User talk:Master Jonathan

'''To keep the conversation together in one place, if you leave a message here, I will reply here. Likewise, if I leave a message on your talk page, please reply there; I watchlist all talk pages that I edit.'''

If you are here to request information from The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, please post your request on the Forum:Entry requests page, not here.

'''Please do not use repeat or non-descriptive headings like "Request", as these headings make the table of contents difficult to navigate, and duplicate headers complicate section linking in the event I need to link a discussion from this page elsewhere. Thank you.'''

 Copy-edit requests: 
 * If you are requesting a copy-edit, start a new section for each request. Please do not place new requests under old headings. Multiple articles should not be placed under a single heading unless they are requested simultaneously.
 * If you want a pre-nom review or word count with the copy-edit, please explicitly say so in the request, otherwise I will perform a copy-edit only. Keep in mind that I am not a member of any reviewing panel and rarely conduct reviews, so my review might not be as thorough as what you would get from an Inquisitor or AgriCorps member. Adding a pre-nom review to your request may lengthen the response time.
 * Effective immediately, I will post pre-nom reviews, including a statement that I have no objections (if that is the case). on the article talk page, not on this page. This way the review is easier for others to find and look at, and it eliminates the need for you to sort through irrelevant messages on this page. Outside of the nomination pages, discussion on improving an article technically belongs on the article talk page anyway. Replies to a request for copy-edit only will still come here.
 * Unless I have a Vacation notice above, I will try to perform the copy-edit within 48 hours (72 hours if a review is requested also). If I need more time, I will let you know under the request as soon as possible.
 * Although there are no limits (minimum or maximum) on the length of articles I will accept, keep in mind that shorter articles will generally receive quicker responses than longer articles. Extremely long articles (approx. 75 KB or larger) may be done over multiple days.
 * If you leave an Inuse tag on the article, I will interpret your request as implicit permission to edit through said tag. If you don't want me to do this, please say so. I will use my own Inuse tag if I expect to spend more than 10–15 minutes on the article.'''

Archives:
 * Welcome
 * January 24 – April 29, 2009
 * May 6 – June 18, 2009
 * June 24 – August 28, 2009
 * August 29 – November 19, 2009
 * November 21, 2009 – February 5, 2010
 * February 8 – March 22, 2010
 * March 28 – May 12, 2010
 * May 17 – June 15, 2010
 * June 17 – July 21, 2010
 * July 24 – September 1, 2010
 * September 3 – October 20, 2010
 * October 21 – December 23, 2010
 * January 1 – April 4, 2011
 * April 8 – July 12, 2011
 * July 17 – November 6, 2011
 * November 8, 2011 – January 20, 2012
 * January 22 – May 25, 2012
 * May 28 – July 7, 2012
 * July 12 – August 12, 2012
 * August 16 – November 20, 2012
 * November 23, 2012 – January 10, 2013
 * January 10 – February 7, 2013
 * February 11 – April 2, 2013
 * April 4 – June 25, 2013

Re:Protect
Done.  JangFett  (Talk) 01:52, July 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) &mdash;MJ&mdash; Jedi Council Chambers 01:53, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Also, please check my edits for your recent TC: Vandalism in progress.  JangFett  (Talk) 01:57, July 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I went ahead and killed the entire dynamic section, since the only purpose of that was to list user pages tagged with vip. Thanks for closing that. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Comlink 02:00, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wasn't sure about that. :P  JangFett  (Talk) 02:01, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey man, can I talk to you on IRC, if you have time.  JangFett  (Talk) 02:23, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the template move happy user
He just tried to do this this with the FFG templates that, as a CT Consensus decided, were to be split as shown on the CT page. He suggested on the template talk pages that a consensus for moving them was not needed and that an informal discussion was all that was needed (which is incorrect). I have commented rebuttals for not moving the templates&mdash;not including the fact that the CT vote decided to have the templates split as they are now. As I posted on Tranner's page, if you let this one slide, you are looking at many more moves about to happen. This is more than "being bold." He moved this after trying to get the others moved, so he is trying to move stuff around without opposition. The issue is that he is doing so without asking the community, and (like I posted on Tranners discussion) now I have to ask to move it back? I will defer to you guys on what to do, but I am just letting you know this isn't the first attempt he's made. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 03:56, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review. Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/Template:GG. Also, please note the correlating forum topic: Forum:SH:Are There Guidelines for Naming Templates? &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 06:33, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, Thunderforge has informed me that his template move was due to a discussion he had on IRC, and that is why no discussion was made here on Talk pages or in the CT forum. The precedent, however, of moving articles without discussion in the visible areas of the community is still one that needs to be worked out. As well as when such moves are made without community decision, that the reverting process for the move is the one that is made to undergo procedure to request the change. This is backward, and allows those (maybe not Thunderforge, but others) who would attempt unilateral or disruptive changes to successfully do so with ease, where the correction is the process that is scrutinized and lengthy. What do we do about this? &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 08:39, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wookieepedia is not a bureaucracy. One does not ever need to obtain formal consensus before every single action, especially when the person taking the action has reason to believe that the action is not controversial. Consensus only needs to be sought in advance when the person proposing the action has reason to believe that the action might be controversial. Also, repeatedly moving a page&mdash;any page&mdash;is highly disruptive. Therefore, when a WP:BOLD pagemove is contested, particularly a template where the title is only meaningful to editors and not readers, the proper solution is to immediately stop moving the page around, leave it where it is until agreement is reached, then move the page to the agreed-upon title. Moving it back solely because consensus was not sought in advance, when the ultimate consensus could well result in putting it back at the title it was first moved to, serves no purpose whatsoever except attempting to enforce process for the sake of process, which is ridiculous. And as far as "moving articles without discussion in the visible areas of the community", IRC is a visible area of the community, as anyone can join the channel, and decisions affecting the wiki are often made on IRC. That's just the way Wookieepedia works. &mdash;MJ&mdash; War Room 17:40, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Are such IRC discussions archived where they can be visible to those who were not present for those discussions and, thus, did not have the option to "weigh in?' &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 20:58, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Logs are not routinely posted on-wiki except for Mofferences and Inq and AC meetings, but I believe Culator's IRC bot, Nuku-Nuku, privately logs everything said in every channel she's in (yes, it's a female bot :P). So if you ask Culator nicely, he may be able to provide you with the relevant section of the log when he has some free time to search for it. Having the date and approximate time of the discussion would help him greatly in locating it. Private conversations between two users not held in an open channel will not have logs unless one user saved it manually, and if they did, regulations set by Freenode (the company that hosts our IRC channels) dictate that logs of private discussions cannot be posted publicly or distributed in any way without explicit advance permission from both users (however, if both users give permission, then it can be posted publicly without further restriction). &mdash;MJ&mdash; War Room 21:11, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I might add that Culator is more likely to respond in a positive manner when he's not frustrated with or pissed off at you, and while I can't speak for him, judging by his comment on your TC thread, my guess is that he doesn't think too highly of you right now, to put it politely. My advice would be to wait a couple of days, maybe even until the TC is closed, to give everyone upset with you a chance to calm down before you bug him for the log. Wookieepedia does not have a deadline. :P &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Council Chambers</b> 21:23, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know why DC would be upset with me either. I do agree on reflection that CT puts things in development heck, so I can understand the expressions and comments regarding that on the votes. I also need to get in touch with him concerning the new issue that has developed. This is the main reason why I do not agree (and I will do the proper CT for it next) in using IRC for consensus on major changes to templates and articles unless those discussions lead to talk page guidance. Certainly, a post of IRC consensus copy-pasted on the talk page would work, I imagine, to let the community know what's going on. However, just someone saying, "I got IRC consensus" doesn't prove anything. I assumed good faith that it happened, but according to Trip, it actually did not... despite Thunderforge's previous assurances more than once that he sought IRC approval for the move. So, if DC can look into it to verify who is telling the truth (because they both can't be) would be very interesting. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 10:19, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay in responding; I was away from the computer yesterday and was busy most of today. Culator, in general, tends to have very short patience with people who have violated policies or flirted with violating them. Whether your actions were in good faith or not (I believe they are), the fact is that by starting the TC thread, and now possibly with the new CT, you came very close to violating WP:POINT. So he quite possibly might ignore you if you ask now. He did respond to your request to close the TC thread, but I would still advise waiting a few days at least before asking for the logs. A sincere apology (to him or to the community in general) will go a long way here. That said, if we have conflicting stories about whether that IRC discussion actually happened, then I too would be interested in seeing the logs. &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Council Chambers</b> 03:47, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article?
Why did you delete my article?--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 03:33, July 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Because the "restricted items" system is pure game mechanics, which we don't cover. Licensing and legal issues are unique for each and every item; they don't fit neatly into a small number of categories. That's just a convenience system to make things easier on players and GMs. &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Training Room</b> 03:42, July 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * What game mechanics that are allowed then? I see game mechanics all the time. For example, the cost of items are game mechanics. Dividing armor into categories Category:Light armor, Category:Medium armor, Category:Heavy armor are game mechanics. --Richterbelmont10 (talk) 03:55, July 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Costs of items are not game mechanics; they are simply the item's in-universe cost. Armor categories appear to me at first to be a gray area, and I might have to look into those to determine whether we really should be categorizing like that. As for "what game mechanics we allow", the answer is a flat "none". Game mechanics are defined as rules, categorization systems, and other material that exist solely OOU. However, when those OOU rules and concepts have an IU representation, that IU representation is canon and not game mechanics Using the new Fantasy Flight RPG as an example, if Character A has four ranks in the Piloting (Space) skill (out of the maximum of five), we don't say in an article exactly that because the skill rank system is OOU, but we can say that Character A is an expert pilot, which is what the four ranks represent IU. Likewise if the rules classify an item as "Restricted", we don't say that it was classified as "Restricted" because that's just an OOU term generalizing things for the benefit of players and GMs. We can, however, describe in the item's article what that term represents IU, using any further details in the item's description to be more specific. So while the licensing fees and legal restrictions exist IU and thus are not game mechanics, the four classifications, as well as the general concept, of "restricted items", do not exist IU and thus are game mechanics. Does that make sense? &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Training Room</b> 04:16, July 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that skill ranks are game mechanics that should not be posted. But you yourself admit that licensing fees and legal restrictions do exist in universe. Wouldn't it have been better to edit the article (perhaps removing the sections about the 4 categories) rather than completely deleting it? I spent a lot of time writing this article and making sure that it conformed to all Wookieepedia's standards, even checking Wikipedia on things like naming policies, referencing, and rewording to avoid copyright violation.--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 04:25, July 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Read what I said closer: "So while the licensing fees and legal restrictions exist IU and thus are not game mechanics, the four classifications, as well as the general concept, of "restricted items", do not exist IU and thus are game mechanics." (emphasis added) The article purported to lump all these items together under the title "Restricted items", but such a general classification does not exist IU. That makes the mere existence of an article on the subject inappropriate. The correct place to describe the licensing and legal issues is in the respective articles on each of the affected items. A stand-alone article should not exist because that would require lumping everything together in an OOU manner under a game mechanics term. &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Training Room</b> 19:37, July 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. I wish I would have known this before writing the article!--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 22:45, July 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * When in doubt, don't forget that you can always ask first, either on someone's user talk page or simply by posting a thread in the Senate Hall forum. Just a simple "is this OK?" can save you a lot of trouble later. :) &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Comlink</b> 23:03, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Club penguin
I thought so too:. But then I remembered that Disney owns LFL. Is that Club Penguin an official LFL licensed game? I just reverted a series of edits from the same user, but I reverted my reverts just to be safe.  JangFett  (Talk) 00:46, July 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Good point. At the very least, it's a licensed crossover, similar to Soulcalibur IV, which we do list (see Galen_Marek). So yes, it should be listed. I've reverted my revert also. &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Comlink</b> 00:51, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Template:Device Modifier data field
Thanks for your help with that.--Richterbelmont10 (talk) 17:19, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Okay, I'm sorry for causing any trouble. Don't get mad. You may not know the image is genuine, but I do. I play Club Penguin every day of my life. I cannot really give a proper source because the image is screenshotted from the game, but I will do my best!

ɐɾuıN uǝǝɹפ (talk) 23:05, July 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw the change; thanks for the quick response. One question: When you access the game through the website normally, is that the literal URL that it sends you to, or does it send you to a standard HTML page with that Flash object embedded in it? If the latter is the case, then we would prefer the URL of that page instead. &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Council Chambers</b> 23:15, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Range
Thanks for catching that, MJ. Yes, I meant Verizon and not Version. :P  JangFett  (Talk) 03:42, July 27, 2013 (UTC)