Talk:Palpatine/Legends

Archived talk: Darth Sidious | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Rewriting...
I feel that much of this article needs to be Wookieefied, so to speak. It reads like some sort of melodramatic novel rather than an encylopedic entry. I've removed some of the offending parts, but first I need agreement from others. Unit 8311 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been decided to keep the article as it is. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pity.Unit 8311 15:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The sad part isn't how it's written, but the fact that it's here in an encyclopedia.--Herbsewell 15:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I love Wookieepedia, referring to it as something as dignified as an "encyclopedia" seems a little melodramatic itself. Cutch 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah, this article's bloated. Even the first paragraph of the first section reads like some gusher's biography. Where was it decided to keep the page as it is? - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's what wikis are. Whether they're about Adult Swim, or Zelda, they're encyclopedias.--Herbsewell 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really have the patience to go through megabytes of archived talk pages, but here it was decided to keep the current style by a 68% supermajority. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 16:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the debate there was more about detail and less about the flowery, almost fanboyish way in which the article reads in some places. I think it could be rewritten to be just as detailed, but to seem less like it was written by a Sidious groupie. Eggmanland 22:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The majority of the article was written by a great contributor to this site who put a lot of work into this article. Now, it's been decided it's to stay as it is. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. No sense getting into an argument with Captain Dogma. Eggmanland 23:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Watch it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lighten up Jack. Anyway, just because someone put effort into something, does not mean it can't be improved.--Herbsewell 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't like people calling me names, so don't tell me to lighten up, Herbsewell. 2) I'm not saying it can't be improved. I'm just saying that we're not re-writing the whole article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying the we need to do it all over. Just go in and find the parts where it reads like, to borrow Captain Kwenn's term, a gusher's biography. That could be done simply by trimming or rewriting sentences here and there. This isn't a black and white issue. Eggmanland 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like that.--Herbsewell 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Nobody's saying the we need to do it all over". Eggmanland, Unit 8311 was inferring that we'd have to perform a major rewrite. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My question to you is, what if we did it the way I suggested? A few sentences here and there? Eggmanland 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it would make the article that much better.--Herbsewell 00:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewriting a few sentences here and there is no problem at all. I just didn't want a massive rewriting of the whole article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. I suppose in retrospect, having the title of this part called 'rewriting' was a little bit too much. By that I meant not completely changing the entire article, but eliminating and rewriting the various sentences in it that made it look like some sort of novel or fanfic. Unit 8311 08:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think those quotes are fine. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What quotes? Unit 8311 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I might have assumed too much. What do you mean by "the various sentences in it that make it look like some sort of novel or fanfic"? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For one thing, let's limit the use of "very". That word is kind of puerile, and shouldn't be used as often as it is in this article.--Herbsewell 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's necessary, we can't remove it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, we already had a discussion earlier this year that already removed some of the more "flowery" details. Nevertheless, please specify what you would like changed so we can discuss. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I would like the word "very", like in "very powerful Dark Lord of the Sith", or "very short time" taken out. It sounds as if a kid wrote it.--Herbsewell 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But if "very" is needed for something like that, we can't remove it. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, it just sounds juvenile.--Herbsewell 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for jumping in, but can we hold a vote? I personally feeel that while this article is interesting, it is very unencyclopedic. It is not like any other articles and needs to be fixed. A vote would be like Anakin/Vader merger, lots of people immediately vote no without thinking, but really it would be better to rewrite this and make it more encyclopedic. It should not be the only article written like this, the only one "exempt" to the standards we have. A cleansing is needed. Chack Jadson 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Chack, it's already been voted on, and the decision was keep it as is. I'm sorry you don't like it as is, but a certain user spent a lot of his time making the article into what it is today, and changing all of that is just rude. And Herbsewell, sometimes "very" is needed. It makes all the difference between "very powerful" and "powerful". &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And sometimes it's not, and next time sign your posts. FYI, that was just an example of how it might be not needed.--Herbsewell 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's just your opinion. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jack that has to be the worst argument you have ever come up with. It's your opinion that the article should be kept the way it is. We can lift the face of the article, but at the same time not touch it's spine.--Herbsewell 20:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion on keeping the article as-is happens to also be the result of a vote. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean we can't take out unnecessary words. Like "a lot more", talk about unprofessional.--Herbsewell 20:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what do you think "a lot more" should be changed to? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "More"?--Herbsewell 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what about "very"? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that really can be replaced. Just taken out when it's redundant or unneeded.--Herbsewell 21:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this article doesn't really follow the standard neutralized speech of most articles on this site. If you change wording, make sure the facts remain the same. Frankly, saying "very powerful Sith Lord" or "powerful Sith Lord" really isn't all that important. VT-16 22:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Argue what? That it is important? Anyway, just use synonyms. There's plenty of synonyms for very and other common words. Chack Jadson 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd argue that "very powerful Sith Lord" is important. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm.... If I can just cut in here with a reminder that we should start sourcing this article before it gets whacked by the Inquisitors... Rodtheanimegod4ever 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rod about it being fixed before the inquisitors get it booted from FA status, but I am VERY much in agreement with Jack. This was the article that made me return to Wookieepedia time and again for all my Star Wars inquiries.  I feel that the content is fine and the vote was already taken anyway.  If you must fix any spelling or grammatical errors then I would fully support that, but as far as content and wrighting style goes, I like it.Dark Lord Trayus 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the Inquisitorius is even allowed to remove articles from FA status. I'm marking that down on the "abuse of powers" list. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 02:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because that's what was voted for. Your name's in the "For" column, just so you know. - Lord Hydronium 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dammit... I need to read things through better in the future. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ARGH! I'm so sick of this! The fact of the matter is that this is one of the best written articles on the entire site. Those who think otherwise are, in my opinion, mostly jealous. I don't see why we can't just leave it alone&mdash;the tone is fine! Why worry about POV when Palpatine is obviously the main villain of the entire saga? The films are definitely biased in that respect&mdash;why not this article? Geez. Cutch 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We should probably start a petition to the admins to limit the Inquisitorius's power before they go too far. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Jack, I love the canon Inquisitors, but these guys need dome sort of a check/balance system...Who knows?, they could all be light siders and are just out to mess with Sith articles..jk.--Dark Lord Trayus 03:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this; the Inquistorius is the Empire! Start a Rebellion! Cutch 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, please, please... I have been in discussions with the Inquisitorius on this. My initial words were as angry as yours are, but we are calmly talking the matter through. Though they feel there needs to be some rewriting, it's really nothing anyone would miss in the long run, and as the guy who wrote most of it, I hope you'd trust my judgment. Perhaps time and distance have given me perspective and enabled me to better simplify and maintain the quality you all care about.

Actually, the big issue with the Inqs concerns sourcing the article properly, according to the new general rule. It's such a new arrangement to me, who isn't here every minute, that I hadn't been aware of it. Still, I think it's a very good idea in general, and for this article in particular it is a sensible concern, and they and I both feel that once everything in the article is sourced, it makes the article that much more bulletproof. Therefore, I have begun citing sources, and will continue to do so with the expectation that others will assist me. If that gets done, the Inqs will consider the whole matter settled.

Having seen them actually treat me respectfully and reasonably, I'm not prepared to judge the Inquisitors until they demonstrate to me that they genuinely deserve harsh judgment. Keep in mind that this is not a shadowy oligarchy of faceless and nameless specters with evil intentions; many of the Inqs are people we already work with and know. Like most people anywhere, whatever antagonism they are said to have can be disarmed if you're prepared to give them a chance and work with them. And whether anyone believes it or not, I'm sure they share our desire to make sure that Wookieepedia ranks as the first among equals for Star Wars sites. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt... until they give me reason not to. Erik Pflueger  06:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about the fact that they're threatening to remove articles from FA status that so many users worked on? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of people work on a lot of things, and only a fraction become featured. Featured status means it's one of the best articles.  If an article ceases to be the best, it shouldn't be featured.  How much sense does it make to say, "These are our best articles, make every article as good as this," for something that's lacking?  Look at Jedi, for example: is that the sort of article we should point to as an exemplar?  Because that's exactly what we're doing now.  And because it probably still needs to be said, an article will be marked that it was formerly featured.  We've got a special grey star and everything, and the talk page will say the same thing. - Lord Hydronium 12:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The decision was made by a solid consensus in that same Consensus Track thread that articles that fell below current FA status could be stripped of such status by the Inquisitorius. Again, Jack, you were among the votes in favor of such a policy. jSarek 12:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As the person who spearheaded the idea of the Inquisitorius, let me say a few things: We're not out to take away all the Featured Articles. The Inquisitorius only exists to ensure a higher level of quality, and Wikipedia has/had something similar. That being said, we are willing to work with anyone on "saving" Featured Articles. Anyone can visit the Inquisitorius pages and see what needs to be done. Not only are we willing to point out flaws in the articles, but we're also willing to help work on them. I just put 2 hours into Palpatine doing some of the sourcing and trimming some of the POV content. The thing that gets on our collective nerves is when people say "XYZ is the awesomest article! Why are u bashing it!?!?!1!" when the article fails to meet basic requirements. (Kyle Katarn, I'm looking at you.) In conclusion, just be willing to meet us halfway, and the article is both improved and keeps FA status. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ataru, you're basically threatening people to fix the article before it gets removed from FA status. Is that the image you want the Inquisitorius to have? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Threatening? What the hell?  The two-week probation is to give the article a chance to be fixed before it's stripped and stay an FA.  You'd prefer it were just removed with no warning? - Lord Hydronium 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of construal. I kinda agree with Jack. Well, I don't see it as a direct threat, but it does seem like a stick method (as in 'stick and carrot) of making peopke make certain edits to the article. KEJ 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hydronium: I see it as threatening because it's basically saying "Fix the article now, or it will be removed from FA status within a week." Just because a time period is given doesn't mean it still can't be threatening. And of course I don't want it to be removed without any warning. That'd be abusing your powers. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you have a very loose definition of "threat". If an article is not up to FA standards, it shouldn't be an FA; a vote was held, and it was decided that articles could be removed from FA status by the Inquisitorius.  Now, you can protest those decisions all you want (even if you did vote for one), but with them as givens, what wouldn't be "abusing power" to you?  We remove it instantly, that's bad.  We give it X amount of time until it's removed, that's bad because it's a "threat".  So the only way that you can be satisfied would seem to be giving every article an indefinite amount of time, which of course would be the same as not removing FA status at all.  Would it be a threat to say "if an article is unverified within X time, it will be deleted"?  I mean, the whole VfD system is an abuse of power under your definition. - Lord Hydronium 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the VfD system is not an abuse of power because everyone has the ability to vote in it. In the Inquisitorius, only a select few do, and they seem to think that they own every article on Wookieepedia and can do whatever they want to with them. In addition, the fact that an article was voted for FA status in the first place shows how the Inquisitorius is abusing powers: They're just disregarding what the community has previously said to further their own powers over Wookieepedia. An abuse of powers by the Inquisitorius is not what I voted for. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, you, and everybody else, voted for exactly what we're doing. Seriously, look at the actual vote page.  It's in bold right above the voting area for the Inquisitorius, and in big bold letters at the top as one of the consensus items.  Secondly, the articles that were voted as FAs were voted in over a year ago; they've changed a lot, and the articles that were made FAs, though they may share the same title and much of the same content, are not the same as the ones now.  Wikis change.  That's kind of their whole point, and the idea of FA removal acknowledges that.  Can you honestly tell me that Jedi as it is now is the sort of thing that would or should be an FA? - Lord Hydronium 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to see that I did not vote for the system. Jaymach makes an interesting observation in a comment on that vote page. He says it promotes elitism. I think he's right, and elitism enables power abuse. This is where Jack's argument comes in. The whole FA-removal system may be seen as way of forcing users into making some very specific edits. Moreover, FA-removal may be a way for an Inq to get rid of an FA that the Inq doesn't like. I'm not saying that this is going on, but the Inq system does give room for such pwer abuse. KEJ 08:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell? You don't have to fix the article. Know what'll happen? the colour of the little icon will change. Does that so impact upon your life? It shouldn't. However, if you want to keep it up to par, do the edits. We're not forcing anyone to do anything. .  .  .  .  09:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * a) What Fourdot said. I'm not adding anything of value by saying that, but it bears repeating. b) You do realize that seven Inquisitors need to vote for an FA to be stripped, right?  One Inq by himself can't do shit (oh, right, you weren't saying that was happening, you were just saying it "might", wink wink).  Indeed, in the voting last Saturday, all it took were two Inqs to say "keep", and an article would stay an FA.  For the ones near the end, it was one.  And yet only Obi-Wan and Leia stayed.  Out of eight people, none of the other articles could muster up two, or for a couple of them, even one "keep" vote. Yeah, that's quite the case of power abuse going on there.  Or maybe all the Inqs have got it in for the FAs! - Lord Hydronium 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterize. I'm not saying that such power abuse is going on. This is not an accusation, but that there is, or seems to be, the potential for such power abuse in the Inq system. No need to get all fired up. KEJ 12:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just altered some of the article slightly (not too much though) to remove some of the melodramatic novel-type prose and give it a more encylopedic feel. Unit 8311 12:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hydronium, you do not own Wookieepedia. Nor are you an admin. What I once thought was a good idea has turned into, as KEJ, a group of users who believe they are elite and can basically do whatever they want. The Inquisitorius needs to be bound by strict rules that do not allow them to abuse their power. And Hydronium, your attitude on this entire discussion is horrible. If you're so willing to prove that what the Inquisitorius is doing is good, get a better attitude and prove me wrong. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow! Elitism! Inq's have got the powaaa - to change a little icon. Grow up. If you would open your eyes a tad, you would realise that these articles are not up to scratch, and no longer represent our best. What the Inquisitorius allows is for a process that would normally take months and months to take weeks, all with a view to making Wookieepedia more streamlined. In the words of Mt. Sorrow, "Boo hoo." .  .  .  .  21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude: Everything we're doing was voted on by the community. Do I need to link to the CT thread again?  Why do I get the feeling you only developed these objections when the Inqs went after an article you've so zealously protected? - Lord Hydronium 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the vote. After all, I did vote for it. But it was my fault that I did not read it completely. I can't change that. In addition, how would I know that a possible abuse of powers would arise? After all, I should have known putting Fourdot in a position of power over Wookieepedia isn't that good. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This ends now. The next comment that's not directly related to this article will result in a ban. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, back to the article: Why exactly does this article have to be removed from FA status if not rewritten? In addition, shouldn't regular users have a say in when an article such as Palpatine might possibly be removed from FA status? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to change the current FA system, feel free to create a consensus track. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Brian, the laypeople don't get a say, because a) they voted for the Inquisitorius, and b) they don't know what's good for them. The problems with the article have been specified, the policies are known. If you want to have the article kept, remove your digit, and do some work. Otherwise, it will lose FA status. So let it be written, so let it be done, ect. .  .  .  .  00:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't use my real name. Second of all, what you just said proves you think you are above all other users; you think you're elite, and that's the whole problem with the Inquisitorius. Well, guess what: You're not elite. You are just as much a common user as I am, and no title like "Inquisitor" will change that. Third of all, Fourdot, I don't see you trying to improve this article. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 13:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't post it on your user page, then. Second of all, drop me a line when you start contributing. And third of all, it's not in my mandate, or my intrests. And I don't see you doing anything but polishing quotes and adding line breaks. Now get back to talking about the damn article and stop your petty little nonsense. .  .  .  .  21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, seriously. Edit this section again and you'll be banned. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 21:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Main Image
The current main image of Palpatine is that of his Ep III Emperor version - with two toned black robed, lightsaber, etc. I feel that most fans and the general publi associate Palpatine with his Ep VI incarnation - tattered black robe, gnarled walking stick, no lightsaber, better make up. Therefore, I feel that an Ep VI image would be more appropriate for the main image.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q27/jack_napier_album/Palpatine.jpg[

for example.68.145.128.30 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I think the current image is fine, personally. But if people want a good ROTJ image, how about this one -->? - JMAS 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 68.145.128.30 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree but during those days, production and promotional photographs weren't taken as much as they are today and so there are no images that look as good as the current one. There is one promotional image from ROTS that shows Palpatine in his ROTJ robes but he looks very bloated. -- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, a ton of people I know associate Palpatine with his Episode I appearance. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My vote: No. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This may be a sign of the end of the world, but I actually agree with Jack.--Herbsewell 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was engaged in a crusade of sorts to find the current main pic and I am certainly quite proud of it. Now that I'm an active Wookieepedian again, I might as well give you my 2 cents: The current main pic rocks. We couldn't find a better one. --Master Starkeiller 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially since it's one of they only ones where his face is messed up, but it doesn't creep you out.--Herbsewell 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that we're on the same side for once, Herbsewell. No sarcasm intended. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatevs, I just never liked the makeup in Ep III and personally think of Palpatine more of as a schemer than a lightsaber wielding fighter - but if you went to a lot of effort to find the pic....
 * Well, we can certainly keep our options open. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that if something came along that was better, we'd never say flat-out no to it, be it picture, text or other. But the current picture really is that good, at least to me, and if it's Starkeiller who drudged it up, he gets my kudos and deserves them. We're really not likely to find a better image for some time. Your approach to Sidious may be more that he's a schemer, not a fighter, and I understand that, but it says at a glance what he really is: EVIL. That's enough. Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And the two options displayed here don't really display that much, might I add. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The current one shows more of Palpatine's body then the others. And it's of better quality. Unit 8311 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's settled. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Force lightning/skeleton...
After thinking it over, I have just reailised something. When strong force lightning is cast a Skeleton is visible... After Palps zapped Mace, and his Skeleton was visible, it stops breifly in between, and it shows he has suffered NO physical damage to the face. When the force lightning come back at Palps, no skeleton is visible, but is present when strong bursts of it hit. I think this evidence helps support that most-if not all-of Palps deformities are NOT caused by force lightning.Pizza the Hutt 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Exelent theory Grand Admiral, but look at Darth Sion, if being heavily immersed in the Dark Side makes you look weird then Pizza is prabably right, the Force lightining only show who he really was under a force illusion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Derek Yoda&#39;s friend 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Derek Yoda's friend
 * It could be a reaction generated from the Force lightning hitting Mace's lightsaber. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Palpatine Saying
"The Sith grew past the use of lightsabers. But we continue to use them, if only to humiliate the Jedi." - Darth Sidious


 * Did Palpatine ever say that. Lord Titze the Dark Wanderer 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so, though I don't know where exactly. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well can we have a source?--Herbsewell 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * : "I don't know where exactly". &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * : Oh well. Someone could have put it in without anyone knowing.--Herbsewell 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which section is it in, Predated? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, it's from Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader. It's fine. Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Erik. I knew I had read it somewhere. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks I read it on a KotOR forum i didnt know if it was true or not but thanks for telling me guy and girls.Lord Titze the Dark Wanderer 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing
Did some minor punctuation and spelling fixes in main article. Grand Moff Rhell 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, that isn't what talk pages are for. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True, Jack. Still, thank you for your efforts, Rhell. :) Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 05:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Every good edit is thank-worry. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Palp's Lightsaber Form
I am forced to admit that I was wrong, I have been believing that Sids was a Juyo praticioner but I have recently watched Star Wars episode three, and it convinced me that he was actually useing a sith variation of Ataru. -Derek(has not joined Wookieepedia yet but plans to) Sids is given credit for knowing Ataru and Juyo but on known praticioners it says that he's only rumored. Please continue this thread if you know anything about Sid's lightsaber form. Derek Yoda&#39;s friend 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Derek Yoda's friend
 * Either one still hasn't been sourced yet as being Palpatine's lightsaber form. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sids is given credit for knowing Ataru and Juyo..." Source? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to make it clear but it looks like I will have to explain. On Wookieepedia it says and, well lets start on Ataru, it says on under a picture of Yoda and Sids fighting it Says "To masters of Ataru", on the Juyo page it says that a Juyo master fights the Creator of Vaapad. Derek Yoda&#39;s friend 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha. Wookieepedia is not a source. .  .  .  .  22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither is any wikicity. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, how annoying, but does anyone think we should just change those statements, because it is fannon. Derek Yoda&#39;s friend 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We remove everything that's fanon. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I kind of over reacted there, I completely support Sids knowing Juyo and Ataru but I'm just wondering is there any source. Derek Yoda&#39;s friend 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There probably isn't. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So we might as well leave it, because Sids does look like he's useing Juyo and since to fully master Juyo you have to learn most of the other six forms, so there's your visual proof but we still need a source. Derek Yoda&#39;s friend 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just your intereptation of the movies. Someone else could easily come along after studying the movies and say that Palpatine probably used Ataru rather than Juyo. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not like I'm going to make a new article and call it Palp's lightsaber form and talk about a bunch of fannon, I'm just saying what it looks like nothing more. Derek Yoda&#39;s friend 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm just saying that others could see it as him using a different form. For example, I think he uses Ataru. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 13:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I took out all mention of it in the Juyo and Ataru articles, but I left the photo captions. We should probably change them to reflect Sidious' unknown status. He just looks so sweet when he fights, so I hated to remove the pics. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just change the text. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On Mustafaar, Why doesn't Palpatine's cloak catch on fire?
Why doesn't Palpatine's cloak burst into flames when he is so close to the lava river? The only assumptions I have are 1) Anakin/Vader climbed up to the "high ground" as Kenobi puts it, where the heat is less intense or 2) Palpatine used the force to shield himself from the heat.
 * Maybe the lava isn't that hot. --Imp 03:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh...lava tends to be hot! Maybe the rocks around the lava rivers absorb a lot of the heat. But Force shielding seems to make sense to me, after all Qui-Gon stabs his lightsaber into a blast door which turns glowing white hot an inch away from his fingers. If badly weakened like Anakin after losing some limbs at Mustafar, the force user can not harness the energy to protect themselves from the natural elements and succumbs. I don't know if this all makes sense, it's probably just an error in thought while filming, but it has occured repeatedly with Qui Gon, Anakin and Palpatine.
 * Rather than attribute everything to wacky Force abilities, I think we should go with the simplest solution: the second one. Anakin had managed to crawl far enough away from the lava that when Palpatine goes to him, he's not in immediate danger of catching fire. Eggmanland 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * After all, it does appear that Anakin managed to crawl up the bank. In one shot, he's right beside the lava; in a later one, I believe, he's farther up. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly Grad Admiral, just genius, he is higher up now I would say that would end it right there but for those of you who are unconvinced, I read, I believe it was in the databank, that Mustafars lava is signigicanly cooler than normal lava, because of minerals, so normal lava is 7,000 degrees fareheight, but Mustafarian lava due to minerals and different materials its lava is only about 800 degrees, which is 200 degrees above the temperture above the temperture required for ignition, and very close to the melting point of lead. Sorry if I had time I'd turn it into Celcius, but I'm really short on time. Derek Yoda&#39;s friend 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, had Anakin been closer to the lava, and without any Force powers being used, Palpatine's cloak would have probably caught fire. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why couldn't he have worn, uhm, a fire-resistant cloak? - Sikon 14:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a little bit more speculation than what we've been saying, though. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Vader uses his remaining metal arm to pull himself up to a safer distance, that's the first thing we see when the camera returns to him after Obi-Wan and Padme leave and the Emperor arrives. VT-16 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does Palpatine kneel down in relation to Anakin, anyway? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Where????
Where did Palpy go when he contacted Gunray, Maul, Dooku, and the seps? Did he go to the Works? Also what ever happened to Mas amadda? Quinlanfan 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that both are unknown. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The first one? I think LoE says its the works. No 2? No clue. Unit 8311 12:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Palpatine do any more battles/duels after he became emperor??

 * Well, we all know Palpatine engaged in three known battles; 1) his saber duel with Maul, one that he won 2) his saber duel against Windu and his jedi which was another battle he won 3) and his saber duel with Yoda which was one he stalemated but managed to win using his force abilities. Those are three known duels he did. But did he do any other battles after he became emperor??
 * You're probably not gonna find too many; more often than not he was depicted seated in the throne, or walking about on his cane... and cackling. One reason may be that writers in the EU may have been as taken in by Palpatine's "weak old man" act as so many of his victims were. They knew he was powerful in the Force, but somehow didn't extend that knowledge into physical power or prowess. When you get to the Dark Empire comics, however, all that's out the window. Once he transfers his consciousness into a young clone body, he duels Luke straight into the dirt. But that's the last lightsaber duel we ever see Palpatine engage in before he dies once and for all. Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ROTJ not his firth death
I'm reviving this topic, because last time it got hijacked by a Jack/Herb squabble, and ended with Jack just saying "he did" without providing a source, so here is the question again. ''He says to Luke in Dark Empire that the second death star was not the first time he had died. Should this be addressed?'' -- Micah Giett So what is the source for this whole "Chee says it wasn't his first death"? It seems to have been added around September 2005, but Chee didn't have a blog mentioning this or mention it in the Holocron continuity thread at that time. So where is it? Otherwise, canonically, his first death was before his plummet into the reactor. Cull Tremayne 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we settled it when Chee said Palpatine lied.--Herbsewell 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that we don't know if Chee said it. I can't find any proof of him saying that anywhere. Cull Tremayne 11:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not in the Holocron thread, did you check the VIP thread? I know it's not proof that it happened (or, more importantly, a source), but I do recall a fuss being raised over it on the TFN boards when he said it. - Lord Hydronium 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't we even go so far as to get a link to this statement before? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We tried to go that far, but Chack said that he was unable to find the link. I'll check the VIP thread. Cull Tremayne 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I *know* I personally read Tasty's comment to that effect, so don't axe it just yet. However, I can now state that, unless I overlooked it, the comment is NOT in the current VIP thread anywhere between its first page and October 12, 2005 (pg. 63).  Suggestions for other threads to look into would thus be in order. jSarek 07:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also apparently not in the BCaT thread of the era, at least not between July 19 (pg. 394) and October 3, 2005 (pg. 443). jSarek 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone know if it could have been Star Wars Insider? That seems to ring a bell. I'll check mine. Chack Jadson 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. I checked my measly two magazines. I know I read it somewhere though. Man, this is annoying. Chack Jadson 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"The treachery of Zaarin"
Does anyone find it odd that Palpatine could be forcibly captured and held prisoners by troopers? Palpatine, likely the most powerful practitioner of the dark arts in history, being imprisoned by grunts is hard to chew. He would have had no trouble killing them in one fell swoop. The only conclusion that I can think of is that Palpatine feigned weakness, as he typically did, and let himself be captured. Perhaps as a test for Vader and Stele? It just seems to be that the creators of that game vastly underestimated Palpatine's true abilities. --Danik Kreldin 14:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Either that or he knew Vader, Thrawn and Stele would come along and rescue him with their combined awesome, er, awesomeness. Either way, it's rather speculative. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it was retconned (somewhere) that they used ysalamiri to keep him in check. Gonk 16:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Never read that before... can you find a source for that? --Danik Kreldin 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your theory is right, Danik. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Zaarin DID have the assistance of Arden Lyn. Still, you're probably right that it was a test for Vader or Stele. I don't believe I've ever seen the ysalamiri connection in print; it's just been a fanon retcon, one that doesn't fit with the fact that they were almost unknown until Thrawn finally put all the pieces together just before Heir to the Empire. jSarek 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting (to avoid previous discussion of the same name)
Okay, since I led the previous discussion off-topic, I figured I'd create another section for continued discussion on the matter, in a polite way. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the way this article is written. I will admit it sounds far to interesting to be on en "encyclopedia" as Wookieepedia is but I think it should stay the way it is. Hell its the only article that I was able to read compeltely dipsite its size. EDIT: I also liked the Conclusions section which I see was removed. Damn shame.
 * Well, I share your views, as do many others. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kind of makes me wish the entire wiki was like this. I mean this article is LONG. I mean damn LONG, and I managed to read the entire thing. I like the tone, cause in a way you can't understand something well unless its told a certain way. I could read an article where it says Palpatine was a sadistic maniac, but wouldn't really get it until I read a section like "The example of Canna Omonda" completely which would make you say "Wow, I actually learned he was a sadistic maniac, and actually got a good example of it."
 * Without Erik, this article would definitely be dull and boring. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And a featured article.--Herbsewell 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see you doing any major improvement to an article like Erik did with this one, Herbsewell. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point?--Herbsewell 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Show some respect. Erik put a lot of time and effort into this article. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well apparently, that effort was for the worse.--Herbsewell 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Herbsewell, stop it now. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the right to express my opinion. Because of him, the article needs a major rewrite, and has been striped of it's featured article status.--Herbsewell 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not the article that needs to be fixed. Maybe it's the requirements for FA that need to be fixed. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:44, 16 March 2007 (U(TC)
 * Then a vote would have to be placed. Until then, the Inquisitors have come to the conclusion that this article does not come in compliance with the requirements of having the title of featured article.--Herbsewell 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I hereby propose the Featured Article Limitation, Addition, Legislation, Alteration and Liquidation Amendment, or FALALALA Enochf 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we please be serious here? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 13:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This header is awfully deceptive. I mean, I actually thought this was going to talk about making changes to the article to keep it at FA. :-P Anyway, please stay on topic and continue to work on the article. You can always Re-FA it though. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you divulge on how the article would have to change for that to happen?--Herbsewell 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, it pretty much needs a total re-write. With sources. And a proper tone. .  .  .  .  01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your... attitude on all this makes me wonder why the Inquisitorius even made it. After all, what's wrong with the admins filling the job? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And if I may be blunt in return, FourDot, if that's your opinion, then you might as well just dismiss the farce of a two-week grace period, because it's perfectly clear that no matter what is done here - and a great deal has been done in the previous week by a great many people, including yourself - there is no concieveable end result that will satisfy you. That may not be what you're trying to convey to me, but it sure as hell is how I'm reading it. Once you advocated trimming, and now you're pretty much demanding a complete scorched-earth policy. And I'm sorry to say that unless you're willing to do so yourself, there is no one I know here who would be willing to undertake a "total rewrite" with a "proper tone," of which only you know the definition. If you do expect people to do that, then if may again be blunt, you're crazy.

I do not for one moment wish to insult the entire Inquisitorius by suggesting that you presume to speak for each and every one of your colleagues - a point which reminds me that this decision is not solely yours to make. When it comes down to a vote, do you honestly believe that this is what the whole group wishes for this site? Do you truly believe that Tremayne, or Culator, or Atarumaster or anyone else in your group of thirteen specifically wants this for the article? They want simply to remove its FA status if it hasn't been sufficiently sourced. You want, what, to erase the whole thing and start over? Because that's what I see a "complete rewrite" to mean. "Revealed, your opinion is." Maybe I'm misreading it, but perhaps others who read what you just wrote could judge for themselves. I don't see how they could come to any other conclusion. Again, I don't presume that you speak for the entire Inquisitorius, and I've tried to defend your group to others, such as my outraged close friend Jack, as being perfectly reasonable. Don't prove me wrong by tarring the rest of your comrades with a completely unreasonable demand.

And Herbsewell, I won't take offense by anything you've said, but I will defend myself. If I'm a major reason the Inquisitors is threatening to strip its FA status, then you had best acknowledge that I'm a major reason the article was awarded FA status in the first place. That is not a boast; it is a fact. Have I gone too far in some areas? I'll have to admit that I have. Have I tried to help make it right? You'd have to admit that I have. Though I have been forced to leave the bulk of deletions to others for medical reasons (I fractured my typing hand last Friday), I have returned to continue to make trims and add sources, despite the fact that I risk worsening the fracture, and suffer significant pain and my wife's wrath to do so. I don't expect that to have any importance to you, but that too is a fact.

If there's any claim I can make and be proud of on Wookieepedia, it's that I've tried. The article may not have been exactly what everyone seems to want yet, but I have tried. It may not be fixed yet, but I have tried. A lot of people have tried. They do so every day. They do it from love for Star Wars in general and interest in this character in particular. They certainly don't do it for me, and I don't expect or want them to. Who am I? I'm no one important, I'm just Erik Pflueger, a nobody artist/architect with a wife, two cats, two children-in-law and two grandchildren-in-law, a wacky claim to be able to make at 35 (I'll explain upon request). I have many interests, but since boyhood my first and foremost interest has been the galaxy far, far away. I thought I had found a forum to express that interest rather than just let it go to waste inside my four walls. It may still be that, and I will have to adjust myself to the rules of that forum. But I have tried; please don't rub my nose in it, Herb, if I haven't tried hard enough for you.

It won't be the end of the world for me if in the end FourDot gets his way, does everything extreme thing he wants, and renders all the work I've done in the past year or more for naught. My ego and self-esteem doesn't hinge on its fate; marriage changes a lot of things. Nor will I quit the Wookieepedia, take my ball and go home. I'm not so constructed. But I will certainly be disappointed, not for myself, but for everyone who claimed to like what I did, and for the 'Pedia as a whole. And, if I may add, for the Inquisitors, for if the article as it stands is simply washed away, like FourDot seems to want, then they risk being in for a world of abuse, for they may very well have proved me wrong about them... and unwittingly painted themselves as the very power-mad tinpots I've said they're not. Erik Pflueger  05:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read everyone of my posts, you'll see that I did not at one time criticize the article. I simply noted that because of it's style, it has been denounced and has been found to be of low quality by the judges whose power has been elected by Wookieepedians.--Herbsewell 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't criticize the article, Herbsewell, but you criticize Erik's effort. As for the article, it may have lost its FA status to the power-craving nature of Thefourdotelipsis, but the article is not going to be rewritten. Why? Because people are fine with how the article is. That's the problem with the Inquisitorius: They don't allow others to voice their opinions. The Inquisitorius seems to think that they can do whatever they want. Well, all those who crave power eventually lose it. The Inquisitorius will one day fall, and the FA status of articles will never be challenged again. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 13:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned you, Jack. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then next time don't vote for them. Anyway, I was merely stating fact, not so much criticizing. They aren't going to lose their power because all they do is make sure that the context of articles fall within the boundaries of featured article quality, no more, no less.--Herbsewell 13:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So the article is nolonger featured. If it keeps the article enjoyable to read then I say lets not have it featured. Its PALPATINE for crying out loud. People will flock to it anyway.
 * Frankly, at this point I'm inclined to agree. But it's really not its FA status - or lack of it - that concerns me. It's FourDot's singular solution that concerns me, a solution that I regard as too extreme and which I totally reject. And again, despite my good friend Jack's clearly stated desire to pull down the Inquisitors like they were so many Saddam Hussein statues, I do not now and never have claimed that FourDot, who is only one Inquisitor, speaks for all thirteen Inquisitors. What he wants is restricted to him... for the moment. It's only if his extreme idea is approved by the entire Inquisitorius that I'll begin to suspect that maybe Jack is onto something. But unless and until that happens - and I regard it as very unlikely - I will continue to assume that the Inquisitors are largely a reasonable bunch who have no authoritarian intentions. Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourdot does not speak for me. I have no problem with the quality of the prose at all; in fact, if you check the talk archives, you'll see that I voted to keep it last time there was a vote held on this page on that very subject. I understand that different people have different writing styles, and this is definitely Erik's style. Some may say it's too flowery, but I find it is detailed enough. There are some parts that are a little TOO detailed, but I have no issue with that if they are backed up by a canon source and are properly sourced in the article itself. My main issue with the article is sourcing, which if done by a small group of people, should be done in no time. However, I do object to Jack painting us all of us in the Inq as power hungry assholes. Not all of us are like that, and it is a little unfair to paint us all with the same brush due to the actions of a few.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thank you for reminding me of the vote, Neptune, but it wasn't necessary. I remember you and your defense of the article very well, and fondly. And no, I did not think that FourDot would be speaking for you. He speaks for himself alone. And as I said, I do not believe his attitude is likely to carry the day. But may I ask you to understand that attitudes like FourDot's give Jack justification to feel what he feels? He's trying to defend the article, as you have done, and he doesn't have time to distinguish between individual Inquisitors. All he is concerned with is that a member of your group is saying these things and implying he has the authority of your group when doing so. So informed, he acts to defend the article, perhaps too passionately, but can you honestly blame him for being angry? You may wish to consider what effect FourDot's extreme point of view has on the perceptions people have of your group. As long as factions within your group pursue agendas that differ from the rest of you, my friend, you may have to continue to suffer being painted with a broad brush.

As far as sourcing is concerned, I humbly ask you to look at the article's progress over the past few days. A great deal has been done, and while the sources section itself now needs to be cleaned up - which I have been doing over the last 24 hours - it's coming along nicely, thanks to everyone's hard work. If you look at it objectively, I think you'll agree that much progress has been done and it is well on the way - if it is not there yet - to meeting the standards for sourcing you have set. Please look, and then let the people here, who have worked so hard this last week, know if you agree. Erik Pflueger  18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As has been said already, Fourdot does not speak for all of the Inquisitorius, and neither do I. Until "complete re-write" appears on an Inquisitorius template on this page, that will not be necessary. I've mentioned at one of the Inquisitorius meetings that we should be hated because we de-feature articles that are not up to par, not because we're snobby about it. Take that at face value, I suppose. Anyway, I am with StarNeptune in that once this article is sourced, I would have no problems supporting for re-featuring. I appreciate all the work that everyone has done on this article, and you'll notice that I've done some too- albeit as an anon because my log-in timed out. I appreciate all the assuming of good faith done by users on this page, and strongly encourage everyone to keep it civil and non-confrontational. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 04:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As an Inquisitor, I feel obligated to put my two cents in. The job of the Inquisitorius is to make sure that all FAs - nominations and those already promoted - meet the current FA standards. Due to its lack of sourcing and excess analysis, it didn't make it. This isn't designed to be a personal crusade, though I can't speak for Fourdot. While subjectivity will naturally creep in anytime anyone is called upon to judge what is "well-written" or "unbiased" or "a reasonable number of images", that's simply unavoidable in making an assessment of quality. And it takes seven people agreeing that the quality standard is not met. It's not just Fourdot running around stripping articles at will. He can't do anything if even two people disagree with him.


 * And whatever you might think about Fourdot, I'm getting rather tired of implications from Jack and elsewhere that we're all some bunch of power-mad nutty assholes with an axe to grind against Erik or Jack. We're enforcing the standards that we were assigned by the community to enforce. If you don't like it; too bad. You don't have to like it, but the majority of the community did and it's something you have to live with just like any other product of consensus. Don't accuse us of abusing our power simply for doing our jobs. And if you do think we're honestly abusing our powers and not just raising a stink because you don't like our legitimate use of power, then fricking say it. Don't tiptoe around it by suggesting we could or we might or maybe we are but not really. Say it. If we're not, then don't try to tar our name. Havac 04:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You need not worry, Havac. If you check my posts above you'll notice that I specifically stated that Fourdot's viewpoint was his alone, not that of the rest of the Inquisitorius. You'll also note that I said on numerous occasions that the Inquisitors are reasonable people, and that they do not hold any sinister agenda. They are not tyrants. My specific statement to the contrary was that if Fourdot's viewpoint was upheld by the rest of your group, that's when I'd get concerned. But I also specifically stated that this was not likely to happen. We've heard from three of your number now, and they stated to a man that Fourdot does not speak for them, and they don't want to strip the article. I believe them. They just want things brought back up to snuff. That's all.

But this is all distraction, forgive me. Let's concentrate on the article we're all here to discuss. I'd like to ask you, Havac, what I asked of Neptune: please make an effort to drop by the article and observe the changes at work. Then, please let the many people here, who have worked really hard over the past week, know how you think they're doing. A little encouragement will be a great help. Erik Pflueger  13:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was speaking more to Jack and the others who have been complaining. Frankly, I wish they'd follow your example. I know you realize Fourdot isn't the entire Inq, and you've handled the whole thing quite maturely. I couldn't be happier with your reaction. However, I say to the various others who claim to be protecting you or your work, that we're not nuts out to defeature articles that we're "jealous" of. We're just doing our job. And as I've said, once it's been sourced (and now that the "Conclusions" are gone), I'd be happy to support it for re-FAing. Havac 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me say this: Yes, I have painted the Inquisitorius with a broad brush, but that is because I see only Thefourdotelipsis's actions as an Inquisitor, which involves removing articles from FA status. StarNeptune: You say you're fine with the way the article is now. Then why didn't you stop Fourdot when he was trying to remove it from FA status? And Havac, if you agreed with Fourdot's actions in removing articles from FA status, why didn't you put up any of those "FAremove" tags? My point is, you all say that Fourdot does not speak for the Inquisitorius, yet he seems to have become your public face. With a public face comes a painting done with a broad brush. If you don't wish for that to happen, then other Inquisitors have to put up that "FAremove" tag once in a while, or even remove that article from FA status. Yes, I'm aware you all vote on the matter, but it appears that you're letting Fourdot be your de facto leader. That's why I'm criticizing the Inquisitorius. I could care less about the removal of articles from FA status anymore. Put it this way: Would any one of you want me to be the public face of the Inquisitorius? Fourdot and I are alike; therefore, it's in our nature to argue each other. And before you all respond yelling at me (or before I get banned again; Imp, I just want to make my point here), just do me a favor and think my words over. I'd appreciate that. Now, I'll shut up unless I feel it is necessary for me to post. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jack why are you even arguing about the decision? The fact is that the article doesn’t follow the manual of style so the Inquisitors decided to take away it’s status of featured article, simple as that.--Herbsewell 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read my post. I'm not arguing about the decision to remove this article from FA status anymore. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Then why didn't you stop Fourdot when he was trying to remove it from FA status?" That would certainly be irrelevant at this point if you already accepted that the decision. Also, you shouldn’t pin the blame on Fourdot as if he was the only one who thought that the article was not featured article quality.--Herbsewell 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, Herbsewell, right now, I don't care what you think. I'm entitled to my opinion on the matter. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You certainly are but don’t accuse people of things you are only assuming.--Herbsewell 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya know, Jack. All the time you've spent whining on this frivolous matter could have put to better use. You could have been fixing the article so that it pleases both you and the inquisitors. Just to put it out there...-- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I could. But I'm perfectly content with the current form the article is in. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question Jack, my computer was in the shop being repaired at the time the Inq had the meeting to strip this article of its status, therefore I could not voice my opinion on it then. There may be thirteen of us, but since not all of us can be around at any given time, all it takes is 7 of us to put an article "on notice". Seven people did exactly that, so don't go putting the blame squarely on Fourdot. Through no fault of my own, I was not around at the time Palaptine was voted on, so I had no say in its status. If my computer had not of died, I would have voted to put it "on notice", as all it needed was some pruning and sourcing. There is a difference between putting an article "on notice" and removing status from an article. Palpatine was "on notice" for two weeks, during which time, you could have helped to source it and improve it to help it keep its FA status instead of complaining about the Inq being power hungry and how we are (supposedly) driven by an agenda. After being "on notice" for two weeks, we look at the articles again. If we see no improvements, then the FA status goes bye-bye. If we DO see some improvements, then it gets to keep its status.


 * As for Erik's question to me: Yes, I do see an improvement, and I give a hearty thumbs up to all who helped. I would assist you, but I don't have access to all materials in which Palpatine appeared (Just the movies, the novelizations, Outbound Flight, Shatterpoint, and maybe a couple I'm forgetting). As I said earlier, I will fully endorse giving this article back its status once everything is sourced.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're arguing about FA status anymore, Herb and Redemption; after all, quite a few of the Inquisitors have pretty much stated their conditions for restoring FA status: bring the sourcing up to snuff. Much of the fluff is pretty much gone by now. That's not what this is about anymore, not for me at any rate. The real crux of the argument now is about what Fourdot had to say about giving the article a "complete re-write." Whatever differences we've had on this article, Herb and Redemption, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's not something you'd want. Am I right?

The fact that Fourdot is himself an Inq is what makes his statement so portentious. He's implying that he's in line with the rest of the Inqs on this, though of course you'll see that several Inqs have already come here to state that Fourdot wasn't speaking for them. I think that enough of the Inqs have since distanced themselves from him since to prove my belief that they really don't want to stomp all over the 'Pedia, just keep it the best it can be - within the established rules. Jack's contention is that even if they don't think what Fourdot thinks, his presence as a rather public member of the group makes the rest of them look far worse than they really are, and that they don't help if they don't deal with his more extreme ideas themselves. I trust them to deal with the matter themselves responsibly, but they should deal with it.

Maybe Jack takes the issue of FA status more personally than I do, and is far more vocal in his debates with the Inquisitorius than I would be. But tell me if you think he has no cause at all to be angry. I may not feel toward the Inqs as he does, but a case can be made that Fourdot provoked him. Erik Pflueger  19:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the response, StarNeptune, and I apologize to you and the rest of the Inquisitorius for my comments. Erik pretty much summed it up for me about Fourdot and why I said those comments about the Inquisitorius, so I won't comment on him any more or criticize the Inquisitorius without a proper cause to do so. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case that I may want a rewrite of the article, IMO this is one of the most unencyclopedic entries that that wikia has. I don’t doubt how much time must have been put into the article, but the usage and words used can only merit a rewrite. It certainly does seem interesting and well written, but it sounds more like a screenplay and less like an article.

Besides the fact that the majority of the Wookieepedians prefer this style of writing, it still does not reconcile the truth that the article simply is written in a way that is frowned upon in an encyclopedia.--Herbsewell 20:07, 19 March 2007(UTC)
 * I don't care about the fact that the article might get a rewrite. As long as it's accurate, neutral and gives the complete story of Palpatine, then whatever. As for Jack and Fourdots bickering back and forth...it's kind of hard not to provoke Jack. Sorry, Jack, but you take things way too personally. Way over the edge. Which I warned you about and the failure to listen is exactly what got you banned twice over this matter. This entire discussion really is pointless. All that can be done right now is to fix the article. If there is a problem with another user, I suggest taking it up with him personally, not bringing the entire community into it here. Too much time has been wasted already on this matter. I wish someone would come along and just close the matter and move on to something more productive. -- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you standing down for now, Jack. Now, if I may venture an opinion/suggestion, now that the Inq discussion is tabled for the present, why not go into the article and do what you can in sourcing things? It doesn't change the article itself and it brings us a step closer to getting it out of the hole and back to FA status. You and Redemption may still have issues, but he is right on that point. You like and respect StarNeptune far more, I'm sure, and he said the same thing. Why not take him up on it? I'll help some more at the end of my work day. Good luck, and godspeed! Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You may already have stopped it Redemption. In any case, I agree with you. If anyone who has contributed to this conversation wants the article to become featured at any cost, I suggest they stop posting and actually improve it. For those who are perfectly content with the article, I think they should also stop posting, for they aren’t going to get anything done and more animosity will be created.--Herbsewell 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's one of the wisest things I've ever heard you say, Herb. I'll be jumping into the sourcing action shortly; hope to see you there! :) Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one do not want to see this article changed. If that's the only way it can become a Featured Article again, I hope it never becomes one again. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jack has a point. I also dislike this Inquisitorius thing. Chack Jadson 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stay on topic, or kindly stay off the page. This has gone on long enough. If you want to complain about the Inquisitorius, do it elsewhere. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely. This flame war has gone on too far, and it is my fault. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to stay on topic then, they've finally managed to get around to destroying Erik's great article on Palpy. But there's no point in arguing against the Inq-thing or against the butchering of this article, because they just get pissed off, accuse you of all kinds of things and ban you. KEJ 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stay civil, KEJ. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a template for that, Imp? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You see? *sigh* I'm just saying that this article will be changed for the worsem abd I get accused of being "uncivil". KEJ 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation. You're taking this talk page off topic with pointless ranting. Now please stop. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I suggest you stop before you get yourself banned like I did. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The next person on this topic that only wants to complain about the Inquisitorius should go to Inq:Whine Here!. Seriously.  Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ataru, seriously, that's not a good idea at all. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, why don't you let me be the judge of whether the article is being destroyed or not, since I wrote a lot of it. People here really don't know that the article won't be improved by what we're doing now. If I'm not worried yet, doesn't that count for something? Now, is anybody here gonna help me source things, or what? That's a good idea! Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm actually waiting to see what Fourdot's going to do. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind Fourdot for the present; just help me out. The majority says they just want sourcing done, and they will then be satisfied. That's all. And it's a smart idea anyway. If it falls on me to do it alone, I'll do it, but if you can, if you have the reference material, please help. Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't just disregard what Fourdot's doing. He's going to change the article, and while I'm prepared to revert it completely, action needs to be taken. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, a lot is being deleted. More than I expected, at least... --Danik Kreldin 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourdot recommended that we change the article. He never threatened to do so. Let's just leave this at "we can all be really stubborn sometimes". And, incedentally, can this be nominated to be featured again? Because, it's still great and all. We should stop this flamewar before someone gets a bridge dropped on them. Rodtheanimegod4ever 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course he's going to change the article, Jack. It's a wiki for crying out loud; change happens all the time. I realize that change holds the potential for worsening something, but what you seem unwilling to accept is that change can also hold the potential for betterment. Threating to unilaterally revert any change is silly and counterproductive. Fourdot has the right to edit the article. While you have the right to revert it, don't you think it would be better to actually consider that it might be an improvement? To let the wiki editing process sort out what's worth keeping of his edits and what needs changing? To let Erik, whom you profess to respect so much, see if he minds the change? You're not the only arbiter of quality on this website, Jack. Havac 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourdot is practically destroying the article. If he keeps up what he's doing, the article will be a worthless specter of its past glory. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 00:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax, you are not a god. Fourdot is not a god. Imp, Ataru, Eric and Herb aren't gods. Even me, despite my name, am not a god. No one is absolute here. Fourdot has a right to change the article. You have a right to change his changes. Others have a right to change both of your changes. That's the beauty of a wiki. We all have a right to write how we want to write about Palpatine. Come now, let's not turn this into the equivalent of The Great Revan Image Civil War. Rodtheanimegod4ever 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite. While I see that Fourdot has removed a chunk of information, it was primarily about Plagueis and not Palpatine. I'm betting that much of that information will find its way back in eventually, in a more relevant form, and the excess fluff will be trimmed away. I think Fourdot might end up going a little too far. I think you certainly wouldn't go far enough. I think in the end things should balance out. I don't think you're in a position to revert on grounds of your opinion of the article's former glory. Let it happen and then worry about tweaking and filling back in. Havac 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, I really didn't want it to have to come to this, but I'm afraid that Fourdot is going too far. I suppose I could excuse what he did with the opening paragraphs and the section on his childhood, but the fact is that when he got to Palpatine's relationship with Plagueis, he deleted important information just to have it all fit in a single paragraph. He has shown no restraint in carrying out what he threatened to do. And I have to assume that this is his intent across the board. While I never wanted or expected to have to say this, Havac, I do mind this kind of change, and it does make the article worse. Much worse.

But I'm not asking for a full-blown war over this. First, I'd like to see if the Inquisitorius really is a collection of well-meaning people like I've been saying they are. Neptune, Atarumaster, Culator, et. al., I'm going to assume that what Fourdot's doing, he's doing without your consent or agreement. He's not waiting for the end of the two-week grace period for you to make an informed joint decision; he's just jumping the gun and making your decisions for you. If you really didn't have this in mind, and Fourdot really doesn't speak for you, as you've publicly stated on this forum, then act now. Call him back into line and allow us to find a better middle-ground than this, the opposite extreme to what you asked to be changed. Stop him and allow a third option to be explored.

I've been reasonable and gotten your backs against a good friend of mine, just to keep things calm until we'd finished making the changes you asked for. I did what you asked, and was going to keep doing so. Then one of your own started to override both our work and your will. Please prove me right in the good things I have believed about you, and stop Fourdot now, before it's too late. Erik Pflueger  01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Let's deal with this on those terms, then. If you really think Fourdot has gone too far, do I then have your support if I choose to restore some of what he has removed? Or, perhaps, instead of an edit war, may I suggest that the article be locked for the time being? Erik Pflueger  01:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The two week grace period has already expired. The article is now a former FA. And frankly, as I've pointed out above, we can't stop Fourdot. He's editing as a Wookieepedian, not as an Inquisitor, and we don't exist to ban people from editing. He has as much right to edit the article as anyone else. And you have as much right to revert is as anyone else. We can't ban him. We can't protect the article. We're just users with certain abilities when it comes to judging FAs. I'll leave a note on his talk page and suggest he hold back on just how far he's going with this, and halt the whole thing until we get a better consensus on what to do. But if you're looking at me for a big statement, I can't and won't do it. Neither I nor the rest of the Inquisitors have the authority to order anyone to stop editing (except for those Inquisitors who happen to also be admins, but that's a result of that entirely separate role). He's editing as Fourdot, just as he posted on the talk page as Fourdot, and as I edited the article and posted on the talk page as Havac. Our only decisions as Inquisitors are to be found on the Inquisitorius page. And while I personally think Fourdot may have gone too far, there's nothing I could say as an Inquisitor that would have any meaning. Havac 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need my support. You're as free as anyone else to edit it. Go ahead and restore whatever you want, though doing it in a concise and non-speculative form would probably make everyone happiest. Rewrite to your heart's content. That's what wikis are for. Havac 01:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So the editting begins. Damn shame. Gonna miss this thing for its greatness. However I still got the history so all is not lost and I will be waiting to see how well this thing plays out.
 * Don't worry, Anon. We're not done yet. Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my honest opinion, we should all back off and let Erik work his magic. Rodtheanimegod4ever 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All of us are backing off; Fourdot is not. It does not matter; let him edit as he pleases. He's wasting his time, for regardless of what he does, if I feel it is in the best interests of the article to restore any part what he removes, I will do so. But in fairness to him, if I see something that I feel he's done right, or better than I have, I will leave it alone; in other words, I will show him more consideration than he apparently wishes to extend to me. Because to me, this is not about doing anything just to honk him off, it's about what serves the article better. What he's been doing lately does not.

In fact, I'd bet good money that if we held a vote on the matter, and asked if people would rather have 1.) the original (sources added) version, 2.) a revised and streamlined (sources added) version maintaining the best parts of the original version while removing all fluff and POV, and 3.) Fourdot's version, Option 3 would get the least of all votes. My expectation for the winner would be Option 2; if 2 wins, the article's interests are served best. They're not being served at all by what Fourdot's been doing.

But don't just listen to me rant on and on: what do you people at home think? Shall we vote on it, hmm? Erik Pflueger  03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't: the way those options are set up, option 2 has to win. A lot of users found the earlier version overly ornamented and POV, and a lot of others think the recent cuts are too severe.  The only way this will end is some sort of option 2, or with one "side" giving up.  I think if the discussions are kept more specific, though, compromises might be easier to come up with, especially as more and more of them are made. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and before you cast such a vote, take a look at what Fourdot has to say about your opinion in advance: He said this (please excuse his use of profanity) on his discussion page: If you're here to bitch about my fixing of the Palpatine article, kindly fuck off in the Manual of Style direction.

Yeah. He said that. About you. All of you. That's what he thinks of your opinion. As if what he's doing can be called "fixing" anything, as if what he's doing is an improvement. And as if what he's doing had best be observed as permanent.

This is not about observing the Manual of Style anymore, it's about him basically saying "it's my way or the highway." He's doing this, and if you don't like it, go scratch. If I'm said to not be hip to how things work on a Wiki, what does that say about his understanding of things? Erik Pflueger  03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you see, Dan (and I'm sorry we've not talked lately before now), I am willing to compromise; all my edits the last few weeks have been an attempt to compromise. But what does Fourdot have to say about compromising? He tells everyone to go flarg themselves. I'd be glad to go over the details of what an Option 2 might look like, but he's all about Option 3, and refuses to recognize anything but. Who's being unreasonable here? Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally like this version best. Still all the sources, and still pre-Fourdot but post-removal of fluff and prose. It seems as though Fourdot, no disrespect intended, seems to be only interested in making the article shorter, not better. He almost seems to be removing things at random. I will revert it. Herb or Fourdot will probably yell at me, but it must be done. I only want to end the edit war. Rodtheanimegod4ever 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thank you for trying to be reasonable and keeping a level head, Rod. Respectfully, I submit that the version you referenced is still only a starting point; more fluff and prose needs to be removed, and would have... had my typing hand not been put out of commission for a week, and had this controversy not erupted. The Inquisitorius - or at least the majority of Inqs - are quite right; we're still not there yet. I am quite prepared to compromise, long have been. But from what starting point? That's the question. Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We must find this starting point before this escalates into an edit war. Rodtheanimegod4ever 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And you know, at this point I couldn't care less about FA status. If the Inquisitors remove it, they're just doing their job. That has nothing to do with the current problem. What's in the best interest of the article? Do we want it changed fast or do we want it changed right? Rod correctly identified the problem: what's more important, shorter or better? Trimming for the betterment of the article, or trimming for its own sake, quality be damned?

Your actions, Rod, and your penetrating analysis of the problem, may not end an edit war; it might just stop one before it even starts in grim earnest. Erik Pflueger  04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1

 * 1) Image of Palpatine that is most recent IU, depicts his most iconic appearance -- as opposed to two, which displays an appearance that is least iconic in-universe or out (when people think of Palpatine, they think of "the Emperor" as they first knew him, or they think of the Chancellor. They don't think of his puffy and temporary immediately-post-lightning appearance). Plus it's a clean headshot with none of the distracting lightsabery and the tiny view of his face. Havac 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Option 2 is goofy. Option 1 is Palpatine. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm going to have to vote for option 1. This was Palpatine as we first saw him in Return of the Jedi, in all his glory. --Danik Kreldin 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Lord Hydronium 01:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Cull Tremayne 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC) -- I'd like to see a cleaner shot of his entire face, but image 2 is no better at showing his entire visage.
 * 7) I hate how common this image is, but the fact that the photoshopper on the other pic wasn't thinking in 3-D when he did the lightsaber makes that image a joke. -- Ozzel 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) And now, silly lightsaber pic, you will die. jSarek 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) If I have any problem with Option 1, it's that we've seen it so many times over the last twenty-four years that it's gotten boring to me. That said, I don't have any substantive objection to it. Why not? Erik Pflueger [[Image:Galactic_Republic.JPG|20px]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 03:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, Ozzel... never noticed that.... Hnnn. Cutch 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Obviously KEJ 06:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Because then it will be 16. .  .  .  .  20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) JMAS 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)