User talk:The Wookieepedian/archive1

Shadows of the empire

Hi, I see you added some info on the shadows of the empire article. Any info you add onto the game should probably be reflected in the seperate article on the game aswell IMHO. Jacoplane 00:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, The Wookieepedian/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
• How to edit a page and write a great article
• The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
• The handy Manual of Style
• And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 17:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :)

You seem to insist that Shadows of the Empire is a film. Who was in it? Who directed it? What kind of camera was it filmed with? - Dr Haggis - Talk 22:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam Kingrey

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Adam Kingrey may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 07:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for submitting dispute to a Mediation Committee

Look, I think we should really submit our difference of opinion to a Mediation Committee. It is clear at this point neither I can convince you, nor you can convince me, and it is useless to continue editing each other's updates. I obviously will accept any decision the Committee makes. What do you think? Copperchair 04:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I really want this edit war to stop. I edit the article from a completist fan's point of view, but I do understand how you feel on the issue. I am a huge fan of the changes made to the movies, and feel that any change he makes is how the casting should be listed, because it was his change. Although I undersatnd that there is technically an official cast listing of names given at a film's initial release that typically is understood to be the most correct form of credits, whether it actually is or not. I think that both of our ideas are great categories for an encylopedic article, and should both be incorporated somehow nto the article, mine being an updated, complete list, and yours being a list of the official credits stated i the films' ending sequences. Submitting the issue to a Mediation Commitee will be fine with me. I, for one, am tired of the long-going dispute over the issue. Adamwankenobi 18 July 2005

The edit war has been stopped by protecting the page. Anyway, glad to have talked with you in a civilized way... Copperchair 00:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I LOVE the Special Editions, for two reasons: one being that those are the versions I watched at the movie theater and the ones I remember most (because I own the VHS), and the other being that Lucas said in 1997 that those were his "definitive vision" (he lied), and back then I beleived him. Copperchair 03:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi 2004 DVD Non-Credited roles question

Did Boba Fett actually talk in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi?! When was that? Thank you. Copperchair 03:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Boba Fett didn't actually talk, as in say any words. He made, basically two sounds. The first, which was added to the 2004 DVD, was of him laughing in Jabba's palace, made to sound dimilar to how he did in Attack of the Clones. I don't know who did this voice, whtether or not it was Temeura Morrison or Daniel Logan, or if it was computer generated. The second sound was when he screamed when his jet pack was ignited by Han and he fell in the Sarlaac and succombed to his lame death scene. And Morrison didn't voice him, the scream sounded the same as in the other editions, so we can remove that Morrison voiced Fett in Return of the Jedi. I don't know who did the scream but I'm sure its on the internet somewhere. By the way, we need to figure out something similar for the episode 3 article, so it can be unprotected as well. Adamwankenobi 21 July 2005

That's what I thought. I already removed it. Copperchair 03:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Signing on Talk pages

Adam, do you know how to sign your name on Talk pages? It hasn't been an issue on The Star Wars Holiday Special, since I knew who I was communicating with. But in situations with more than two editors, it's always a good idea to put your name after your comments. You do it by writing four tildes ( ~ ) in a row. BrianSmithson 13:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Socks

We've blocked your latest sock puppet. If we catch you doing this again, we will block this account. Your good account. Redwolf24 21:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

We really do not appreciate sock puppet vandalism, no matter how great a user you are outside of it. You're staring a one year or indefinate block in the face. Redwolf24 03:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam, do you understand why vandalism is not good for an encyclopedia? Really? When I read your user page, the e-mail you sent me in July, and go through your contributions--including all the anonymous ones--I'm honestly baffled. You seem to think that your vandalism is all in good fun, and you can just casually change from a vandal into a good editor and back again without consequence. Please stop, because you DO do good work on Star Wars stuff, and we don't want to have to block you. OK? Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

*agrees with Antandrus* Redwolf24 04:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:starwars

"Close enough" is not good enough. You would have to list countless comics, books, and video games. Copperchair

I would like to mediate the revert war between yourself and Copperchair regarding the contents of the Star Wars Template, if that would be ok with you. - Dr Haggis - Talk 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Opening Crawl:starwars

I just wanted to thank you for moving the opening crawls pix. It looks much better where it's at now... I was tired when I was uploading etc., and I knew it wasn't looking the way I wanted it to. It makes sense being where it is now! Brand Eks 17:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)brandeks

Re: SuperShadow

Ok, saw the article. It's quite odd that he looks like some innocent 12-year-old stuck in a 20-something's body, instead of someone evil-looking like this convicted child molester. You'd think the "dark energies" streaming through him every time he lies would (gradually) make him as deformed as Couey was, much like how the dark energies defaced Palpatine!

During the time that I've studied his website, he does seem to give different answers to the same questions asked by different submitters. I thought there was indeed something fishy. Looks like all evidence points to this!

I guess if he's going to lie, he should at least keep a good memory! I want my untold amount of time I spent submitting questions to him, back!

So with SuperShadow thrown out the window, who do you think is going to direct the TV Series after Lucas?

PS: Who is the guy in that tanscale photo that Supershadow purports he is?

--Shultz 04:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Rv on ROTS article

This is just a friendly note not to take the revert too badly--edit summaries I use a lot for communication in resolving disagreements when it seems too trivial to take to a talk page. Anyway, I don't think it makes sense to list "Emperor Palpatine" as an alternative name for Chancellor Palpatine because it's a change of title, not of name. It's like having Admiral Needa as an alternative name for Captain Needa in ESB. — Phil Welch 06:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming Mistake.

Everything looks fine. Only the DVD of Episode II has no significant changes, and we don't know yet if the Episode III DVD will have changes, so I removed the specification before the Plot summary. By the way, regarding your adding of the "suited Darth Vader", I think it's a good one, so I urge you to look at the article for "Darth Vader", because there he is referred to as Anakin until he wears the suit, which was the object of a dispute between me and Phil. Copperchair 21:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Civility and Supershag11

There may be more here than meets the eye, or that I am aware of, but I noticed that one of your recent posts on User_talk:Supershag11 was less than pleasant. Please be civil to other Wikipedians. Thank you. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 22:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, please do not edit other users userpages. If you have a comment for them, please leave it on their talk page. If you feel so stronly about them being a vandal, there are proper ways to report their activities, such as WP:VIP or WP:AIV. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 22:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• • You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. FreplySpang (talk) 22:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Hmm someone vandalizing your Star Wars articles? Now do you have an idea how people feel when you mess with the Bush article? Redwolf24 22:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked

Adam, I blocked you by mistake. Your edit to my usertalk page happened at nearly the same time as someone who vandalized it quite rudely, and I thought it was you. I apologize. (But please do stop using the speedy-delete template on your friend's user page. It messes with our speedy-deletion process when you do.) FreplySpang (talk) 23:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The 1,000,000th article!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not that I want to congradulate you on vandalism, but I did have a good laugh when I saw that come up and umm could not bring myself to actually do anything to the article. That was hillarious needless to say. Go you! I mean, I support nothing like that, nothing... yeah. --Mr. Dude ^{†@£К ║ Çøת†яĭβü†ĬŎИ} 07:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks

And keep up the good work on Star Wars! Antandrus (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What a film is

A film needs certain things to truly exist. It does not need a soundtrack. It does not need a book. It does not need a game. It doesn't even need a plot. It does however need to be filmed on with a camera that records motion. Since Shadows of the Empire was never filmed, it is not a movie.

Pac Man has a game, a book, a toyline, a soundtrack and a TV show, but that does not make it a feature film.

Please consider this before adding Shadows to the films category. - Dr Haggis - Talk 04:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales moved to User:Jumbo Whales?

Sorry. I didn't realize it was a little joke. I was assuming it was vandalism. You're unblocked now. Redwolf24 04:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

B-101

I don't know of any rumors about the Imperial stuff I said (which is why I asked). But I do think it is possible, as the series will take place before ROTS and ANH. They might do Han, as he was an Imperial officer, or could expand the history of Admiral Piett. We'll just have to wait and see.- B-101 01:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Your block

You were not logged in; I did not block your account. I may have blocked your IP for vandalism. (Since I don't know your IP, I can't say what the specific vandalism was) If you don't want to be blocked for your brother's vandalism, you may want to prevent your brother from using your computer. --Golbez 01:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Heads up

Dakota F . is cute and seems mature for her age. BTW, you may be interested in uncyclopedia . May the force be with you.--Jondel 01:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your edits here are rather disturbing and possibly criminal. Please keep your "sense of humour" in check. - Dr Haggis - Talk 05:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop reverting ESB.

The article is in desperate need of attention, and complete denial of any problem is BAD. Now leave it alone. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

A revolation is that Wikipedia is NOT your personal plaything. I'm looking at your talk page, and you have done one of the biggest offenses on Wikipedia - sockpuppetry. And now, you revert edits without even considering that, perhaps, the article DOES need cleaning up. I've been here for almost a year, and you've been here for only about one month and ten days. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I also see you're sixteen years old. That would explain it. Oh well, at least school will help keep you from burdening Wikipedia anymore. I'm trying to help Empire Strikes Back, and you put that shit back on. I have encouraged admins at the wikipedia channel to not take vandal shit from you, so I suggest you fix up your act, or your ass is going to be torn. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

When did I say this is my article? Am I the one reverting quality edits because I don't want people outside of my community involved? Or am I the guy who said: "Wikipedia is what I want it to be, not what others want it to be."? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's true I have done sock puppetry. It was an enjoyable experience. But if you noticed, I am also a frequent useful contributor to the star wars articles. I've never vandalized them because I have respect for them. George W. Bush, on the other hand, I do not, nor his page, which is why I used a string of sock puppets to vandalize it. Wikipedia is what I want it to be, not what others want it to be. Adamwankenobi 01:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you for that. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, what? I've gotten three articles featured, and how many have you gotten featured? None? *thumbs up* Excuse my childishness; Back the actual point, you yourself admitted it needed a rewrite, but you wanted your friend to do it. If it's so bad of an edit, you wouldn't have claimed that it was an appropriate edit now, would you? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, Wikipedia is not your own personal play thing. If you want to make the perfect article that goes against reasonability of Wikipedia, there's a place more willing to accept it. [1] - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean?

The sock puppet string was back in June. Oh, they took care of it, quite well. I'm done, as they threatened me with a year-long ban. They are VERY aware of what I have done. I caused them to rethink their policies on vandalism. What is your concern with it, by the way? Adamwankenobi 02:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are bragging about sockpuppetary you are less then aware of anything or choose to ignore it. I dont threaten people, I just do it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars: SOTE

Please stop adding the SW Films cat to Shadows of the Empire. It is not a film. Has never been, will never be. We've altered the template to allow inclusion of SOTE, along with Star Tours and a variety of other things. Please stop adding this cat and creating yet another revert war; it's just childish at this point. Anthony 16:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism.

It IS considered vandalism. You are continuing to ignore the simple fact that a template should be as small as possible, and absolutely refuse to make it smaller. If you can't give me a SINGLE reason why this is the one and only template that should be huge, then you should stop editing it. Would it be hard for you to strive to keep these articles at a certain level of quality, opposed to putting in what you want and only what you want? From your edits on talk pages, you show clearly that you have an agenda to warp Wikipedia into your own little play-thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

You have never explained your POV. I might assume that you want to make it hideously huge and THAT is your POV, but it is BAD EDITING. Ask any respected member of Wikipedia, and they would concur in an instant. You and your Star Wars friends are the only ones who seem to agree with the idea that useless space is good. So, would you please explain - useless space, what purpose does it have? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that shrinking it loses content? The current version has UNUSED SPACE. You're arguing this space is needed for the large amount of content that could be added. Then ADD it. Don't make it freaking huge and then tell everyone it needs to be this big just in case we could add more content. No Template has to have the same content, all Templates have to be as small as possible. Small Templates are good templates. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars - Cast List

Might I suggest you try to compromise on a "selected" cast list instead of continuing to revert? Also, WP:ISNOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 20:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Adam, I'm looking over this dispute because the article's been listed for protection. I, too, think that a compromise with Link is in order, here. Have you got anything you want to discuss with a neutral third party? Fernando Rizo T/C 23:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam, we've already established consensus to condense the cast lists to include only major characters. If you keep blatantly acting unilaterally, it's disrupting the flow of Wikipedia, and we may have to call administrators to take action. Given your history of vandalism and sockpuppetry, I suggest you don't force it to come to that. Coffee 20:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a playground to make articles the way that you want them to be, disregarding decisions that the community has arrived at. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit will never work if you don't learn to respect the decisions of other people. I can sympathize that you feel that the article should be a certain way, but your opinion is clearly outnumbered, and in a spirit of cooperation you should bow to the decision of the majority. Coffee 20:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Expanded Universe template

There is no need for the Expanded Universe template in the Episodes' articles, as they are not part of it. It should only be in the articles listed in it, and in the generic "Star Wars" article, as it is already. Copperchair 01:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with it, but don't know about A Link to the Past. By the way, I have been backing you on the Cast discussion. Copperchair 01:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

They are canonical. Just because they are not one of the six original movies, does not mean that they are not a part of the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Vader section headings

The section headings are supposed to correspond with the films, with "Anakin Skywalker" corresponding to the prequels and "Darth Vader" corresponding to the original trilogy. Check my note on the talk page as well as the talk page archives where this is discussed. — Phil Welch 17:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

Please do not flood the Sandbox and its talk page. It makes it difficult for some users (especially those who do not have fast Internet connections) to use these tools. Even if you don't find them useful, many others do. FreplySpang (talk) 18:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the largest possible page is, or the largest page ever actually created. But long before a page reached the technical limit, it would be unusable for most Wikipedia readers. It would really be better if you researched this by reading about the MediaWiki software instead of testing it empirically. FreplySpang (talk) 18:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

ROTJ poster

Actually, I think the poster you put at the top of the ROTJ article (Image:RotjOrig.jpg) was the movie's teaser poster, like how Image:ROTSteaser.jpg is the teaser poster for ROTS. Coffee 05:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, please don't use edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. There are guidelines against that at Wikipedia:Edit summary. Coffee 06:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh good, you have the DVD... Printed on each of the DVD discs is the art from the films' theatrical posters. Image:ReturnOfTheJediPoster1983.jpg is the one on the ROTJ DVD. See the pictures here. Coffee 06:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... *checks bonus DVD*... Well, it turns out they're both versions of the theatrical release poster. I guess they're both acceptable to put in the infobox, but if we had to choose one I say we go with Image:ReturnOfTheJediPoster1983.jpg -- it has a more consistent look with the other articles' posters, plus there's that DVD connection. Coffee 06:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering they're both the theatrical release posters, my guess is they were released at the same time. And like I said, my preference is for Image:ReturnOfTheJediPoster1983.jpg. Coffee 07:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, any particular reason you insist on Image:RotjOrig.jpg? I thought we figured they were both the theatrical release poster. Coffee 14:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

originaltrilogy.com

I don't appreciate being called a Nazi, nor having you support the person who called me that. And the very idea that somebody happens to think that your little petition is silly being equated with Naziism is more than a little disturbing. I realize you're young, but do you have no perspective on history? Zoe 21:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Star Tours, Yet Again

Adamwankenobi, myself AND User:SPUI have removed your "Official site information" sections of the Star Tours page a total of three times now. It's plagiarism to copy directly from a source, even if you cite it. Please do not do it again, OK? --Lyght 08:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for adding back the Star Tours logo to the article as well. --Lyght 09:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Star Wars Holiday Special

Hi, noticed your dispute at The Star Wars Holiday Special. Fastbak77 seems to have a good reason to believe the the Holiday Special never aired on the program "Recovery". Simply saying "it must be there for a reason" is not a very compelling argument. When a user questions the credibility of a statement on Wikipedia, it's better to err on the side of removing it, rather than possibly spreading misinformation. I have nothing against you personally, but please don't re-insert that statement into the article unless you have a reason to believe it is true. Coffee 17:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can't find a source, it should probably be left out. The holiday special has a following on the internet, and if Google finds nothing that says it aired on that show, it probably didn't. Like you said, you aren't familiar with the show, but that guy is. I'd take his word for it. Coffee 01:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Information is included in Wikipedia because it can be backed up with sources, not because of a lack of evidence disproving it. Also, you can't link to the full video of the Holiday Special, as that would be illegal. Coffee 16:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're blocked now. Anyway, I've told you several times why I removed the statement. In short: Information is included in Wikipedia because it can be backed up with sources, not because of a lack of evidence disproving it. Coffee 03:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek

Hi again. Inserting a like saying that Star Trek is "the best show of all time, only second best when compared with Star Wars", is clearly a violation of the Wikipedia policy of conforming to a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This policy is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and I suggest you read it closely before making further edits. Coffee 17:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's better to just revert POV statements from the Trekkies and not take revenge. Once vandals realize they aren't making a difference, they usually go away. Coffee 01:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Images

Don't forget to include an appropriate image tag and a source when uploading files... it helps ensure that Wikipedia conforms with copyright laws, and it would ease the work at the image tagging project. By the way, where did you get Image:Indy4_poster.jpeg? I haven't been able to find it on any reliable commercial site, and I'm concerned it might be just a fan-made poster. The movie hasn't even started filming yet... not even teaser posters are released that early. Coffee 18:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's a fan poster it's probably not covered by fair use rationale, plus it can easily be mistaken for an official poster by people who come to the article. Don't forget Wikipedia is an enycyclopedia... if no real poster exists, we shouldn't put up a fake one. It should probably be deleted. Coffee 01:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Live-Action TV series

Note: Certain sections of the following are based solely on fan speculation, conjecture, and rumor and should not be taken as a confirmed fact by Lucasfilm or George Lucas.

That disclaimer at the top of the page directly contradicts what wikipedia is not, like I've said again and again. Putting in a listing of rumored crew grounded on baseless speculation is misleading. Hmm... perhaps you can just add Kevin Smith and Tarantino to the rumors section? Let's move all the rumors to that section, put the disclaimer there, and leave all the other sections for information that actually has some basis. Coffee 01:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, that picture at the top of the article was taken from starwars.com, and I had it removed and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Coffee 01:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

And also, saying Aayla Secura could still be alive is a very very eccentric position. It's like saying its possible that Darth Maul survived that fall down the chute and Force-healed himself together, or that Adolf Hitler could still be alive today aged 126. In any case, please do not put baseless lies on Wikipedia, thanks. Coffee 01:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias consist of facts, not speculation. For an encyclopedia, all information is not good information. If you want to collect guesses about what the show will be like, please do it on a fan site or somewhere appropriate. Thanks! tregoweth 05:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. Future events are usually unencyclopedic, especially if they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred." Until Lucasfilm releases more information, you'll just have to hold tight and wait. (Besides, what's to stop someone from saying "Harrison Tregoweth will be playing the role of Han Solo's father"?) tregoweth 05:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Long digression with A Link to the Past

Sadly, certain people have voted to omit these characters from the list. Despite my protests, the majority overruled. Hmm... looks like Wikipedia is a democracy... Adamwankenobi 04:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's terrible. Nothing better than a dictatorship, though. How do you think we find out what is appropriate? Supermajority. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The lesser of two evils I suppose? Adamwankenobi 09:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So, wait, chaos is good now? Making it impossible for decisions to be made is good now? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

If it works... Adamwankenobi 19:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Big if - chaos, by definition, doesn't work for the better. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

True. Though, it is possible. Adamwankenobi 19:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. If we have no order on Wikipedia, no decisions are made, no progress is made. If you don't like democracy, go somewhere else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I like Wikipedia. Half the fun is the arguments, and the controversy. Well, take for instance an administrator who abuses their power. They may secretly want an article a certain way. Others don't, the admin makes personal threats to those people, they get their way. That is the "lesser" evil. On the other hand, a supermajority decides, one or two who may or may not have great ideas for pages get pushed aside, and the majority get their way. It is always a governing body that gets its way. Be it either one person, or many. Adamwankenobi 21:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying the minority should decide what is a great idea? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think the minority should decide everything, just so long as that minority is me. Adam may think otherwise. — Phil Welch 21:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What the majority may think is best, say, in a society, may not always be best for all. Take the US for example. Well, now THAT'S an example! Bush and Cheney have the interests of a certain group in mind, rather than all. Now, let's take our situation: Copperchair and I are the "fanboys" of the pages. We wanted certain "fanboyish" content to stay because of our opinions. The others, however, felt it in the best interest of the encyclopedia to remove it. Who's right? It depends. The majority is a large group favoring one point of view, the minority is a small group favoring a small point of view. Adamwankenobi 22:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't compare Wikipedia to ANY government, because there is no leader of ANY kind! Let me explain... WP - Order = No WP. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

That means that Wikipedia does have leaders then. If WP-Order=No WP, then there must be people who keep that order, which are the admins, who many times abuse their power. WP is a government in that it has leaders that keep things the way they want, in order to maintain stability among everyone. All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal. Adamwankenobi 03:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not. If 11 regular users support something and 10 admins oppose it, they have no right to act on their oppositions. No admin has any more right in the decision making of Wikipedia. Not even the creator of Wikipedia can make those decisions, so don't BS me with that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

That's true, in theory... Adamwankenobi 04:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's true in fact. I can only assume the fact that after you created four sockpuppets - one to vandalize a page, and three to avoid a blocking, vandalized two user pages and an article and ignored consensus on multiple occasions, you have to think that it's abusive for them to enforce rules. Any admin abuse is rare, and you never experienced it. In fact, you're complaining after being unblocked from permanent blocks for major guideline violations TWICE, the second after getting out of the first by promising to never doing it again. Stop being such a martyr. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I do have that track record. However, as I have made clear on so, so many occasions, the pages which I work on, I have very good intentions for. Even you can't deny that (well, actually you will. You'll make up some cheap shot about that remark). Adamwankenobi 05:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So what? No matter how many good edits you make, we could live without them. We would lose good edits along with bad edits, and the fact that you lack ANY interest in improving your act, you are worth losing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Worth losing? I think not! My edits, indeed are fanboy edits, I never deny that. I have tried the star wars portal, I just don't like how they do things over there, compared to here. However, they are more accepting to my edits. IMHO, my act doesn't need improving. I permanently stopped vandalizing, that can be proven by my edit history. What I'm doing now has nothing to do with the other article edits I've done. When it comes to star wars, conditions change. Adamwankenobi 05:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Guys, take it somewhere else. None of this has anything to do with Attack of the Clones. — Phil Welch 05:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it quickly got off track from the beginning. Adamwankenobi 05:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Just archive it when it's done. Anyway, if all you do here is edit Star Wars articles and vandalize everything else, acting as if you have the specific right to break the guidelines, go to the WikiCities for Star Wars. One intentional vandalism is not cancelled out by good edits. The fact that you think you have the right to violate the guidelines shows you have not improved your act. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't vandalize anymore. I know for certain this time that I had pushed everyone as far as is possible. Don't take that in a negative way, please! I work, usually, exclusively on the star wars articles, and only do to them what I feel should be done. Yes, I have improved. I got a dose of reality of what could happen if I continued the way I did. When it comes down to it, people don't typically follow rules becuase they beieve in them, it's either because they have been jammed down their throats, or they want something from it. Well, i'm no different. Adamwankenobi 05:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hold tight guys, I'm gonna userfy. Adam, since we're talking about you, it goes on your talk page. — Phil Welch 05:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Eh, he thinks it's a waste of time discussing the issue. He's off to change the articles anyway. Adamwankenobi 05:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell you that I placed you on the RfC.

Yep. It covers most bases, except for you making the borderline illegal vandalism to Pedophile. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Your RfC

Some of your opinions and changes are generally considered harmful. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I think what we would all like you to do is comply with Wikipedia policy. Place factual, relevant, neutral statements in the articles, not your personal opinions. Remove from your user page your promotion of vandalism as an acceptable hobby for an editor of Wikipedia--if you know Wikipedia policy, you know it isn't ever acceptable. Keep making good edits, stop making bad ones. That's all, really. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

another comment

After having a good look at your contributions and talk page, I second what Merovingian said; and it's luck that a certain image (Roxy....), which would have been another example for your overall behavior, has been deleted Lectonar 13:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

indef. blocked

I just wanted to make you aware that you have been indef. blocked by me for edit warring, disruption, vandalism, incivility, and multiple 3rr violations as well as a number of other violations of wikipedia rules and regulations. If you wish to dispute this block you can reply here (at least for awhile I'll keep this page on my watchlist) or you can use the email me link to send me an email. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:50, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ya know Jtkiefer, I dunno about this one. Give me three examples of misbehavior in September, and I will be happy. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nazism? K, this I will not tolerate. Goodbye Adam and good luck. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Block

I don't understand why I can't give my opinion on the Wikipedia Administration. Is this now the Bush Administration instead? Adamwankenobi 04:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No one tried to stop you, because you never attempted to express an opinion. You yourself have stated that you vandalize articles for fun. And in regards to the Nazi comment, there's a limit to how stupid your opinions can be. Do you have any regard for historical accuracy? Nazis were trying to take over the world, and they ruled Germany as a dictatorship, and you compare Wikipedia to that in response to people voting on an issue (which you responded by trying to cheat the AfD system by getting your friends to keep it alive). The fact that you're trying to hinder the obvious supermajority on Wikipedia would be more appropriate to refer to as a Naziesque tactic, as it is an attempt to prevent democracy from taking place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:47, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not just ry to get my friend over at OT.com to support the vote. I didn't even create the page! They naturally joined in beacuse they felt the same way I did. The Nazi comment was more of an offhand remark. No, Wikipedia is obviously not trying to take over everyone. But, certain policies prevent users, like myself from putting certain things on here. So, the supermajority says the content should be removed. Well, they don't see it from other's points of view. They don't have that view. It seems that on every chatboard, site, etc, the ones with the high power are extremely afraid of any sort of differences or disputes. For instance, TheForce.net does not allow discussion of bootlegs. Well, bootlegs are out there. Fans want them. The corporation doesn't. To the moderators there, Lucasfilm cannot be questioned. They blindly block anyone there who merely hints at bootlegs. Assholes. When I return, I want you to understand, I am not returning as a sock puppet. I am returning as an editor. I'll try to keep a low profile. Adamwankenobi may be gone, but Adam is not. Adamwankenobi 05:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Good luck. I could just make it a point to ask one of the two admins with the ability to find any usernames from your IP, and I doubt you'll do much editing. And, what, you're pissing and moaning because we have order? I've never seen you complain that the US doesn't let you break the law. However, the only policy that you've been screwed by are sock puppets, vandalism, civility and no personal attacks. There is no policy preventing the entire cast from being put in the article. It was a democratic decision. So, let me repeat: Wikipedia is nothing like Nazism. Everything you've complained about was decided upon by admins AND the average user.

And, the reason we don't let the kids at OT.com run over and spam the article's deletion page with votes to keep is because they only have the intention of making Wikipedia conform to other SW Wikipedians, and have no care about the democratic process.

They don't allow discussion of bootlegs because they could get in legal trouble for allowing such discussions to persist.

Turns out Wikipedians are not as dimwitted as you thought. You thought you could get away with blatant vandalism and disregard for the community. Well, look at your situation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying if anyone returns from my range of IP's they will get blocked? Guess that kicks a lot of people out. I just have had different ideas and ways of seeing things than some. I will return only for the purpose of keeping certain things straight. Certain articles I had a hand in writing or largely working on, I feel an obligation to continue working on. I can only imagine how annoying someone like me must be, and all the time and effort put into discussing what I've done. To me this place is to improve what I want to improve. Whether or not I'm actually improving it is seen in many ways. Personally, I don't get around much. I'm not much of a people person. Chatrooms, message boards, wikipedia, etc. gives me that type of interaction where I don't actually have to interact personally. You could say I'm out of touch with what many consider "OK." I think everyone I've ever been involved with has discovered this at one point or another. Vandalism was an outlet for stress at a certain point. The one's I know think it's extremely odd that I spend much time on this site in the first place, let alone the "vandalism." That's the best way I can explain why I do what I do. Adamwankenobi 05:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to forget that you harm Wikipedia more than you help it. If all you're gonna do is edit Star Wars articles, go to the StarWars Wikicities page and stop damaging Wikipedia. Upset that you aren't some Nazi dictator that can dictate what can be on Wikipedia? Too bad. I am divorcing myself from this conversation. You are so devoid of any common sense, it's insane. Common sense dictates that you can NOT change Wikipedia to make you some sort of Star Wars article admin. Democracy occured in regard to the content that you want in, and that makes you unhappy because it doesn't conform to your opinion. Come back here when you grow up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bye. Adamwankenobi 11:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Query

The image I talked about was to be found at Image:Roxy-045.jpg, and I think the depicted lady isn't very mature, isn't she? Lectonar 06:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes. A fetish of mine. Adamwankenobi 11:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we know that, ad nauseam Lectonar 11:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

And that affected your decision to block me? Adamwankenobi 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, I didn't block you (I wouldn't be able to, because I'm not part of the cabal), I only endorsed the summary on the RfC, and as far as I remember, the pedophilia thing was not foremost in the argumentation (although you would have liked taht, wouldn't you?) Lectonar 12:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha! Yes, it would have been interesting to see comments made about that! By the way, I am starting a new account on here. Tell them not to take this the wrong way, I hope to stay more low profile than before. Thanks. Adamwankenobi 12:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't your announcement a very dumb thing to do when you know that this talk-page is watched? And can you refrain from editing Star-Wars articles? Lectonar 12:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice trick, but : You shall recognize them by their edits Lectonar 12:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but I'll do anything to get back on here. As Anakin says, "Well... if it works..." Adamwankenobi 12:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

For A Link to the Past

Well, I was attempting to work on my userpage to get it to the so-called standards. Adamwankenobi 12:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a reason why you can't edit it under your regular account. You've had ample chance to clean up your act, so doing it now won't do any good. - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I know that. I edited it only to make it correct. My new account has a much more vague, yet very recognizable name. Please leave it alone! It, and I say this again, is not a sock puppet. It is my new user account, that will not be used as a sock puppet. The guy formerly known as Adamwankenobi 12:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You were banned indefinitely. Translation: You under ANY account is not allowed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see. However, Adamwankenobi was banned. I am no longer Adamwankenobi. That name no longer has any meaning to me.
The guy formerly known as Adamwankenobi 13:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I never said Adamwankenobi was banned indefinitely, I was referring to you. Guilt trip? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:15, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hah. YOU are banned indefinitely. NOT the account. Please do not try to circumvent the rules. --Phroziac ^(talk) 13:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the account is as well, according to the list. I make my own decisions otherwise. Adamwankenobi 13:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Listen, when you are banned it means that you and any accounts of yours are banned. That includes any sock puppets, and any IPs that are associated with you. Making bold statements on your talk page will only ensure that admins will be extra vigilant in tracking these accounts down. I suggest that if you want to rejoin wikipedia you try to play by the rules, promise not to vandalise any longer, and definitely stop trying to circumvent the community. This has been explained many times to you, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Jacoplane 20:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Where can I find a complete listing of guideloines of wikipedia? I never actually looked over them. I doubt that any administartor would actually allow me back on here at all. I have promised before, only to have a relapse of sorts. I probably don't have that much of a chance getting back on here. Certain things I add to the pages really annoy them. I'm not talking about the vandalism, the actual good edits. They have certain standards, such as "wikipeduia is not a crystal ball" that led to me being bl0ocked again. Adamwankenobi 01:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Adamwankenobi protected

I have protected your userpage due to the fact that you don't seem to get the point that your right to edit has been revoked. That means you not just your username and any further edits by you using IP's will be treated as sockpuppetry and vandalism and will be blocked as such. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Understandable, however, I only removed the interesting placement of my words at the top. My editing is not vandalism in the regular usage. I understand that my right to edit was "taken" away, however, that is irrelevant to me. Adamwankenobi 03:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Adam your "privilege" of editing was taken away. Please stop giving Star Wars fans a bad name and desist. - Dr Haggis - Talk 19:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think they already have a bad enough reputation! I'm just fulfilling the stereotype! Adamwankenobi 01:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not really playing nice, now is it ;) I hope your new found respect for the Wiki and its users yields some great edits. See you out there! - Dr Haggis - Talk 14:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Assuming it's not like the last two times he promised to be a good editor. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Clone Wars Edits

Now, edits to the clone wars page can only be considered breaking policy, rather than vandalism. My edits to it dealt with organizing and correcting, not distorting t he information or disrupting wikipedia. Adamwankenobi 05:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's vandalism because you are not supposed to be editing it in the first place. I have the authority to delete any content you add, good or bad, to an article, because you shouldn't even be adding a single character to any article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if you are so inclined. The point is, I'm continuing my work, regardless of what someone says or does. Why? Well, becuase that's what I like to do, like anyone else does on here. I always make it a point not to let anyone stop me from what I want to do, period. BTW, you removing my edits is not really that much different than before the block, eh? Adamwankenobi 08:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha. I really laugh when I hear this from someone who thinks Wikipedia is a Nazi regime in reference to a vote not going in his favor. All you have done here is piss and moan about how much you wish people didn't have opinions or some stupid stuff like that. It's ironic that you could accuse anyone of Nazism when you get so pissy after it becomes clear that your opinion isn't going to be passed, so, in your typical liberal punk attitude, you act like you're being persecuted or something, and that everything is a Nazi. What now, are you going to call the supermarket a Nazi regime if they don't let you use the bathroom without purchasing something? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

They must let me in their store, or they will have a mess to clean up outside! Adamwankenobi 01:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Banning

Adam, the comments above infuriated me, with the Nazism comparisons, and that you could possibly defend it.

However, I'm about to do something that may make you happy, because I am interested in criminal rights...

Adam Kingrey is NOT banned. For him to be banned, we have to file an RfAr. Adam is allowed to create a new account, but vandal accounts will be blocked on sight.

So Adam, you are allowed to start fresh. I would make use of it if I were you. And also be aware that there are several users willing to file a case for Arbitration, and you would probably lose that.

So, let me reiterate.

Adam Kingrey is not banned. We may not unilatteraly ban people from Wikipedia, only users. We need the arbcom or Jimbo for actual bans.

Redwolf24 (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to do this. In return for your kindness, I will from now on use the discussion page, rather than immediately reverting pages. My new user page will not contain any slanderous remarks or controversial things. It surprises me that you are allowing this to happen, as I know there are many, many people who would do anything to keep me from coming back to wikipedia. Adam's gonna behave now. Adamwankenobi 06:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Star Wars

(moved here because it has nothing to do with Star Wars-- Coffee 23:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC))

I am at no fault. In any given edit war, Adam was working against consensus, and arguing that the consensus does not matter and Wikipedia should be what he wants. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

We are both at fault. We both want something different. Some may not like my idea, but hey, that doesn't stop me from putting them out. In this case, I have made the template about as small as it can get. I even separated it so that the pages with the films can have their own, very small template, and the EU can have its own. The main page will have both. That is very similar to what the LOTR page has done. It will not hurt anything to have it this way. Actually, it makes all aspects of the saga easier to reach. Adamwankenobi 04:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, we are not. I do not look at the faces of the supermajority on an issue, laugh, and ignore them, but you do. You seem to think that the best thing for Wikipedia to do is to alter Wikipedia to what you want, no questions asked. As far as I'm concerned, the one who resorts to user page vandalism is the one who is being the worst of the two edit warers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I only do what I feel is right (one of the key things I've learned when a supermajority is involved). User page vandalism? It looks as though that's how it works, so it seems. A few have done the same to my page as well, and they have good reason. As a matter of fact, I laughed when they did it. I was called an in-breed, a poser, a geek who will never get laid. Yeah, I believe that's how it works. It sure gets people's attention. It did mine. Adamwankenobi 04:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the guidelines don't matter? That would explain it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

In some cases. Adamwankenobi 05:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you have no right to violate any single guideline. If you want, bring a vote up for what you want to get rid of. But be sure to have a better reason than "I'm not allowed to vandalize pages for fun!" - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Changing pages is not vandalism if you intend no harm or disruption. As far as violating guidelines, my feelings go along the line of following what I feel is correct, and not following what I don't feel is correct. Oh! Heresy! Burn him at the stake! Adamwankenobi 05:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)