DarthMRN, welcome!

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: [[File:Thoseabouttojediwesaluteyou.JPG|thumb|180px|New Wookieepedian, Luke Skywalker salutes you]]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. 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! — —Silly Dan (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Signing posts Edit

Please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts, not three. - Sikon 11:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I keep hearing that. Care to enlighten me as to why? I refuse to belive it ia a rules requirement for being a member.DarthMRN
    • It adds a timestamp to your posts, allowing others to easily identify when they were posted. Failure to comply may result in a temporary ban. By me. Sorry. - Sikon 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thats gross. It even says I can do so on the introductory note. Well, Admins are admins. I'll comply.DarthMRN 12:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Does this mean I have to go back and add the final tilde to all previous posts I have made too?DarthMRN 12:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
          • No, I don't think so. - Sikon 13:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello, Iam BobafettH23. If you ever need any userboxes, I will make them for you. User:BobafettH23/Sig.

  • Hello. While your offer is appreciated, I wouldn't know what to ask for, or where to put them. I never bothered reading up on that stuff. I'll keep it in mind in case I do sometday, however.DarthMRN 00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Force TheologyEdit

That was quite a rant there... I loved it! I do hope though that you exclude the two KOTORs from your RPG raze. Your statements are much like those of Jolee Bindo and the Hag (Kreia). Let's here it for the "Murk" Side of the Force! Karohalva 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No, the RPG was in reference to Wizards of the Coast D20 Star Wars: Power of the Jedi Sourcebook, which states in an out-of-universe "godlike" manner, that the Jedi view is right and everything else is wrong. KotOR has yet to commit such a travesty. DarthMRN 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty interesting take on the Force you have there! I felt the same way when I first read that the Jedi Orthodox view is supposedly the "right" one. I would understand that if they were simply stating that's the "orthodox" view that the main characters are expected to hold to, but to actually come out and say that all other views are absolutely flawed--I think that's stupid of them. I just hope that was a screwup that can be retconned into something else later. As for me, I've decided (though it's not ready to post yet) that my fan character is going to take some unorthodox views of the Force and all of that. Just because I hate towing the party line. ;-) Teris Shae 19:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Empire is EvilEdit

Hi. For some reason I (Karohalva) can't log in so here is my source. It is called the opening crawl of Star Wars: A New Hope. In it the Empire is referred to as the "evil Empire".

  • Now this is interesting. I agree. It does prove from the godlike perspective that the Empire was evil. Should be included somewhere. However, this has little bearing on the Empire article's lack of NOPV. DarthMRN 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I promised, I will make them. Tell me what kind you want, and I will get them back to you as soon as i can. (about a week). sorry it will take so long. BobafettH23


Yes, Hyperspace has regular fees, the nature of which will be changing at the beginning of next month, which is why I've decided to go gray for a few days. If'n you like, you can read more about my decision here. jSarek 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Would you please please please, put your new articles into one or more Categories? Cull Tremayne 11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • ROFL! I was halfway expecting something like this to happen. I'm not really into all the categorization we currently have, and with half a million sub-categories, I would probably end up putting them in the wrong place. But hey, if that is okay by the poor folks who would otherwise have to trail me to ensure my hyperinclusionism was categorized, I'll give it a shot. DarthMRN 12:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot. It's just that you're on a roll now, and the uncategorized pages build up. If you have no idea what category they're going to fit in, could you at least put the "What's this?" template on the top of the page, so we know which pages you haven't categorized? Keep up the good work. :D Cull Tremayne 12:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

lekku Edit

The picture you requested is on the fourm now. Anzati02 18:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not fan art. I found them on THIS site. I think it was deleted because it was a Nudge nudge kind of think. And no, the chicks on my page are from this site. I beleive you can find them on the list of advert pages. The twilek picture can be found on the gallery of Twi'lek images. Anzati02 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

uh,.....Read the Stormtrooper page. Anzati02 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of adverts has the chick pics-Anzati02 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved your response and mine Edit

Hi there. Sine this was devolving into an argument between you and me faster than it was spawning intelligent discussion among the community, I moved this here rather than the CT page. I am not attempting to remove your point of view from that discussion, so feel free to place anything relevant back in the comments there but please direct it at the entire community, rather than just me. (See answer to No. 1) Wildyoda 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Commendable, I suppose. But I might have to include a few of them back in there, since they are arguments for why not to have VG articles. DarthMRN 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Wildyoda:Edit

  1. I included a Comments section for a reason, you know.
  2. The ongoing Trash Compactor discussion is based upon current consensus, which I am trying to amend. How things are going there really has nothing to do with this CT. If things go as you want, the votes made there will be as valid as ever.
    • I'm not arguing the validity of the outcome, just pointing people to other valid discussions on the subject for general education. Wildyoda
  3. The CT you mention did not discuss whether consoles should have their own articles or not, nor did it offer any opportunity to vote on the subject.
    • It brought it up, it was not argued. Good enough for me, but fine if it's not good enough for you. Wildyoda
  4. Why do you speak about the creation of new lists of video games as if it is a bad thing? At least they would be SW-centric, which the current solution isn't.
    • Lists themselves are not a bad thing. But we already have them. The end result would be simply changing the name of the article and removing the image, so might as well keep as something that resembles an intelligent article rather than only the list. Wildyoda
  5. So you are saying the argument for leaving them the way they are is so we don't have to create new, real articles for them. IMO, that is an argument of laziness. Don't worry. Nowhere does it say you have to do it.
    • No, I am not saying that. See above. Wildyoda
  6. The consoles pages are useful in themselves? If speculative KotOR 3 info has a place on this site, then it certainly shouldn't be in an article nobody even knows about. It should have it's own article. Which it won't because of lack of reliable sources. Which should be grounds for removing the mention from that Xbox 360 article too, come to think of it.
    • Hyperinclusionism, another opinion. Won't argue the point, because we're arguing a bigger difference of opinion here.Wildyoda
  7. None of the current articles contain info which relates to SW whatsoever. Apart from the lists, which can easily be covered in another way. If they did, we wouldn't be discussing this.
    • Star Wars games aren't related to Star Wars? See answer to #3 for logic for list being fine.Wildyoda
  8. We don't have articles on TV sets or DVD players. Nor do we have articles on batteries for Force FX lightsabers. Yet these are nessecary to use those pieces of SW media. The consoles are no different.
    • First off, the word is spelled "necessary". Secondly, the Star Wars universe started with a movie, and anyone who didn't see it in theaters in 1977 obviously knows how to make the movie play on their TV, so I'd chalk up the lack of an article about VCRs or DVD players to common sense. We don't need a TV article to list the 6 movies, etc., nor do we need an article about knowing how to read since that's required to decipher the printed text that makes up the novels. Wildyoda

Which leads me to the conclusion that the only argument you have presented worth even a grain of salt is the laziness argument. Which I find to be pretty poor reasoning for having non-SW material on the site. Especially ones that didn't have a place here to begin with. DarthMRN 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not arguing laziness, I'm arguing efficiency, and I'm backing up my logic that we keep this from every angle, not just "I like the article." Feel free to comment on my responses if you have anything new to add, but I'm going back off and let the community join in here, the point of a CT. Wildyoda 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Aight, lets get started, then:

1) My impression of the Comments section was that you should use it for any lengthy reasoning, in stead of the vote field. Wasn't a bash of anyones opinions.

2) I don't see how mentioning the TC discussion could possibly accomplish anything except putting me in a disfavorable position. But since this is a democratic vote, some dirty laundry digging is only to be expected. I'll wheater it.

3) No, it's not good enough for me. I expect CT's to center on the topic at hand, with any derivative topics discussed separately. And then it doesn't help to have an Admin brush the matter off as unimportant at the top of that CT.

4) While I can sympathize with the argument of keeping the list and having a real article on top, and be no worse for wear, I don't find this to be a good reason for having an article for an OOU topic. I like consistency, and thus cannot help but take objection to having anything on generic video game consoles. With so little material on each of them, moving them to "List of vide games for X" and removing the top part would be a piece of cake. Then the console names could redirect to those lists. Little work, consistent with the rest of Wookieepedia, and does its job. We are supposed to evolve, not stagnate.

5) Ok.

6) Fine, we won't argue it. But the new sourcing policy has an iron fist when it comes to speculation.

7) Never said we shouldn't have lists of games. See argument #4 for article topics not being fine.

8) Bloody ugly typos...and otherwise, I agree with all of it. Since we don't have articles for knowing how to read, VG consoles shouldn't either.

The only efficiency you seem to be arguing is that we don't have to do anything, since they work fine the way they are. Which still sounds suspiciously like laziness to me. See the bottom of argument #4 for how we can be both efficient and consistent. DarthMRN 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Canonical POVEdit

  • You are incorrect in your edits to Galactic Empire. Even ignoring the precedent we'd set by doing that, Lucas's POV isn't necessarily canon. Authors use POV terms all the time, and we don't list those in the article. Lucas is no exception to the rule in this case. For further discussion, please join the IRC channel. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at Wookieepedia:Verifiability, where it says "Wookieepedia:Attribution is one of Wookieepedia's two core content policies. The other is Wookieepedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wookieepedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another."
That pretty much explains in a nutshell that we don't allow POV, per WP:NPOV. Even Lucas's point of view. And no, that does not render the Power of the Jedi thing non-canon. It's in-universe and a factual statement, not an opinion, which Lucas's statement is. Our mission at Wookieepedia is to document the in-universe perspective, not the authors' OOU opinion, which is what Lucas' OOU and opinionated statements come down to. The RPG sourcebook makes a canonical, in-universe, factual statement: "Potentium is wrong." (in a nutshell). Lucas makes an out-of-universe, opinionated statement: "The Empire is evil." The difference is in the perspective.
Not only that, but think of the precedent we would set by allowing author opinions (OOU opinions, mind you, not the ones reflected in their works) as canon. That would set off more "fanon alarmclocks". Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 13:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Using the example of Lucas as a straw man to get the SW RPG stuff declared non-canon isn't going to work. May I remind you that we don't determine what sources are canonical and which aren't, meaning that IU perspective in a licensed canonical work is canon, no matter how silly. OOU comments by an author are not canon. Especially when they are opinions. I do respect the fact that you're exploring possibilities and thinking analytically, but I think you're overlooking a difference in perspective. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be okay, because that would be an OOU perspective. Were a source to conflict with the RPG source, then it would be a continuity error and would probably be addressed in BTS or in a contradiction section. We've done this on other conflicting topics, such as the Super Star Destroyer/Star Dreadnaught thing. And yes, we can include canonical opinions, but only IU ones. The Force article does address varying opinions, I believe. However, in the case of the Potentium, the only definitive source on the matter (not an opinion) states that it is an incorrect view. This is different from the Empire, which is nowhere canonically stated to be "evil" in an IU canonical source that is not an opinion. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing was admitted. And OOU opinions aren't canon, not even Lucas's. IU opinions are- namely that sourcebook. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Opening crawls are OOU because they represent a narration. The RPG sourcebooks are not IU, my mistake, but they are canon. I've already addressed your arguments as best as I can, and I'm not going to rehash everything again. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • This isn't an IU vs. OOU argument. OOU sources are reliable and accurate, and in some cases, even more so than IU because they're theoretically unbiased. The issue I have is including OOU opinions, which aren't canon. IU opinions are canon- they "happened", if you will. OOU books have facts in them that pertain to IU matters. My issue comes with OOU opinions, which don't hold true in the GFFA. I said earlier that what you were proposing to add would be not allowed, not because the information was flawed, but because of the way you presented it: It was written OOU. We write from an IU perspective using facts from OOU facts and IU facts and opinions. That is a clear guideline to me, and I don't really see a need for a CT thread. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Some things don't need to be written hard and fast. I personally think this is one of them, and I think you're promoting instruction creep. I've consulted the IRC, and this "unwritten policy" seems to be adhered to by everyone there. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I disagree. You've set up your CT, so let it play out that way, assuming people are able to understand the options. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Please refrain from trolling in Wookieepedia discussions (such as this edit). Being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, or misrepresenting other users' opinions/intentions to make them look bad, is disruptive and will get you blocked the next time. Consider this your final warning. Gonk (Gonk!) 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Gonk's warning is not an abuse of power, nor is your threat of taking this to the Administrator notice board warranted. The simple reason being that Gonk was part of a large group of administrators present on IRC who were discussing the actions that have taken place on this Fanon CT, as well as others. Gonk volunteered to leave the warning for you as it was decided by those administrators, and bureaucrat, present. If you would like to discuss this further, then by all means please sign onto IRC and yourself and the administrators present will discuss this in a real time fashion. Greyman(Paratus) 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Big ship threadEdit

Added some info to the discussion, sorry it's months late. :) VT-16 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I noticed. Thanks. DarthMRN 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Block noticeEdit

  • You've been blocked by Graestan for inflammatory remarks under section 9 of WP:BLOCK: "Personal attacks" and section 5 of aforementioned policy, "Disruption", under "harassment of other users." You are in no position to make demands on the administration of Wookieepedia and accusing administrators of mass misconduct is along the lines of a conspiracy theory. (And there is no Cabal). Furthermore, it is not technically possible to remove blocks from your record, nor is there any practical way to "keep tabs" on certain administrators. I myself do not know the specific circumstances of your prior blocks, other than I can see QuentinGeorge warning you on the databank thread not to continue threads on canoncity debates which have already been endlessly covered. I have requested that you be unblocked from IRC, so that you may more directly address members of the administration there, but be forewarned that you have already set an argumentative tone with your thread, which has been locked to prevent needless continuation of inflammatory remarks, and that hyperbole and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Should you wish to contact me more directly, please send me an e-mail at Atarumaster88(at) Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Block Edit

30px You have been blocked from editing for 2 months. To contest this block, please contact the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list, along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified.

Graestan(Talk) 23:37, 27 December 2007 (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+