User talk:Toprawa and Ralltiir

'''Do not leave messages concerning FAN or GAN objections. I will not respond to them. Use the nominations pages.''' '''Please do not leave me requests to review your Featured or Good article nominations. I am on reviewing hiatus for the time being to focus my time and energy on my own project. Thank you for your understanding.'''

Archived talk: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: Congrats
Thanks very much, Tope. :)  CC7567  (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Asteroid victim officer
It doesn't look like the scene - for one, there are too many people present, whereas there are only three (I think) in the film. Most of them look like regular crewmembers (as they lack rank plates). But my guy could very well be the guy who Vader cuts off almost entirely. Still pretty interesting, though. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 10:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember
Since you were the one who closed the TC on Category:Non-force sensitive Lightsaber Users, I was hoping you could help. Here is your review history for that day: [|April 28]. Can you tell me if all of the edits from Anja Gallandro to Thall Joben were related to that Category (since edits to categories aren't directly shown, I just wanna be sure). Some of the articles don't even mention lightsabers, so I didn't want to mistakenly add someone unrelated to my new list (User:IthinkIwannaLeia/Non-Force sensitive Lightsaber Users. Thanks for your help T&R.  IthinkIwannaLeia  WaddaUthink?  17:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The link you gave me doesn't work, but regardless, you can check my editing history just as easily as I can. All you need to do is check whether I removed that category or not. I don't know if everything that was in that category was accurate. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: TC
My apologies. - Esjs (Talk) 19:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though this is too late, is the new voting option OK with you?- Esjs (Talk) 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't mind if someone creates a new voting option if they think that is the best option, but I do believe it's best to speak with the thread author first. No worries. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: New Otoh Gunga
Hi. I just added the only source we have here -which is the same as the only appearance, by the way. I know this isn't very much/enough, but this is the only one we have, I fear.

LelalMekha 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Redlinks
No need to explain, I fully understand it (the redlink tag). Was sort of confused on the official guidelines of GAN and in the future if a article is nominated I shouldn't tag it? Thanks for filling me in on all of this. I am not new to the wiki formatting, Im a sysop on Wikipedia - just a little new to Wookieepedia :P Im trying to understand a lot more of Wookieepedia's official policies so I can make the best edits as possible. Thanks again for the help :)  JangFett  Talk 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Inq Meeting XXV
An Inquisitorius meeting has been scheduled for 23:00 UTC on the 24th of May. Your presence is requested. Apologies for the late notice. Thefourdotelipsis 00:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

INQCON
The new INQCON system is now in effect. For details on this new tool, please review the linked page. It is requested that you check any current featured article nominations that you have fully read and are currently objecting to, and change the respective INQCON number on the nomination if you are intending to ultimately support the article once your objections have been resolved. Also, please remember to change the Triage page when altering INQCON numbers. Any queries about the process can be made on the afore-linked INQCON page. Thanks, Thefourdotelipsis 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey dude
Hey Toprawa, it's Marauder 09, I dont know if your still pissed off at me for that voting mix up on the Scoundrel's Luck, but it's been taking me quite a while to rack up the courage to want to say this to you about that voting on deletion article, I guess you might have taught me one thing about voting on deletions, and that's to look at the date it was last responded to, but just to say I have been editing around here sometimes as an anonymous user, only adding appearances, adding small bits I'm of info to articles, and spelling corrections. I dont know if you can unblock users after being sentenced to a permanent ban but even though I'm guessing this request will just be a waste of time, and I know after someone gets banned, they'll probably wanna oppose it and hope there ban will be ended, and well, thats what I'm doing right now, so this is probably another, o great, another beggar, to you, but I'm willing to make a little deal with you and everyone else, if you decide to accept my apology and well end my ban, then I'll edit similarly to how I've been lately, just maybe a little more often, but doing everything I can to stay out of trouble, if you decide not to then I'll just keep doing what I've been doing lately, just staying out of trouble, adding appearances, sources, spelling corrections, etc.

I've been contributing a lot to the swgames wiki, mostly after my ban, and they do have just some administrators and myself with a few other rare contributors, so I'm guessing that they probably would need myself more than most other wikis, but all wiki's need users of course, but if their spammers or vandals or whatever, than they'd best be contributors no more, which from your point is probably as I was to the wiki, but I've probably said enough, so farewell for now, and please reply on my talk page (not my account one) on what you'll do with my account or whatever.

Cheers; 24.131.169.104 02:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, for my own sake I'll reread the rules of this wiki before I start editing again, and I'll do everything I can to stay away from places that might get in some hot water. And should I leave my user page alone, or could I delete that template and start my user page again?

Marauder 09 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Locked Page
My user page is locked, could you unlock it? Marauder 09 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stele Chronicles

 * TSC has tech specs for the A-wing which lists two Dymek HM-6 Concussion Missile Launchers but that's the only mention. Personally I'd take that to be two HM-6 launchers for concussion missiles rather than two launchers for HM-6 concussion missiles if you see what I mean. That's the way CUSWE has taken it too. Unless there's actually a source that says those were anything other than normal missiles it might be an idea to move the article and make it about the launcher instead. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I see you used a rollback on an edit of mine that was intended to be in good faith on Showdown on Coruscant.

Is there any particular reason you removed my edit? Although I understand I didn't source it (I'm not sure how that works on wookieepedia on particular), I thought it was a valid parallel and hence put it in the article. 90.203.82.9 12:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

kessel

 * I'll keep the page as the Third Battle of Kessel, but I'm gonna split the page into two, one being the rescue of Wedge Antilles, one being Third Battle of Kessel, since the two battles detailed in the article are different events. DjMack 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mara and Insider 91

 * Hey Tope, I saw you added the Insider magazine to Mara's source list. Whenever you get a chance, would it be possible to get the information from that, if there is any unique info? Thanks. Atarumaster88  Jedi_Order.svg ( Talk page ) 01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Much thanks. :-D Atarumaster88  Jedi_Order.svg ( Talk page ) 01:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

massassi temple

 * I don't know actually, that was a long time ago that I named that article, so we're better off removing the title. DjMack 01:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Anj Dahl
According to spoilers posted here they are correct http://boards.theforce.net/literature/b10003/29757493/p8/?200

Also how do I edit this box to show this information about Anj Dahl

 PointGiven  ( I call it aggressive negotiations ) 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, got it. For future reference, how do I edit that Rogue Leader box?  PointGiven  ( I call it aggressive negotiations ) 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just found out the comic has officially been released, so I'll do the edits. Thanks for directing me the right way for the Template box.  PointGiven  ( I call it aggressive negotiations ) 04:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Images
Hey Tope. Here is the link to the scale. The image from A Day in the Life is a bit tricky so I am going to work on it a bit more. I want to line the seam up as best as possible. I should have it up tomorrow. Let me know if there is anything else. Cylka  -talk- 05:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long for me to upload the image from A Day in the Life. I did the best that I could with lining up the two halves and cloning out the seam. Cylka  -talk- 00:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User page
Tope, if you get this, could you protect my user page from anons? It seems that it's constantly getting vandalized. Thanks.  CC7567  (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind; Atarumaster got it. :)  CC7567  (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Starships
Hey, you said in the most recent CT that the parentheses titles of starships should be specified by kind. Since I'm not the biggest expert of starships I wanted to make sure that I won't move the articles incorrectly. Should Guarlara (ship) be moved to Guarlara (Venator-class Star Destroyer) and Sibwarra (ship) to Sibwarra (Shree-class battle cruiser) or should they be at another title? Thanks for your help in this case.  Pranay Sobusk  ~  Talk  21:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks, let me know if I make any mistakes during the moving.  Pranay Sobusk  ~  Talk  08:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, for your nomination offer, and your words of praise, and your assistance and guidance over the past few years. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll get it in the morning. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Twilight
No problem; I felt I needed to actually do something useful around here. :P  CC7567  (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Green Wing
Thanks - sorry for bugging you about that yesterday. Anyway, should I list all three editions of the book as sources, or just the third? Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 10:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Avenger
There are two Avengers, an Imperial II-class and a Pellaeon-class.--Gonzalo84 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Triage
A new Triage meeting has been scheduled for next Sunday, June 14, at 23:00 UTC. We hope you will be able to attend, as there are a fair amount of nominations that need sorting.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 14:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

HO Length
Then take out ALL discussion on the Home One's length, because that's what the whole freakin sections of both have turned into. Don't just remove ONE comment. Ambaryerno 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

MGLT Talk Edit
In response to your edit, according to this statement: ''Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions.'' the estimate I posted of the speed of 100MGLT within the X-wing games is a perfectly valid statement for that discussion as a response to the previous user's. It is basic, simple math carried out entirely based on measurements taken using the mechanics of the X-wing game itself. It is not variable, is repeatable, and thus verifiable so does not fall under Original Research. It is also relevant to the discussion itself.Ambaryerno 05:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken if you think I'm going to debate with you about what is and what is not Original Research, but that's not the point to begin with. Unless your talk page discussion relates to an actual edit you or someone else is about to make to a given article, your discussion is off-topic. And that's the point. We're here to foster a community of contributing editors. If you want to talk about Star Wars and all its amazingly intricate technicalities, you're welcome to come into the IRC channel or join any one of the hundreds of Star Wars message boards that exist on the World Wide Web. Unfortunately, Wookieepedia is not a message board for your theories and speculation. I would suggest you learn this and stop grating with me about it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well right now it's like you're singling me out, because there are multiple comments in that exact same talk page that didn't correspond to a recent edit of the article or even an impending change. My comment was not theory or speculation, but hard numbers in response to the comment by 88.115.122.123 which ALSO had nothing to do with any recent or pending edit to the formal article. If you're going to enforce to such a degree then fine, but enforce it equally. Otherwise it's just arbitrary.Ambaryerno 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should worry about yourself, not what other people are posting, and leaving the administrative decisions of this site to the administrators. If I'm removing your comments and not removing others, you can be assured that there's a reason for doing so, and that should be good enough for you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well when I see comments like the "My god that ship is ugly!" on the E-wing talk page get left alone for SIX MONTHS while I get edited five minutes later while attempting to make a constructive contribution (including references and repeatable calcs) in response to a previous comment, that's NOT good enough for me. It comes off as a double-standard so I AM going to protest it.Ambaryerno 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've unwittingly hit the proverbial nail on the head. There is a difference between posts that are six months old and are subsequently archived, and new off-topic nonsense that you contribute. You don't hold any special right to add new off-topic posts just because someone else posted something before your time. And you're more than welcome to protest this, and you're also more than welcome to be blocked from editing if you carry this on any further. You've been warned. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * JAVOHL!Ambaryerno 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)