User talk:Zeta1127,89thLegion

{| id="w" width="100%" style="background: transparent; "
 * valign="top" width="50%" style="background: silver; border: 2px solid #000000; padding: .5em 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em"|

Welcome, Zeta1127,89thLegion!
Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Wookieepedia aspires to be a reliable source for all Star Wars fans to read and draw information from, and as such, fan-created continuity and fan fiction are not allowed within our articles. All in-universe material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Please do not remove talk page and forum comments, as they are part of the public record. Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask one of our administrators. May the Force be with you!
 * }

WP:RWM
I've noticed you helping with Star Wars Main Title a little. I appreciate the help a lot. Since you show a little interest, would you like to join WookieeProject: Real World Music? MasterFred (Whatever) 12:49, October 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 15:42, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome!!!! Welcome aboard! Just visit the project page and add your name the list of editors in the infobox. If you wanna take on a project, sign your name next to one, or add your own, in the projects section. c):D MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 15:45, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

The Imperial March
Hello Zeta! Just a reminder that you currently have "The Imperial March" as a project for WP:RWM. It's been three weeks since your last edit on the page. If you are still planning on editing the article, do so within the next week if possible. If inactivity is still shown, I may have to take your name off the list of projects. You can look at "Star Wars Main Title" for an example on how to write an OOU music article. Thank you for your time and God bless! MasterFred (Whatever) 19:48, November 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been busy with college classes. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 19:51, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally understand. Don't worry. The article isn't going anywhere. :P MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 19:56, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Distaste
I officially don't like this place very much. It has its uses, but you guys are just too strict and narrow-minded for my taste, so I don't think I will be able to do a whole lot here. This statement isn't meant to be offensive, only an opinion. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 02:43, December 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * My distaste stems from the fact that I don't like the culture here of cataloging every appearance without caring what the appearance did or did not do, and not being able to do anything unless it is in a canon source or article cleanup. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 00:27, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi, just wanted to let you know that doing whitespace edit just to be able to communicate via edit summaries is not nice thing to do, as it causes unnecessary edit history noise and goes against the idea of edit summary, it is supposed to summarize the edit, not to comment (see Help:Edit summary). Please use article/user talk pages instead, as they are more fitted to the purpose, thanks. –Tm_T (Talk) 20:33, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Carida as a Good Article
If you know how to add a notes and references thing to the Battle of Carida could you I don't know how? User:Grand Moff Hopkins

Possible ships
These ships were Imperial-class Star Destroyers modified by the New Republic and/or Galactic Alliance to posses gravity well projector globes internally.
 * Bail Organa
 * Elegos A'Kla
 * Mon Mothma

Your name
Curious how did you get the 89th Legion part of your name? I've been working on making my own legion and called it the 89th71.209.84.5 03:36, February 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * 89 has special meaning to me. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 04:03, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Unverified Information
Per this discussion, unless we have canonical proof that those ships were named after the Roman/Latin/whatever foreign language, then it needs to be removed. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I had it confirmed by an administrator. <- Omicron (Leave a message at the BEEP! ) 20:41, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Canon, everything revolves around your precious canon, like that is the ruling force of the universe. You people can disagree with something and still do it anyway, amazing, simply amazing. I heard this tune before about the Tantive IV dramatic reversal retcon. This makes me wonder if as I said before elsewhere we would be better off with droids editing here instead of people. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 21:49, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Leland Chee seems to be able to poke his nose into everything, can't he resolve this, because it is blatantly obvious that Republic/Imperial Star Destroyer class names are Latin. The Imperator/Imperial-class Star Destroyer has this info, so why can't the others? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 01:10, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, what exactly was Omicron reverting of yours? He's been removing 'unverified' info on the Jizz article as well. Destroying the wiki. I want to know so he can be reported. --Thesaurus Rex 01:20, February 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Omicron did not revert anything of mine, he reverted some of the long standing behind the scenes stuff on the name origins of a few Star Destroyers and their larger brethren. To my knowledge, the naming convention for most Republic and later Imperial Star Destroyers is Latin roots, and I don't particularly like the policy. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:11, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

XvT: BoP Easter Egg
Hey there Zeta. I've contacted you as you're the most recent editor of the XvT article.

I've discovered an Easter Egg in BoP that features a cameo by the game testers (as evidenced by their names in-game and their designation as members of Bantha Squadron - they are credited as the Banthas in the XvT manual). My question is does this appearance, as it takes place in an actual mission in-game, render these characters and the squadron (as well as the ships they appear with) canonical? The whole episode is very jokey, with ships named Dead Meat and Already Dead being taken down by the Banthas.

To find the Easter Egg, play the BoP Combat Engagement 'Attack on Rebel Cruisers' (my memory may not be exactly right on this) as Rebels (haven't tried it as Imps yet) and, after all three cruisers are either destroyed or have went into hyperspace, wait for 9 minutes and 40 seconds. The Imperial team must have summoned reinforcements (which may need to be done by the CPU as opposed to a player). Two ISDs will show up and launch a squad of pathetically weak T/Is. About 3 mins after this, two CRSs will arrive, pursuing the ISDs, and Bantha squad will launch to take out the two ships.

I know this sounds very stupid, but you can corroborate what I'm saying by opening the mission in an editor.

Anyway, let me know what you think.ChebGhobbi 00:02, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Braha'tok-class gunship
Hey Zeta1127, I noticed you've been trying to add a "Known ships" section to the Braha'tok-class gunship page, which I'm currently bringing up to Featured Article status. However, a "Known ships" section is not part of the Starship and Vehicle Class Articles' Layout Guide, which you can see here: Layout Guide. Before adding sections to a page, make sure it corresponds to the Layout Guide. Thanks. Kilson ( Let's have a chat ) 03:38, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, most of the Corellian freighters have such sections, I have seen them in other ship class articles, and have put them in articles with no complaints until now. There is nothing in that guide that precludes the addition of such a section, in fact, other sections can be added according to that guide. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 08:07, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

magna guard
SInce you are a huge Star Wars Fan can you help me out with the Magna Guard article. Mostly just adding sources and appearances and adding to the Bibliography. Thanks,--kangaroopowah Talk  02:38, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

T2-b tank
i have a question. why did you delete behind the scenes ? Did i do something wrong ?


 * I undid the edit because it was so poorly written and not that informative. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 18:04, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Re:T2-b tank
Ok, but could someone edited it to make it informative

Stop doing that...
I am being stalked, I am removing all things connecting individual websites with each other.

What is your problem...?
I have a serious stalking problem... I am destroying anything that connects websites I go too from each other...

Please help
I can't figure anything out

Nickname quotations in intro
Hey, Zeta1127,89thLegion, I just want to let you know that please be more careful when you're editing in FAs, or in any promoted articles for that matter. If you take a look at CC-1119, I corrected a mistake you made in the intro. The comma after mentioning the clone's nickname, "Appo," needs to go inside the quotation marks. This is grammatically correct and should also be present in non-promoted articles as well. I just wanted to let you know just in case this occurs in the future.  JangFett  (Talk) 22:55, August 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, at least half of the clone trooper articles don't even have quotes in the first place, so I was just adding the quotes, and grammatically correct or not, it looks terrible, but it won't happen again. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:00, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comments on a revised Timeline of media
As an editor of media timelines, your input is desired: Forum:SH:Making_a_better_%22Timeline_of_media%22 --Morbus Iff 17:23, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Anakin Skywalker's Sith title
Please do not change the name in the infobox. His name is Anakin Skywalker. Using Darth Vader is inappropriate as established by the Naming convention policy and as referred to in the discussion on the article's talk page.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 15:46, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the difference between adding Darth Vader to the infobox and adding Darth Sidious and Darth Tyranus to their respective pages? Darth Plagueis was already renamed to his Sith title and Darth Tenebrous should probably be renamed to his Sith title too. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 19:24, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that you did those edits yourself, you should have come to the conclusion that the removing of Darth Vader from the Anakin Skywalker infobox should be applied to those as well. Plagueis is the name that that Sith lord was known by prominently ("remembered as"), as was Darth Caedus. Darth Vader (an apparent upstart with no military experience in the eyes of other Imperial officers) was not associated as being Anakin Skywalker (the best star pilot known throughout the galaxy). Please do not add or change the infoboxes until you have read the policies regarding those. These issues have already been discussed and decided. You can look over the archived discussions if their respective Talk pages do not make current mention of the policy guidelines.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 21:19, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you dare tell me about policy, I was following the lead of an admin, CC7567, who was mistaken. I don't particularly like the policy around here anyway, since it allows for the existence of the abomination that is TCW (explained below), but I do respect the policy. Please don't use Jacen Solo/Darth Caedus (All of the evidence tells me he died as Jacen Solo) as an example, because as far as I am concerned, TCW and the post-Galactic Civil War are both scarcely canon, TCW blurs the lines between canon and fanon due to its lack of respect for existing canon, and the NJO and beyond is little more than one bad plot choice after another. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 04:48, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Okarr's demise
Why did you take away the information of Nico Okarr's death, demise means death. --24.115.227.131 02:19, February 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * I know what demise means, but you didn't exactly add details so I assumed you were making it up, something unregistered contributors are notorious for doing, and you didn't exactly format it right. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:35, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Falleen's Fist
Hello, I would ask that you please provide a reference citation for your edit here regarding this conflict being referred canonically as the "Battle of Falleen's Fist." Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:09, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Falleen's Fist redirects there and is used repeatedly including the article on the Falleen's Fist itself. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:12, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you find something in another article does not mean that it's correct. Wookieepedia itself is not considered a source for reliable information. "Battle of Falleen's Fist" is a conjectural title someone came up with on this wiki once upon a time in order to name that article, but, as far as I know, it is by no means official or correct, whereas "Battle over Coruscant" is a verifiable canonical title for this conflict. Since you don't seem to have a reliable source for this information, I have reverted this edit. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:27, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not trying to be a problem. What about the continuity concerns about the StarViper-class attack platform on its talk page? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:33, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, it's a common misconception people have. Which continuity concern are you referring to exactly there? Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:36, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the potential discrepancy in the FoC campaign with the Zann Consortium deploying StarVipers as early as 1 BBY during the Mission to Mandalore. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like you guys have uncovered a legitimate continuity discrepancy. It's probably something that can't be truly ironed out without some official word from Lucasfilm reconciling this in some way. I would suggest simply asserting all information in the article, even where contradictory, and note the contradiction in the BTS, as you are in that discussion. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:48, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * So no one noticed that the Zann Consortium deployed StarVipers as early as four years before Xizor's death? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:52, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean no one on this wiki, possibly not. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:56, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what I mean. The MandalMotors verse Mandal Hypernautics debate has always bugged me too, it seems like the best way to explain that is Mandal Hypernautics being a subsidiary of MandalMotors. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 06:01, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * You could try posing the question to Leland Chee on his Facebook page blog asking him to provide a retcon explanation for this discrepancy. He seems pretty good about responding to questions there. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:03, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I want to do that, because I don't particularly like the way he handled the Tantive IV CR70 verse CR90 debacle, which made a mess out of Corla Metonae's history. While I have your attention, why is the CR-20 troop carrier not named the CR20 troop carrier, when the databank even referred to it as a CR20? Someone pointed this out on its talk page, and I confirmed it, but no one seemed to notice. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 06:11, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of this ship, but I would imagine because a more recent source like CSWE or Clone Wars Campaign Guide called it by this designation. At this point, the Databank is pretty outdated, especially now that it's been shut down. It shouldn't necessarily be considered a say all, end all source. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:16, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

New policy
Do not remove perfectly good edits. They are not vandalism. Please see this new policy. Thanks,  JangFett  (Talk) 03:32, April 1, 2012 (UTC)