Talkpages Edit

Do not remove posts from talk pages. Kuralyov 17:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just a waste of space, with members swearing and arguing and spamming. BC 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Grand MasterEdit

Hello Bold Clone,

This page has been vigorously debated upon, and carefully worked and decided on, by admins no less. It is the way that I am going to restore it to because those involved have come to a consensus. Please discuss your changes here before just making them.Tommy9281Red lightsaber (Peace is a lie) 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. What does the Convocation section have to do with being a Jedi Grand Master? BC 19:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey, BC. Also, feel free to discuss any changes on the talk page Grand Master, so that way you and others in the community can speak together about any changes. Cheers:) Greyman(Talk) 19:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Bold Clone 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning Edit

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, an administrator will block you from editing Wookieepedia. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 16:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You want me to stop taking all the frivolous and unneeded stuff off of the Millenium Falcon article, so I don't get in trouble. The problem is, the stuff I'm deleting is worthless. Who cares about a river and some hills on a planet? The deleted stuff not redlinked are stuff distantly connected to the page--sorta. A great deal of this stuff is minor and will never be seen again. Are you trying to down the performance of this wiki? BC 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's about it. It doesn't matter what you think is frivolous or worthless. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 17:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • We are an encyclopedia, so people search for those things that some others may consider useless. We have always, and will always, add everything that appears in book, is mentioned in a book, or otherwise onto that book's article here on Wookieepedia. That's it on this and if you continue, then I will block you for vandalism. Please take both mine and JMAS's warnings seriously. Greyman(Talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I do take them seriously. There's a thousand redlinks of minor stuff on that page, and you say 'so what'? And more than 'what you think is frivolous or worthless', that is common sense here, with me. Are all your book pages like this? BC 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Convocation section Edit

Hey, Bold Clone,

Certainly. Feel free to make whatever edits you choose to the article in question, so long as all of your info is factual and sourceable. I agree, that section can be lanced, especially with the solid reasoning you've provided. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance, and I will do my best.Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 01:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightsaber Edit

Could you please explain me why you're removing content from the lightsaber article? Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the infomation is repetitive and contians unnecessary detail. I'm just trying to clean up the page so it can be brought up to standard. BC 17:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I was just wondering, because you removed 4 KB, but as long as you're just improving the article, I won't stop you. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 17:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Master of the OrderEdit

  • Hey Bold Clone. Just thought I'd let you know that I'm reverting your removal of the line "during the last decades of the Old Republic" in the article because we do know that for sure. The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia entry is "Master of the Order": "The highest-ranking member of the Jedi Council during the last decades of the Old Republic. During the Battles of Naboo and Geonosis, Mace Windu held the position. When Master Windu joined the other Jedi in military positions during the Clone Wars, the title was given to Yoda, who remained on Coruscant to serve as Chancellor Palpatine's chief military adviser. See also Grand Master." so we do know it was during the last decades of the Old Republic. Just thought I'd explain why I reverted :-). Hope you had a good New Years. Grunny (Talk) 05:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't undo my edits. All this info comes straight from the CSWE - including that it was used during the last decades of the Old Republic. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
So the CSWE claims that it was only used during the last decades of the Old Republic? If not, then we can say that it was a title, and that Mace Windu had it during the last decades of the Old Republic. Bold Clone 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - the entry is right in front of you. Grunny was kind enough to provide it for you, yet you removed it. So I'll re-add it. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm reverted your recent edit to the article, because as you can see by the above entry, it was only in use during the last decades of the Old Republic. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So, the title MotO was only in use during the last years of the Republic? Never anywhen else? Bold Clone 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Appearances lists Edit

If you can point me to where the MoS or Layout Guide says that we should include series titles in appearances lists, that'd be great. I'm not going to bother looking to show you where it'll say not to do so, because on practically every article on the site - and every article recognized as an FA or GA - they are not included. You won't see

in appearances lists, except on possibly a few articles that no-one's noticed it on yet. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What about some pages that might just say Star Wars Legacy: Vector instead of the individual comics? --Bold Clone 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


  • You've been given a week-long block for your recent edits to Form IV: Ataru. Removing large amounts of sourced content from a featured article and replacing it with an unsourced list constitutes vandalism. You're not a new user—and even if you were, it should be fairly intuitive that removing large amounts of sourced content from a featured article without first discussing it is bad. Second of all, don't lower the quality of the wiki by removing fully referenced material. Third of all, had you asked on the talk page about why there's a paragraph format instead of a list, you would have found that Inquisitorius consensus back during the article's FAN process was to not have it formatted as a list in order to be more informative and encyclopediac. There's a line between being bold and recklessly changing articles to fit your idea of how they should look without regards for policy or consistency, and you crossed it. Please do not do so again upon your return. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning Edit


User warning: Fanon.

Please do not add your own fan-fiction to Wookieepedia articles.

If you continue to add fanon to the site, you will be banned.

Your input might be more welcome at the Star Wars Fanon Wiki.

Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kol Skywalker has never been called Master of the Order. Therefore, it is fanon. Do not add him to the list on Master of the Order again. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not fanon. I know he was the leader of the JHC. The MotO is the leader. Therefore, Kol was a MotO. Unless your definition of fanon is 'anything that isn't explicitly mentioned, even if it is implied' then I have every right to put him on the list. Bold Clone 19:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Kol is specifically called "one" of the leaders of the Jedi High Council in Legacy 0 1/2, which you used as a reference. Kol being Master of the Order isn't even implied. It's fanon, and therefore you have no right to add his name to the list. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have every right to add him to the list, as according to your site's 'speculation' policy. --Bold Clone 01:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • While he may have been leader of the Order, Kol Skywalker has never been called Master of the Order - in fact, there is no indication that the New Jedi Order continued to use the title. It is still fanon. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 11:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not so. Luke Skywalker specifically names Kenth Hamner as Master of the Order in Outcast.Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 11:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • So the title is in use by the NJO - still not enough to prove Kol was Master of the Order. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 11:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know, GMT. We know that MotO is the leader or highest ranking Master of the Jedi Council, of the Old (and the New according to Outcast) Order. We know this according to CSWE. We know that Mace, Yoda, Luke, Kenth (in Luke's stead), and Kol were all leaders of the Council. Would that not qualify the latter as MotO, according if nothing else to CSWE?Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 11:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I now add Kenth to the MotO page? And can we settle on a compromise for now? In the 'Behind the scenes' section, I mention that Kol might have been a MotO, since he was the leader of the JHC, but that the info is unconfirmed. --Bold Clone 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I add Kenth then? And may I direct you do the bottom section disscussing the 'speculation' regarding Jar'Kai? What's the difference between that debate and this one? --Bold Clone 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If Kenth is called a Master of the Order, then yes. The difference between the Jar'Kai speculation and this is that the former has concrete facts to support the claim, whereas the latter does not. Until some source specifically says that Kol Skywalker was a Master of the Order, he wasn't. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where you get 'solid facts' from. The guy says, 'Only Jar'Kai uses 2 lightsabers. He/She used 2 lightsabers. Therefore, they used Jar'Kai technique/combat style'. I say, 'Only MotO is JHC leader. Kol was JHC leader. Therefore, Kol was a MotO'. Nothing explicetly says Kol was a MotO, but nothing expliectly say he/she used Jar'Kai. That is having a double standard/being a hypocrite (no offense intended here). I don't understand your point of view here. What is the difference here? --Bold Clone 22:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not getting involved in that discussion. And frankly, I'm getting a bit annoyed that I have to keep repeating myself over and over. For the last time, until something actually calls Kol a Master of the Order, he was not. Please stop arguing over something so trivial. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've decided to compromise, having looked over the evidence. I have written up a BTS note on the article, noting that Kol may have been Master of the Order, given his leadership role. I apologize if I've seemed so stubborn. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Bold Clone 20:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Master of the Order Edit

Hey BC, I'm just letting you know that I've moved the info you deleted from Master of the Order to a new page: Master of the Order (Baran Do). As such, I have placed a {{Youmay}} template on both pages, linking to the other. Also, the link to the Old Republic redirects to the Galactic Republic, and so the correct way to link this is with [[Galactic Republic/Legends|Galactic Republic]] or [[Galactic Republic/Legends|Old Republic]], not with [[Galactic Republic/Legends|Old Republic]]. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (Jedi beacon) 17:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was going to do that later (don't have enough time now). Thanks! Bold Clone 17:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Destroying the Sith Edit

Hey BC,

If you remove that section, what would you replace it with? I have no problems with you removing that stuff, but make sure you provide substantial reasoning, as someone who is unfamiliar with our history regarding the page may see the change and become alarmed.Tommy Dark side Master SWGTCG (Nine two eight one) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Really, there's nothing to replace it with. All we have is 'Yoda fought several Sith to a standstill. Like fought more Sith than Yoda and defeated half of them.' Now that Kenth is a GM, the section isn't really applicable. On top of that, all that section is is someone said 'Let's add more to the page. Luke fought the Sith, so did Yoda, therefore it is notable to say they fought the Sith. Besides, most of Luke's fights against the Sith were while he wasn't a GM. Bold Clone 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Will you cover for me if I'm accused of vandalism? Cause My track record is pretty bad and they ban me without a second thought if they thought I was vandalizing. (Better safe than sorry) Bold Clone 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Speculation on Jar'Kai Edit

Please read Wookieepedia:Attribution#What is not original research? The speculation regarding possible Jar'Kai practitioners is based on the following facts: 1) Jar'Kai specifically refers to the technique of wielding two lightsabers simultaneously, and 2) no source (to the best of my knowledge) identifies any other form that specifically refers to the technique of wielding two lightsabers simultaneously. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that any character seen wielding two lightsabers is a possible Jar'Kai practitioner. Furthermore, you've been warned not to remove sourced information before. Please don't remove it again. Thank you. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't particularly care. It's speculation. And you're saying that speculation is allowed on this site as long as it is logical? --Bold Clone 02:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, speculation is allowed IF AND ONLY IF it consists purely of logical deductions based solely on known canonical facts, as was explained by the policy link I provided. We make this type of speculation/deduction fairly frequently when it comes to who uses what lightsaber form. Such deductions are made by comparing the character's combat moves and style with the known characteristics of the various lightsaber forms. Jar'Kai is the easiest form to make such deductions on because of its single defining characteristic—the use of two lightsabers instead of one. I hope that explains it. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 03:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hey, BC. I'd have to agree with Master Jonathan on this one all the way around. Speculation is deemed acceptable when deductive logic leads to a particular conclusion, like the policy says. Jar'Kai, as Jon said, is a perfect example of this. Many times authors don't outright say what is their writing implies, but, as stated above, deductive reasoning leads to a particular conclusion. If it were that several possibilities are presented, though no source(s) outright lead to a specific conclusion, then choosing one possibility over another is considered speculation and/or original research. I personally can think of several where deductive reasoning leads to a specific conclusion, and none of my examples deal with Jar'Kai. I hope I've answered your question satisfactorily.Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 22:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Then in that case, it should be perfectly acceptable to say that Kol Skywalker is a Master of the Order, as it is stated that he was the leader of the JHC and the only head of the JHC is the MotO. (See disscussion above) --Bold Clone 01:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Appearances Edit

Please do not remove toy lines from Appearances lists. Often, there is some kind of biographical blurb of sorts on the back of toy packaging, which is considered canon, and so they should be included in Appearances lists. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been trying to find out why for a while now. --Bold Clone 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It's better to ask someone if you're unsure about something than just going ahead and removing information like that from an article. Doing so can easily be misconstrued as vandalism, etc. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to interject here, but wouldn't that be more appropriate to list under Sources, rather than Appearances? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as a matter of fact. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Another warning Edit


User warning: Vandalism.

Please do not continue to vandalize Wookieepedia.

If you continue to vandalize the site, an administrator will block you.

Please reconsider your approach, and pay attention to the advice others provide.

Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • And do not remove messages from your talk page—especially warnings. If you weren't vandalizing, then what is this? Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 21:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I was removing a piece of unneeded info, in case you haven't read my edit summaries. If they want to know who all ever used a Shoto, then they can gog to the Shoto page. That's why we have it, right? Bold Clone 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Edit

Dialog-error You have been blocked from editing for 1 year for Sockpuppetry. Using two accounts is against policy, and since both accounts have a block history, it is also deceitful. To contest this block, please contact the blocking administrator with the reason you believe the block is unjustified. Grunny (talk) 01:11, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Speculatory material Edit

Stating that something is unknown is not a fact that can be attributed—unless you add a reference to all appearances and sources—and is not relevant to the subject of the article. On that basis, I could add to the Palpatine article that his connection to Darth Krayt was unknown. Furthermore, I've seen a number of Wookieepedia users remove such allegations. I am open to continuing this discussion either here or on a wider spectrum. Cheers, TK999 21:04, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If there is a source that outlines a connection between the Je'daii and the Jedi, it needs to be mentioned in the article. What is not needed is the statement that its details are unknown. Cheers! TK999 12:26, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Meanwhile, I'll double–check whether my belief regarding the permissibility of such statements was false or not. Cheers! TK999 16:21, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Hey Bold Clone, just noticed this while posting on TK's talk page and thought I'd clarify our policy regarding this. Saying that something is unknown is Out-of-Universe, unless a source specifically says that something is unknown in-universe. Just because something is not known to us yet, doesn't mean it isn't known in-universe. You can find the rule against this type of statement in the last sentence here. You can say that there is a relationship, if there is a source saying there is, but if there is no source that says anything about the nature of the relationship (either detailing it or saying something like the information on it was lost to time), we don't mention that it is unknown to us. I hope that helps clarify things. Cheers, grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 14:21, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Grand Master Edit

Yes, The Journal of Master Gnost-Dural—exactly as the reference says. Also, the Star Wars: The Old Republic Encyclopedia, both of which state that Satele was only granted the title of Master for rediscovering Tython. "In appreciation of her efforts, the High Council granted Satele the rank of Master, and later promoted her to Grand Master." The first time she is referred to as Grand Master in the Journal is an entry dated to 3,645 BBY, meaning that she was promoted some time between 3,651 and 3,645 BBY. Please, do not continue to revert my perfectly accurate edits, and do not accuse me of fanon or speculation unless you have legitimate proof otherwise. Cade Calrayn StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 20:35, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+