. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks Ghost1591 22:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, is it okay if I add something about commando operations on the clone trooper page? Ghost1591 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and did Squad Seven always act as commandos, or were they part-time? it sounds like they were always commandos, but I want to be accurate. Ghost1591 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I'm gonna go ahead and add something about commando ops on the clone trooper page. Ok? Ghost1591 00:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it's too late to say otherwise, but I wouldn't. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Sorry. Ghost1591 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heya, I think the just ment Clone Commandos.