User talk:Evir Daal

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

Welcome Evir Daal!
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:
 * Internal pages:
 * Senate Hall
 * Wookieepedia FAQ
 * Manual of Style
 * Online sources
 * Wookification
 * Things to do
 * Jundland Wastes Sandbox
 * What Wookieepedia is not
 * External Wikipedia pages:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

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 me on my talk page. May the Force be with you! &mdash; Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * }

New articles
Try to remember to add sources / appearances to new articles you create and to add them to any appropriate categories. Thanks. Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I'm still learning, it was my first new article. But I think I've fixed it now. Evir Daal 08:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks for the help. Evir Daal 08:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I used to forget at first (still do occasionally). Just remember appearances for comics, books, films, etc and sources for reference books (see WP:LG). Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Ruler
I reverted your edit to Supreme Dark Ruler: please revert again if you can provide a source for the "Supreme Ruler" title. Thanks, &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I remember it correctly, they used that title too in the ROTJ novelisation, though I can't provide a page number or anything right now. Evir Daal 07:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is, ROTJ novelisation, p. 373 in my The Star Wars Trilogy collection, 7th printing:

"Patience, my friend," the Supreme Ruler cautioned.

So I'll just go ahead, OK? Evir Daal 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Sorry for my confusion. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I know how important it is to verify these things. Evir Daal 08:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Electric judgment query
I apologize for the delay. But to answer your question, the Yuuzhan Vong are vulnerable to telekinetic skills and powers; Tsavong Lah was once hurled right through an open window by a whirlwind explosion of Force energy at the climax of Balance Point. And as of now, the Yuuzhan Vong are not universally Force-blind. Believe me, I think it's dumb too, but just check the link to Vongerella and you'll see what I mean. Azra Namor 22:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay; Time Warner sucks!
Yeah, Time Warner had some customer care issues earlier this weekend, but I'm finally back. And in response to your query: Yeah, you have a point. There's a difference between attacking the Vong with something like Force Whirlwind and targeting them with, say, Death Field or Drain Life, but the distinction is hard to draw, largely because nobody really cares. Why is Electric judgment any less physical than a strong gust of wind? I know KOTOR is a tacky example, but the only reason I was able to defeat Darth Malak was because I saved all 5 charges of Yusanis's dueling shield to absorb his Force lightning attacks. No mystic energy field there; just a trusty personal deflector shield. I know there's some confusion about this, because of the whole 'Palpy's face melting' thing and that crack about 'emotional and spiritual agony' in the Wook article, but the whole 'skeletal calcification' thing in The Truce at Bakura was about as scientific as you get. Basically, the only stuff that won't work on the Vong are mind-affecting powers and weird spirit stuff (i.e. Sith 'magic' in Tales of the Jedi and Jedi vs. Sith). Force lightning and Electric judgment are just another kind of telekinetic skill. And if the Vong aren't part of the Force, then why are there so many Force visions with Vong in them? The Force isn't supposed to even know they're there! All in all, I think the sentence was unnecessary; the Vong immunity is something that deserves its own article; it doesn't need a sentence in every Force power.

(Besides, the sentence was kind of jarring and it interrupted the flow of the paragraph. That's why I stopped long enough to notice the factual ambiguity. If it had been integrated seamlessly with the rest of the article, it would've been too much of a hassle to fix. I'm all about sentence structure; just look at spirit transference!)

For more on the actual nature of how telekinetic powers work, check out my work on Force Push. Azra Namor 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Never said it couldn't
I was never denying that it could affect them. I'm just saying that "electric judgment works on the Vong" is basically the same as "a blaster in the face can affect the Vong." It doesn't need its own sentence. But I admit, the topic itself is kind of screwed up; Lomi Plo, being a Nightsister, obviously used the more lethal Force lightning technique to kill the shaper, but Jacen Solo (in the basement of the Jedi Temple on Yuuzhan'tar) tried to fry them with the same technique but found that "there was a circuit missing." So he'd brought the roof down on them. Not to mention the fact that the lightning had burned holes in his hands, which hasn't happened anywhere else in canon (as far as I know). Azra Namor 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Sikon's Edit
Actually, check out the user page policy, buddy...Sikon's acting within it's parameters. --School of Thrawn 101 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I have a bad feeling about this. --School of Thrawn 101 10:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy says that the right place for guestbooks is at the Guestbook Wikia. Also, please respond to messages left on your talk page on your talk page, not on the talk page of the user who posted the message. - Sikon 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That statement immediately follows the official ban on guestbook sub-pages. While it is still a good idea, imo, to have a guestbook at the Guestbook Wiki, the policy, as it appears currently, does not ban a guestbook on a user's main page. --School of Thrawn 101 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a sub-section to the one above. As I said, it's perfectly legit, and I can't see how it's hurting anyone, least of all enough to warrant summary deletion. If you have a problem with it, Sikon, why not talk about it before editing a legit userpage?
 * Oh... and sorry for forgetting to sign the last one. Evir Daal 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy is not legal code, and we're not discussing formalities here. The policy says Wookieepedia is not a social club. Just because it only says "guestbook or blog subpages" doesn't mean guestbooks or blogs per se are allowed. Also, Evir Daal, you reverted an administrative action, calling it "vandalism", without even bothering to discuss first. And you continue to ignore my requests to respond on your own talk page, rather than mine. - Sikon 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sikon, it also doesn't mean that they're not allowed, either. --School of Thrawn 101 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Evir Daal 11:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that Wookieepedia is not a social club does well mean they're not allowed. We have plenty of precedents for guestbooks being deleted - I didn't even start the Happy Fun Cleanup Project. And the policy explicitly says where the right place for guestbooks is. - Sikon 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But it does not explicitly deny a user's ability to contain a guestbook within the boundaries of their main user page. That is my contention. --School of Thrawn 101 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not enough that you say so to make it policy, Sikon. If it is, it should be on the page (it isn't there). Until Guestbooks on user main pages are expressly prohibited, I'll have to assume they're legit, and so should you. Evir Daal 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't, I just hadn't read it before sending the last post. As for the situation, if someone starts messing up my page for no good reason I assume it to be vandals. And even admins have to follow the rules. The user page policy, as it is know, doesn't prohibit Guestbooks. If you have a problem with that, request a change of policy. When (and if) such a rule is implemented, I will be happy to comply, but I won't be subject to capricious and arbitrary judgments unsupported by policy. Evir Daal 11:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Item 7 of The Happy Fun User Page Super Friendly Cleanup Project, guestbooks are to be deleted from user pages. Quit trying to game the system; you won't win.  Have a Happy Fun Super Friendly Day. jSarek 11:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere on the What Wookieepedia is Not nor on the User Page Policy sections does it specifically mention guestbooks that exist on a user's main page. The Forum that you link to does mention that guestbooks on main pages will be deleted; however, that action is not supported by policy.  At least, no policy that I can find.  If there is such a policy, please link to it, as I'm a sponge for information of that nature. --School of Thrawn 101 11:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is actual policy, I am, as stated, happy to comply. Truth be told, I never liked those things overmuch anyway, it was mostly the way Sikon approached it that pushed me on the defensive. Thank you, everyone, for helping to clear this up. You may want clarify the policy page a bit to prevent this from happening again, though. Just a suggestion. Evir Daal 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT section 2.2. If you can coherently explain how a guestbook is anything BUT a general-purpose message board, we'll drop it. Except you can't. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 11:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "And so it ends, as I somehow always knew it must... in darkness." It is done. Evir Daal 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I am aware that Evir Daal has declined to continue the debate, I would like to point out that classifying a guestbook as a "general purpose message board" is an incorrect classification. A guestbook may fulfill a similar role in regards to a message board, but it is in no way "general purpose" in nature.  A guestbook has a specific role to perform and is usually not allowed to operate outside of that particular role.  A guestbook is not a place for discussion, but a simple script included within a website or page to allow other users to "leave their mark" as a means of recording their visit.  While I am aware that Wikipedia is not the end-all when it comes to information, I would point any interested party in the direction of Internet Forum which makes no specific mention of guestbooks at any point within the article.  The article for Guestbook, likewise, makes no specific mention of "message board" in it's article. --School of Thrawn 101 11:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An appendum, upon further review of Guestbook, it does specifically say ...a guestbook is different from a chat room (which is more or less realtime communication), or an Internet forum (which is intended to be a location for discussions).... --School of Thrawn 101 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)