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)

My Star Wars Book Trilogy
That's right, my book trilogy. There's a part on my user page where I have my writing projects. It says that I am planning to write a Star Wars book trilogy that probally won't be published. This will be the spot where I will post more and more information on the subject once I choose to display it. If you have any questions on the trilogy, juts post them here. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 18:07, 25 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)