Archives: 2012

Re: New Year[edit source]

Thanks, you also. :) —Cal JediInfinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 04:39, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you as well. You too! CC7567 (talk) 04:40, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

And a happy New Year to you, too! :D Trak Nar Ramble on 07:06, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

  • Happy New Year, Venom! Thanks for the wishes. Also, a heads-up that you should remove the category from the bottom of your body armor workbench, as currently, the workbench is showing up in the actual Trash compactor. Cheers. Menkooroo (talk) 11:40, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Categories[edit source]

Your category for individuals killed by Darth Maul has been deleted. We do not, and will not, have categories like that. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 22:00, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

  • Because, quite frankly, it's pointless and a waste of space. Such categories have been proposed in the past, but never implemented. A system like that would inevitably lead to the creation of single-member categories that would serve no purpose whatsoever. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 22:07, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
    • Your objection is noted, but I will not be restoring the category per my statements above. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 22:14, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
      • Be aware that recreating the category on your own, after its deletion and in direct defiance of an administrator, will be considered disruption and will result in a block from editing. If you wish to receive input from others on this topic, bring it up in the Senate Hall. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 22:27, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
        • Since I found this conversation on my watchlist, allow me to offer another administrative opinion: we don't need it. Categorizing characters by who killed them is completely unnecessary, overcategorization, and a violation of the precept that Wookieepedia is not an all-inclusive trivia site. You're welcome to argue your case in the Senate Hall if you still want to, but the chances of getting anywhere with it are virtually zero. I would advise you to simply drop it. —MJ— War Room 23:11, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • Venom, your opinion of administrators like Master Jonathan and myself is disturbing. Frankly, it is childish of you to accuse the both of us of being, in your own words, "'delete-everything-that-non-administrators-created' admins" simply because we don't agree with you. Furthermore, it is the job of an administrator to give an opinion on any issue that may arise and develop Wookieepedia in accordance with established policies. Being combative will get you and your idea nowhere. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 17:00, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Re: User page[edit source]

In most cases, as long as subpages follow the user page policy, they should not be subject to deletion. CC7567 (talk) 20:18, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Moving[edit source]

Yeah, as Winterz said, the Mission to Mustafar from Episode III is the most-looked for article with that name, so it needs to be kept where it is now. CC7567 (talk) 21:32, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

  • We still can't assume airdates, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that "Shades of Reason" and "The Lawless" are the fifteenth and sixteenth episodes, respectively, given that they're the rest of the story arc. CC7567 (talk) 09:05, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Can you post on the pageo f "Missing in Action" that the episode's production number is labeled 506? thank u. Unsigned comment by User: (talk)

Can you post on the page of "Missing in Action" that the episode was written by Brent Friedman and directed by Steward Lee, please? Thank u.

Re: Blocking[edit source]

According to the block log, you have not been blocked recently, and I have not blocked anyone recently except Detreko. I'm not sure what log you were checking, but no, I did not block you. Cheers.—Cal JediInfinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 14:15, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

  • You might have been caught in an IP block, but without a block ID, it's impossible to know which block affected you. 1358 (Talk) 14:43, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
    • A block ID is a unique number given to a block — it will be displayed in the "blocked text" you'll see in the edit window when trying to edit while blocked. 1358 (Talk) 18:20, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Subtitle[edit source]

Hey XXL, please use an official source when sourcing that subtitle in the TCW season five article. Otherwise, it will be regarded as speculation. Do you know where it came from other than that wiki? JangFett (Talk) 15:59, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

  • You seem to not get how our sourcing policy works. Basically unless that subtitle comes from an official source or an interview with someone from LFL, it will be regarded as speculation. Official sources are licensed by LFL or acknowledged by them. We don't trust fan blogs, random websites, or wikis since they could be filled with speculation. JangFett (Talk) 18:14, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Can you add on the page for the "Clone Wars" episode, "The Lawless" that R2-D2 makes an appearance?

I am sorry for changing the picture of Dathomir. --Unsigned comment by Darth Hill.

Re: Production numbers[edit source]

Yes I do. But just because those episodes form a story arc does not mean we can assume that they were produced in that order. A number of arcs in previous seasons were produced out of chronological/airing order. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 18:10, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree that's definitely the most likely end result. But production numbers 4.19-21 are also still yet to be revealed, and more to the point, we can't be putting in unverified info—much less citing resources that don't say what we're saying they say. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 18:43, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
    • Still doesn't matter. Not only have stories been produced out of order in the past, but we have to have proof before we can say it. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 19:07, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

Can you please post on the page for the upcoming "Clone Wars" episode, "The Lawless" that R2-D2 makes an appearance considering the book "Shadow Conspiracy" says so? Pleeasse?!?!?

Thanks for my pleas. Oh and one more thing can you also add that the episode will air on February 2nd? Because just today, it was confirmed on's schedule that "The Lawless" will air on February 2nd at 9:30 AM,

here is the Now just click on tomorrow's schedule and click the bar with the clone wars and you'll see "The Lawless" airs on February 2nd.

you're welcome but I also meant post the air date on the page of the episode "The Lawless" not just the page for "The Clone Wars: Season Five".

You're welcome but I also meant post the air date on the page of the episode "The Lawless" not just the page for "The Clone Wars: Season Five". So, can you also post the airdate on the page of "The Lawless", too? Pleeaassee?!?!?!?

Can you please post on the page of the upcoming "Clone Wars" episode "The Lawless" that it airs on February 2nd and respond to my message? Pleeeasseee????

Picture upload[edit source]

Hey there, could you start uploading pictures in PNG instead of JPG? It would make the replacement process (for the Blu-ray version) much easier. Thanks in advance. Alexrd (talk) 13:05, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Re:[edit source]

See {{Hutt Cartel character infobox}}. For Black Sun, mostly {{Criminal character infobox}} is used. As for the search icons, they're used for the Search function available in Monobook. CC7567 (talk) 16:09, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Prod # round 2[edit source]

It was removed because the citation was for the CN schedule. The CN schedule does not list the production number, thus the citation is incorrect. If the TCW site lists it, that is what should be cited. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 11:13, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Re: 22 episodes[edit source]

That site is nowhere near official. It's run by SuperShadow, who isn't an affiliate of Lucasfilm in any sense of the word. (This is why third-party, non-Lucasfilm-affiliated websites may post official information, but it's not a blanket rule.) CC7567 (talk) 14:21, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Re: GAN[edit source]

Please try not to take the comments personally. The reason that people are leaving objections to the article in that manner is because usually—not always, because there are always exceptions, but usually—the person who nominates an article as a GAN or FAN is expected to be in a position to handle the objections, whether they be about the article's source coverage or the writing/formatting of the article itself. The nominator is usually the person who dedicates himself or herself to improving the article, and reviewers direct their objections toward the nominator. All articles are expected to adhere to all of the rules at the top of the GAN page prior to nomination, which is why criticism might seem rather harsh. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you; please just take note of that's how the GAN page operates. CC7567 (talk) 18:08, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Book[edit source]

The Clone Wars: Darth Maul: Shadow Conspiracy. CC7567 (talk) 19:09, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Fill the upload form[edit source]

You should fill the picture upload form properly, when uploading new pictures. Don't leave them like this. Alexrd (talk) 19:10, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've got my own Star Wars wiki called the Bountypedia Wiki. But hardly anyone is on it, please could you tell me how to make it a popular Wiki?

Blank sections[edit source]

Hey XXL, please try not to add blank sections into articles. You can add sections within articles, but try to add content within those sections. It not only does not look right, it does not help the article in any way. Thanks, JangFett (Talk) 15:34, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

  • I am not questioning its importance. I meant that you added sections without content in the Savage Opress article. Try to avoid that. JangFett (Talk) 17:07, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Rollback[edit source]

Looking at the history, it looks like everything has been restored. CC7567 (talk) 19:18, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Colors[edit source]

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. But if you see it on the site, you might be able to learn by looking at how it's formatted. Other than that, I don't think I know how to format that. CC7567 (talk) 20:44, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Redirect[edit source]

All you have to do is place {{Delete}} on the page and an administrator will delete the redirect so that it can be created as a new article. I've done that for you. CC7567 (talk) 18:50, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Trivia[edit source]

Try to avoid adding in miscellaneous and trivial information about TCW episodes in a behind the scenes section. Over the past few months, typically some users have been adding in bts information from While that seems fine and well since they're sourced to, we do not need to go any further and actually add who or what appeared in the episode in the bts. Hope this makes sense, JangFett (Talk) 21:32, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

  • XXL, please see WP:TRIVIA. Thank you, JangFett (Talk) 15:15, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
    • Though the policy itself was not brought in via consensus track (I believe the Mofference), we have followed it for many years and it does help keep irrelevant, miscellaneous information away from articles. While I appreciate your urge to help expand Wookieepedia, we should not add in trivial information bits in the behind the scenes. The appearances section does show who or what appeared in the episode, and other users expand those plot summaries for TCW episodes. JangFett (Talk) 16:46, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
      • Stuff like that should always be avoided in articles, unless a contradictory/confusing item was corrected by an official source or author (such as blog, ect). Since we are not a forum, but rather an Encyclopedia, we should not be adding in discussions from other websites. JangFett (Talk) 19:04, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Category[edit source]

Sure, as long as there are enough pages (with significant notability) to populate the category. CC7567 (talk) 18:19, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Linguistic Plurality[edit source]

Your comment on Cade's talk page is erroneous. His plurality is quite accurate because I don't do pictures in Appearances either. Admittedly, I don't do most things either because my only interest is adding links in articles. Whether the rest of the users do or don't is irrelevant. The fact that there is one other person who also doesn't justifies the plurality. I propose we first ascertain whether Cade means "we" as the site as a whole or "we" as himself and the others whom he has encountered who don't. For all we (by which is meant you and I) know, Cade could be using the royal "we", implying himself and the power endowed by Divine Right. Or he could have a split personality. Do please be careful. Assumptions are the foremost contributors to misunderstanding. Karohalva (talk) 17:18, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

This is the link you are looking for: Make yourself heard. Spread the word. Anonnonnon (talk) 14:23, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Your comment in RFR[edit source]

Hey, XXL, you were dangerously coming close to violating our no personal attacks rule in Cade's request for rollback nom. Just keep it civil. Thanks :) JangFett (Talk) 19:17, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

  • "I think you are too impatient and intolerant. Please get over these things." Please be careful in the future. JangFett (Talk) 20:44, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.