User talk:QuentinGeorge/Archive5

 See Archive1|Archive2|Archive3 =Messages=

Talk pages
Sorry about the talk page deletion. I didn't consider archival purposes and just saw that the section was completely out of date; I'll be more careful next time, so thanks about the head's-up. Jwebb13 00:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

QuentinGeorge

 * BTW...
 * It's said that Vergere was a Sith. Right there in her bio. All you need to know. MTFBWY! Adas Xendor 06:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between Sith apprentice and Dark Lord of the Sith. Do you understand? QuentinGeorge 06:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Kevin J. Anderson "criticism" section
This is regarding the removal of that section. One of the reasons you cited was that "no other author page has one." Maybe you've never bothered to have a look at Wikipedia, but many Wikipedia entries on famous people have "criticism" sections. Those sections include references to times the person has been publicly criticized for his or her actions. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton --HanShotFirst 22:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read our manual of style. We are not Wikipedia. What is done there has no baring on what is done here. Here, we don't add "criticism" sections to our author pages. QuentinGeorge 06:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if you had read that article you would also note something else important: Uncited criticism is to be removed. Nothing that you added to that page was attributed to any source, and hence was little more than POV pushing by someone with an agenda. QuentinGeorge 06:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Agenda"? What an odd word to use. Do you think I'm some kind of radical or something? I simply take exception when I put a good deal of work into something, post it, and then find it gone without any explanation besides personal attacks. Have you got some kind of grudge against me or something?
 * You are mistaken if you think this is personal. My reference to an "agenda" was merely pointing out that your "criticism" section seemed to be chiefly your own criticism of said author - it was attributed to nobody, except in a general sense. That is not what we want here. QuentinGeorge 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, since you saw fit to call my contribution "poorly written", I should point out that you spelled "bearing" wrong. The spelling you used is typically reserved for descriptions of things with fangs, people getting naked (bare), and so forth.
 * Thank you for pointing out my spelling error, but I'm not sure of the relevance. There's a difference between a typo on a talk page, and errors in an addition to an actual article page. QuentinGeorge 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, are you actually telling me that you think Wookieepedia is better than Wikipedia?--HanShotFirst 16:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether it is better or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia's rules and policies don't apply here. We have our own, as StarNeptune has pointed out. Secondly, our articles are probably higher quality than Wikipedia's Star Wars articles simply because we have more dedicated Star Wars contributors. QuentinGeorge 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And are you implying that the Wikipedia model is some sort of god that we should all bow down before? We are not Wikipedia, and we have our own way of doing things. Because of issues that have arisen in the past, we don't allow "Criticism" sections on author pages.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Summing up, criticism should be reserved for the pages of characters or the published works they appear in. If you can cite the criticism, then go ahead and add them there. Keep them away from the author pages. QuentinGeorge 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Thank you for pointing out my spelling error, but I'm not sure of the relevance. There's a difference between a typo on a talk page, and errors in an addition to an actual article page."


 * Quentin, are you aware that when you delete something and cite "poorly written" as one of the reasons, the contributor is going to take it as an insult? Really, how can you expect me NOT to be angry about it? I don't think it was poorly written at all. It wasn't incoherent, there were no spelling or punctuation errors...as far as I can determine, the only thing wrong with it was that you didn't think it belonged there. There were no "errors", no factual errors anyway.


 * Let's go over what I stated. I said that Anderson had taken criticism from fans. In order for this statement to be false, it would have to be established that there was only a single Star Wars fan (if that) who had ever said anything negative about Anderson. We both know that Anderson has more than one detractor. So, that statement is the truth.


 * I mentioned that one of the reasons for Anderson being criticized was his tendency to use incompetent villains. If you visit the discussion page for Admiral Daala, you will see at least one user stating that she was incompetent. Another user says the same thing on the Kevin J. Anderson discussion page. Plus, she thought she could take down the New Republic with a force of FOUR Star Destroyers, and she lost three of them...do I really need to say more?


 * I wrote that some of the villains in question prove to be worthier adversaries when they appear in stories written by other authors. This is true; just compare Durga in Darksaber with Durga in the Han Solo Trilogy.


 * Three statements, all of which are true. And yet, you deleted them, citing "POV pushing" and "poor writing." It seems to me that my motivation for adding content shouldn't be relevant; the only relevant thing should be whether it's true or not.


 * This is just like what happened with the article on Obi-Wan, back before I registered with the site. At that time, I thought that the article didn't go into enough detail about Mustafar, so I added a part about how Obi-Wan allowed Anakin to catch on fire without doing anything to try and save him. Then somebody, Nebulax I think, was like "how dare he say anything bad about Obi-Wan!", and deleted it. I put it back in, phrasing it differently, hoping that people would find the new version more acceptable. It was deleted again. The message was clear: "We will not compromise with you, we don't want you writing anything negative about Obi-Wan. STFU."


 * Did Obi-Wan allow Anakin to burn alive? Yes. Did he make any effort to pull him to safety? No. That's the truth, that's how it happened. But people don't want that to be in the article. Now, once again, I'm writing something that is true, and, once again, I'm being told to STFU. I'm also being told by MyNz that if I don't STFU, I'm going to be banned. So forgive me if that grates on my nerves just a little bit.--HanShotFirst 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * HanShotFirst, if you want to know why we don't allow criticism sections, please visit Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Quote:Karen Traviss. You don't really understand the politics of the Star Wars fan community. Its not a pretty picture and there are frequent stupid fights between various factions such as those Galactic Empire lovers, Fandalorians, Jedi-worshippers and fanonists like SuperShadow. The reason why we don't include that many topics on those factions and their arguments is because they lead to fights between fans and they are not worth recording at all.

Also, realise that Star Wars is just a man-made science fiction series written by men. All humans are imperfect and we sometimes make mistakes. I agree with you that there are flaws in the Star Wars universe but it will be near impossible to get George Lucas or those various authors to correct them. I am not a fan at all at the moment, I am just here on Wookieepedia to help protect the site. MyNz 09:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, that Karen Traviss thing did get pretty bad. If you're sure that kind of thing would happen here, I guess I can live with the criticism section being removed.--HanShotFirst 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted pages
Why did you delete my page? ~ Lord Nihilus
 * While reverting vandalism, I think we moved it to the wrong place. It should be as User:Lord Nihilus now. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting
QuentinGeorge, as you are an administrator, you might be interested in a proposed policy change known as Forum:Administrator Voting. It's on consensus track, but I thought it would be better to get more opinions. Atarumaster88  ( Audience Chamber ) 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI
As per the consensus track decision, I've requested on Wikia that they restrict the moving of pages for new users here. Kuralyov 16:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Help reverting vandalism
I've moved most of the recently moved pages back where they belong but Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic rocks won't move back to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and says the page already exists. I thought it might be because of a double redirect but getting rif of that didn't help. Could you sort it out, please? Green tentacle 08:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Green tentacle 09:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My G.Section
Hello, QuentinGeorge. I have been looking at all your work and I was wondering, now that I have one, if you would sign the guest book on my user page. Although I don't believe you have ever had any interaction with my account, I would love to have you signed down. It would be a previlige to have such a great user's mark. Look forward to hearing from you. SecondSight 13:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Darth Bane's Birthdate
My dear QuentinGeorge,

I have gone through Path of Destruction in search of biographical details for Bane, his birthdate and so on, and I would like to talk you through my calculations. If you have issue with my conclusions, please feel free to tell me where I've gone wrong. Rather than go into an editing/deleting war over it, I thought we could work together:

1.) Dessel was born twenty-three years before the book starts (he'd been in the mines of Apatros for ten years (p. 4), and he went into them for the first time (p. 5) at age thirteen). His father died when he was eighteen (p. 111), five years before the book starts (p. 5), another indicator of his age. He is, therefore, age 23 when he kills someone in a card-game and has to flee Apatros and join the Sith army.

2.) When we return to Dessel, a year has passed (p. 50, 52), during which time he has fought with the Gloom Walkers on Kashyyyk and Trandosha. He is, therefore, age 24 when his actions on Phaseera get him attention from Lord Kopecz and a ticket to the Sith academy on Korriban, where he renames himself Bane.

3.) Once Bane begins his training on Korriban, only a few weeks pass (p. 82) before the Sith stage their first attack on Republic forces at Ruusan (p. 84), an engagement which is clearly called the First Battle of Ruusan (p. 90). The book later makes clear (p. 266) that the fighting on Ruusan has gone on for two years when it culminates in the climactic seventh battle and the detonation of Kaan's thought bomb. Jedi vs. Sith states that these latter events happened in 1000 BBY. Darth Bane, therefore, is 26 years old in 1000 BBY, and was born in 1026 BBY.

Here is the rough timeline as I calculated it:

1026 BBY - birth on Apatros. 1013 BBY - goes to work in the cortosis mines. 1008 BBY - kills his father with the Force, blamed on a heart attack. 1003 BBY - flees to join the Sith. Fights on Kashyyyk and Trandosha. 1002 BBY - fights on Phaseera, is brought to Korriban. First Battle of Ruusan. 1000 BBY - survives the Seventh Battle of Ruusan and the thought bomb. Takes Darth Zannah as his apprentice. Goes to Dxun and gets infected with icky orbalisks.

Please let me know if I've gone astray. I await your response. Erik Pflueger  22:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The book begins in 1020 BBY, that's your problem. You are correct that he is 26 at the beginning, but the "beginning" of the book is 1020 BBY. I expect there's been an error somewhere, because the Ruusan campaign has always been described as taking decades. [EDIT: Maybe not, our own page says 6 months, but I'm not sure of the source]. On the other hand, it's also very likely the author has stuffed up. QuentinGeorge 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, here we go:
 * A thousand years before the Republic's collapse and Emperor Palpatine's rise to power, the Sith were legion...
 * - ie, 1000 years before Episode III - 1019 BBY. QuentinGeorge 06:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense, Quentin, but that's pretty damned flimsy. If I were to follow that logic, all the Great Sith War events would be happening circa 4019 BBY instead of the 3990s, since the marketing said they were "four millennia before the rise of Emperor Palpatine." You know perfectly well that the adwork for any book is often rounded off, since who has time to - or even wants to - read "three thousand, nine hundred and ninety six years before the rise of Emperor Palpatine?" They're trying to get the basic point across to a general readership who really doesn't make the distinctions we make in charting timelines.

Do you have the book at hand? It was officially released yesterday. If you have it, then follow the page numbers I cited, especially p. 266. Whatever people have said in the past about how long the Ruusan campaign took, two years would now seem to be the official figure. All dates in the book have to be reckoned from the end of that campaign, 1000 BBY. Once we could have written that off as a round-off also, but not after the Jedi vs. Sith comics and the New Essential Chronology all stated that the date was exact. And that's the only specific date - again, confirmed by mutliple sources - that we have.

My job at this 'Pedia is to use the facts of the book itself to establish things, not an advertising line written months before the fact, and which - based on my initial read - is nowhere in the book itself, not even on the flyleaf. If you're worried about other related pages being out of synch now, give the fans a few days and that will right itself. A systemic inconsistency probably won't happen. Hell, I'll be on the case myself. But if you have objections, cite the text. If you don't have it yet, trust those who do.

Am I being a bit sore about this? Yes, probably, and I'm sorry if I am. You don't deserve to be raked over the coals for doing your job here with the same vigor that I do mine. Please accept my apologies in advance. Erik Pflueger  13:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was merely basing on what the book was said to be set by the editors. It appears they've changed that idea. Again, if you are going to correct a date, actually "correct" it, not merely change it on one single page. We don't all have the book, so you can't rely on "other fans" to fix all that up. You made the change, you should make the flow-on changes. It's that simple. QuentinGeorge 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true, had I more time I would have done further corrections elsewhere. My situation is much like yours: I made the change to the dates at work, just as you use your workday lunch hour to make corrections. My sole defense is, as I said earlier, that I trusted that within time - a matter of days, really - others would have the book in enough numbers to follow through where I missed. It's a collective effort, after all. I really do have a tremendous faith in the people here, and that includes you. In that spirit, let me reiterate that have meant - and still mean - no offense, and I'm sorry if I gave any. I also accept your word that you weren't trying to be rude, and I didn't take anything you've said in that vein. We're here for the same reason; making this the best and most complete source for Star Wars information anywhere on the web. Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 21:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you block me!
is there a reason other than BYE BYE!
 * Abuse, vandalism, attitude, homophobia. Take your pick. QuentinGeorge 01:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, he's editing from AOL, so we probably shouldn't block that IP indefinitely. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll unblock him. QuentinGeorge 03:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Input requested
A consensus track is up in order to establish a policy for deleting old copyvio articles. As an administrator, your input would be appreciated. The consensus track can be found here. --Imp 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Antinnis" Tremayne
You've reverted from Tremayne to Antinnis Tremayne. If you take a look at Talk:Antinnis Tremayne, you'll see my arguments for initially reverting the page title to simply Tremayne: I'm not saying that "Antinnis" is necessarily wrong, but as far as I know, it's based only on a statement by Xizor where it's paired with a claim about when he joined the Jedi that contradicts Tremayne's own memories back in the SWAJ. It's thus not, IMHO, entirely certain bssed on canon evidence that Antinnis is Tremayne's real name, and we know he never used it himself. --McEwok 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the information I obtained from the authors, the account in SWAJ has been retconned, and the information provided by Xizor was accurate. QuentinGeorge 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Information obtained"&mdash;was this somewhere you can link to? Thanks, though. --McEwok


 * It wasn't me personally - someone asked a question on his blog. You might want to dig around the archives. QuentinGeorge 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye... I can't see it. *frowns* I found the question asked by Kuati Kid on the TOS boards, but didn't see an answer there. I'll take your word for it, though. --McEwok 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Who kissed Han?
On the Tonnika sisters article in the BTS section, you identified the girl who kissed Han (scene cut from ANH) as Swilla Corey. Though I was under the impression it was Jenny. Have you found some really cool obscure source, or have you just got your names mixed up? ;-) --Azizlight 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (shuffles feet, embarrassed). Um...mix up. I realised a month or so ago, but was too ashamed to fix it. :P QuentinGeorge 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha :-) --Azizlight 05:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page template
Hopefully it'll catch on, and be on every talk page. It's really needed - the talk pages of Wookiepedia are as messy as hell. . .  .  .  05:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I was only adding it to my two pet articles and all the articles I've created. But I do reccomend that we embrace it - it's been invaluable on Wikipedia in neatening talk pages, and it's really needed here. You can't miss it, and since you can't predict where a new user is going to go first, it's best to have it all pages (don't worry, I'm not going to do it). It's a lot of gain for very little effort. .  .  .  .  05:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes for New Sith Wars
Hi! I wanted to point out to you that the infoboxes for the New Sith Wars seem a bit messed up. I'm not sure what the correct way to fix them is. Two battles, Battle of Harpori and Battle of Balowa, are dated as taking place 1,002 BBY. However, they're placed in between Second Battle of Malrev IV and Battle of Ambria at the top of the infoboxes, and those battles are dated 1,000 BBY. What's wrong...the dates or the order they're placed in? Jaywin
 * The order. Path of Destruction has rejigged a lot of the dates, and not everything is updated yet. I'm still awaiting my copy of the book before I go full bore. QuentinGeorge 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle on Unknown World (Young Hoth)
Out of courtesy, I thought I'd let you know that I nominated this article for vfd. --Eyrezer 02:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Help

 * Some fool named Eddie deleted Tenel Ka after moving it to Albus Dumbledore. I see you baned him. Please fix the page. How do you do you fix it by the way? Chack Jadson 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you fix the Kiffar page aswell please? 82.39.244.58 21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Portraits
Glad to see that you and I are of the same mind on infobox photos. I was wondering if you could pass judgement on the little debate that's going on at Talk:Rune Haako. I've been trying to get image 4 (in the gallery provided) into the infobox, but I've got some opposition. I know that it's not a portrait, but at least it shows you Haako's face better than the current image does. . .  .  .  01:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates
There was. They've been up there for a few weeks in the senate, and there were no objections, and a few supports. . .  .  .  07:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hardly my fault. .  .  .  .  07:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologise profusely, and I did realise that it belonged in the consensus track, but only after I had posted it in the Senate. I didn't want to go around bothering Admins with such petty matters anyway, but if you think I should have... .  .  .  .  07:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

New Sith Wars
Thanks for the invite to the WookieeProject New Sith Wars but sadly I don't have much knowledge in that area. All I know is the Jedi vs. Sith comic. Good luck with the project though!--Eyrezer 01:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Help please
I created the page Tharence Wo's holocron based on the info supplied in Tharence Wo's character page which I have since fixed. Tharence actually recorded in his journals. So, as you are an administrator I was wondering if you could delete the page Tharence Wo's holocron. Many thanks. Grunny (Talk) 08:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)