Bladelock Edit

Hey, PointGiven,

I've noticed your work on this article, and I'd like to say good job, as well as offer you any assistance with it, as lightsaber duel articles are my forté. For instance, there are several other images which I think would better suit the article (nothing against your current choices) if you'd like them uploaded, and a few good quotes, if you'd like to add those as well. Let me know what you think.Tommy9281 17px (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 06:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Its a deal. I'm off to sleep too, actually, but tomorrow I'll upload a couple of images and add them. I'll run the quotes by you first, and you can decide which ones you like over others. Also, since you'v undertaken this project, you may want to slap an "inuse" tag on it, like I've done here, to avoid any potential outside influence while you do your thing. My pleasure to be of assistance.Tommy9281 17px (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 06:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey man no problem. However, we are quite a ways from a GAnom. As this is your project mainly, I want you to focus on the content, and I'll bring up the rear. I'll add stuff too, but I really want you to get the experience in writing a duel article. Check out this one to get an idea of what's considered a "Good" duel article, for instance; you may want to go with that format, you may not. Also, this is a pivotal event, and there is quite enough content that I believe this can ultimately become a Featured article, after it passes GAN. These three are good examples of "Featured" duel articles. This one in particular has a fantastic BtS, and is a good example on how one should be formatted. So, just hold tight on the nom, as we still have much to do in making this perfect. The GAN can be quite a ride for new nominators, and the FAN is something else entirely. But the rewards (in experience) are well worth the time and effort that one spends. And, just so you know, I'll be with you all the way.Tommy9281 17px (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 00:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Several things. The intro needs to be expanded to fully summarize what we plan to include in the article. Leave that to me, as I'm pretty good at those. Next, the prelude needs to be itself a summary of the events that immediately took place before the onset of the duel, namely why these guys decided to fight. as it is, its too long; the prelude, unless in extreme circumstances, should not be longer than the duel section. With all the things going on in this conflict, we'll probably even end up with subsections, one that descrbes Lucien vs. Zayne, and one that talks about the second part where they ultimately join to defeat Haazen. The aftermath section looks good, but can be expanded, and I'll work on that. I want you to focus mainly on the prelude & duel sections to beef up your content writing. Still a ways to go, but as you said, It'll be fun.Tommy9281 17px (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 18:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Patience, PC. Haste makes waste;) Incidentally, I was planning to work considerably on the article tonight, and make sure things were in place for the final stages of our plan. Don't worry, we'll be ready soon.Tommy9281 17px (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


Hey, after some thought, I think that we would benefit more if we renamed the article, something like "Showdown in the Draay Estate". Several reasons lead me to this conclusion: first, the number of characters involved (something which concerned me from the beginning) makes calling this a duel difficult, because many of those involved play influential roles in the events. Second, the actual duel turns out to be a ruse anyway, part of a bigger plan by the two duelists. Third, the prelude (which we'd have to rename "background") talks about far more than the intro; the intro simply talks about the duel, which it should were that the entirety of the events, but it's not. The things leading up to that point are rather significant, and if added to the intro, make the title seem like we're only concerned with talking about the actual "pseudo" duel, rather than everything else. As a Wookieepedia Inquisitor, one who judges FANs on a regular basis, I can tell you now that my fellow Inqs will take issue with this, and will more than likely require us to remove much of the prelude content and stick to the immediate precedings. And trust me, that has happened before. I think that a simple name change will avoid that, while giving us much more room to discuss the events as we have already done at this point, without requiring content removal or layout change. The only significant change would be the infobox, but don't worry—I'll take care of that. Anyway, that's my idea. What say you?Tommy9281 17px (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 11:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The move is done. Now, our true work begins. Remember a while back I told you that I believed this thing had FA potential given all the subject matter; under the new title, I am certain of it. I will be extensively working on this over the next few days, and when we finally reveal ourselves, they will be no match for us;)Tommy9281 17px (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 19:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


No prob, PG. This will be a good exercise for you. In the meanwhile, I'll be taking care of the infobox & intro. I want you to focus on the background for right now. We're gonna take baby steps with this one, since it's gonna be long.Tommy9281 17px (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 23:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

KotOR project Edit

Hey PointGiven. I would be happy to have you join the project. The project doesn't have a set requirement to join, and we are always happy to welcome new members. I have noticed your work on some of the articles, and Tommy is a great editor to work with. He and I also have some collaborations together. It's great that you want to work on the comics side of things as that is our weakest point. You can sign up on the project page, and I would suggest reading it over just to get an idea of what we are currently working on. Anyways, I bid you welcome, and if you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to leave me a message. Cylka-talk- 12:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit

You're mistaken to think I'm going to read through a message board trying to find out what you're talking about, but regardless, someone's comments on TFN are not a source. It's best to wait until this comic is actually released before putting new information into articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sacking of CoruscantEdit

I agree 100%. I'll start moving the information into the Sacking of Coruscant as soon as the merge is approved. Darth Trayus 30px (Trayus Academy) 21:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I started a Trash Compactor discussion on the merger here. You can go ahead and vote on it too. Once a consensus is reached then we can move forward. Hopefully this won't stir up much argument. Darth Trayus 30px (Trayus Academy) 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of MindorEdit

I noticed you have started to improve the Battle of Mindor page. I was actually going to start doing that myself last week but since you already had your sign up I decided to let you have at it. If how ever you would like any help I'd be more then happy to assist you. Apoteoses Jedi 00:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC-6)

Zayne Carrick Edit

Hey there. I was basing the objections off of the meeting log that I have linked you to. You may want to take a look at the log and if you have any other questions, you could ask Graestan for more details. I hadn't had a chance to look through it closely, so I am not completely sure what the issues are. I am under the impression that many of the issues are due to a mish-mash of updates by different users that took place for a while, before you began updating. I would also assume that cohesive writing is needed to make everything flow better. If you have any more questions, let me know. Cylka-talk- 22:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Vindication Edit

No problem, man. By the way, have you considered bringing Lucien Draay or Haazen to GA/FA status?--Jedi Kasra (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Zayne Edit

Hey PointGiven. The reason I voted to kill Zayne along with the other Inqs is because it has many problems beyond updating. For the most part it needs to be rewritten and then given a good copy-edit. Also, the P&t could be updated and that's just by glancing over the article. If you want to re-FA it, I'd suggest trying to rewrite most of the parts that were added after the article was FA'd and make sure everything is thorough. Then get a good copy-edit done to the article before nominating it again. Hope that helps :). Grunny (Talk) 08:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Edit

Hey there, I see that you aren't familiar with "addressing" objections for GAN/FAN. Seeing that you only comment below every objection I made for your two GANs; isn't always the way to go. i.e,

  1. Example 1
    • Blah.
    • More blah.
    • JangFett Talk 04:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I think I got them all

You should "address" them like this, just to avoid any confusion:

  1. Example 2
    • Blah.
      • Addressed
    • More blah.
      • Addressed
    • JangFett Talk 04:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While it's fine to do "Example 1" when you have less objections, you should stick with "Example 2" when you have a good amount of objections, just to avoid confusion. I don't understand your latest GAN comment for Caled Galfridian, you state "try it now", and try what now? This is why you should stick with Example 2 if you're going to make any type of comment for an objection. Hope this helps :) JangFett Talk 04:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • A few helpful tips. If it is your nom and you're just addressing objections, you don't need to sign with your sig. It gets rather confusing. Also, I'm still rather confused on what you are addressing for Caled Galfridian. JangFett Talk 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sub-page Edit

Hey PointGiven, I just noticed something on your sub-page you have for working on Zayne. You've still got it categorised. What you need to do is add a colon just before "Category" so it doesn't show up, like this: [[:Category:Pre-Ruusan Jedi trainees]]. That comes out like an ordinary link but it doesn't actually include the article in the category. You'd probably also need to remove the former FA era tag so it doesn't go there as well. I don't know whether it is a rule but I remember seeing others being told to do it so I may as well tell you. Hopefully you'll see this under all the F/GAN objections I've left you ;) Nayayen18pxtalk 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Vindication Edit

It's okay, you've still got just over 2 weeks left before it would be considered idle so there isn't any rush. Thanks for letting me know. Nayayen18pxtalk 19:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • There still isn't a huge rush but you've only got 8 days to address my objections on Vindication before the Inqs remove it as an idle nomination. I assume that this weekend would be a better time than any for you to get them done so you should be able to catch them in time. As always, let me know if you need some clarification. Cheers Nayayen18pxtalk 10:05, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Hey Edit

Hey, let me start the remove votes first, then we'll take it from there.Tommy9281 17px (No truth in me) 01:43, October 4, 2009 (UTC)


Are you still interested in being a member of WP:KOTOR? If you would like to continue working with this project, please leave me a message on my talk page within the week. Otherwise, I will assume that you have prior commitments that will keep you from being able to participate.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 02:36, July 20, 2010 (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+