User talk:Jack Nebulax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humans or humans

 * Admiral...

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

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

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

Emperor Palpatine "self-declared" emperor
Emperor Palpatine not only declared himself emperor before the Galactic Senate, but also anointed himself emperor in the aforementioned bodie's presence. This change in diction is more revealing, but should be considered a minor edit/improvement not to be debated. Why is that it seems you revert any contribution I make? --24.253.120.206
 * Maybe because it would be better another way. Nontheless, "self-declared" is much better than "self-anointed". Admiral J. Nebulax 21:13, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, Jack and Unnamed-Series of-Numbers. What about self-appointed? One can be appointed to a government position (Palpatine did so for others many a time). Can it not be said that he appointed himself to the position of Emperor, and the lapdog Senate approved? Or not. I just thought I'd toss it out. I happen to like self-declared better, since most Star Wars material I've read since childhood phrased it in terms very similar - or exactly like - that. But it really won't sink the article either way. Erik Pflueger 21:19, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)