Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Complaints on an overzealous Wookiepeedian

I just skimmed the different contributions of the Nebulax fellow and it struck me that maybe 1/10 of his recent "contributions" are just reverts. Has he always been this interferring? Why does he always get to cast the deciding (and often ONLY) vote on what belongs? Sure, he may be right but couldn't he at least give due process? Perplexed-4E-Turnitee)

  • All he's doing is reverting wrong info, unneeded info, or vandals. Don't complain about him here. Bly1993
    • And rather than complain, perhaps you could try and contribute yourself, and be as helpful as Jack - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I have. He just pulls it down faster than thirty of me could put it up. Have either of you read everything he's removed? And neither of you have answered my question. Why does he get to cast the deciding vote? (Perplexed-4E-Turnitee)
        • He does not get the deciding vote. Your edits have been either unsourced or removing info. When you edit, you must provide a source for your info. Bly1993
      • I removed information once. That was because I had noted complaints in the Discussion section over how long a section was. So I shortened it. But that is a different conversation. Von Nebulax is assigning his own judgement the role of supreme mediator. Does he confer with anyone before making decisions? And yes, I should provide a source. The trouble is I don't know how to add those little footnotes. How do I do that? (Perplexed-4E-Turnitee)
        • For an external link, do this (without any of the spaces): [ link name| Source ]. For appearance: do two [ [, the page name, and ] ]. Bly1993
          • Any of us can revert something we deem to be fanon or erroneous, and page histories ensure all changes are logged to prevent any real data being removed. And Bly, I'm assuming he means reference footnotes. Simply click "edit" on any article that uses them and note the coding used - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I deem many things here to be erroneous but I do not change them because I know opinions will always diverge. As to fanon, no one has yet told me how anything I have written is fanon. But how's this? If I stay away from von Nebulax's pet projects can my opinions be granted any amount of worth? - (Perplexed-4E-Turnitee)
          • If it's a big enough issue, it goes on the article's talk page. But minor stuff that's obviously wrong simply gets reverted. Stop making a big deal out of this; it's nothing personal. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • That is just it. I challenge the assertion that my (now dead) contributions are "obviously wrong". I have read the article on fanon. And I fail to see how my (admittedly little) work is such. Please understand that I am not so much complaining about my edits being reverted as I am about arrogant condescension left roaming free. Review my case! Beat it into the ground with facts and logic if that is what it merits! Just give me a FAIR hearing! My being denied this suggests an elitist attitude among Wookiepedians that puts lie to the boast of this website being open to all. <Perplexed-4E-Turnitee> Why the four tildes? What do they do?
  • Hello Perplexed. Four tildes (~~~~) sign your name if you are logged in to help others recognize you. What articles exactly were you working on and what was reverted? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I tried adding a subsection about military doctrine to the Grand Army of the Republic page. Their tactics are so blatant in the films that it seemed a shame not to mention them. (And I'm not a user so I guess the tildes don't really matter.) <Perplexed-4E-Turnitee>
      • They would if you signed up under that name. Nebulax might treat you fairer as an user rather than an anonymous user. Could you post here exactly what you were going to add to that article? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, here it is. Mind you, even I admit it makes some strong assertions. I'd be more than happy to explain why I say what though. <Perplexed-4E-Turnitee>
The Grand Army of the Republic was founded on the ideal of mobility. This was evident in its both its structure and composition. The Grand Army was equipped as a mechanized infantry force with a large part also doubling as airborne heavy strike groups. Multiple armored formations were employed which could serve as veritable moving fortresses to dominate any battlefield. Light armored units, such as the AT-RT, were used either to support infantry columns or else to operate as heavy skirmish lines in their own right.
Another feature of the Grand Army's tactics was its reliance on the superhuman feats of its Jedi commanders. These often took the form of near-suicidal commando strikes intended to better safeguard the battlefield for arriving troops or even to force an enemy defeat by crushing their command centers and leaders. Operations of this kind were common in places where few clone divisions could be spared.
At the battalion level and above, clonetroopers operated in dense cloud formations backed by mobile artillery, combat walkers, and gunship support. This tactic, while contrary to the small unit skills with which the Grand Army was proficient, was possibly a reaction to the successive wave attacks favored by CIS armies. By forfeiting platoon maneouverability and its corresponding preservation of lives, the Grand Army was able to focus extreme volumes of fire against oncoming enemies.
The Grand army, in keeping with it emphasis on mobility, also practiced close cooperation with the space fleet. Often choosing to establish their divisional headquarters aboard Republic warships, as did their stormtrooper successors with star destroyers, they effectively turned themselves into an interstellar force of marines. This feat ensured that where-so-ever went the Republic Navy, there too went its army.
  • Well the trick is for us to know where this information came from or what it is based on. You haven't happened to serve in a military force yourself have you? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • He said he based this off what he saw in Episodes II and III—therefore, fan assumptions, which equals fanon. And show some respect, Perplexed. I've been here far longer than you, and I have the second most amount of contributions here. I've defended this site against vandalism and fanon for a year or so now. And you are only adding more fanon to Wookieepedia. You're closer to a vandal than an actual contributor, Perplexed. And my name is not "von Nebulax". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Assumptions or not, you must cool down Nebulax. Give the guy a break considering that he's only been here a fraction of the time that you have been. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Typically, a new user should respect people who have been here longer and know what goes and doesn't until they themselves get their feet wet. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, and the accused enters the building! No, I have not served in the military. If it is wished, I shall now explain myself. (In absurdly long detail)

The Grand Army of the Republic was made of armored infantrymen supported and transported by combat machines. This is the description and definition of mechanized infantry. The Grand Army was also, as of the Battle of Geonosis, shown fielding (by means of aerial vehicles) an entire army complete with heavy armor units. This is a description and definition of airborne troops. During the battles of both Geonosis and Kashyyyk, as well as several EU conflicts, immense war machines were shown. All of them were visibly serving as focal points for infantry and other machines. Their sheer size and armament made them the equivalent of "moving fortresses". My statements on light armored units are likewise a direct description of their roles in the films and also of uses described (for example) on the Wookieepedia AT-RT page.

The reliance on Jedi-led strike teams is verified by most every EU record (especially in the Wookieepedia) of Clone Wars battles. Jedi almost always led the way and invariably secured the area in ways that made it safer for clonetrooper deployment. The tendency of Jedi to seek out command centers and their corresponding leaders is recorded in the same places. Many of these actions would have been suicidal but for Jedi commanders and their Force talents.

The "cloud formations" which I mentioned are a description of the scattered lines which clonetroopers in ROTS are seen (on multiple planets) attacking in. Perhaps they learned the dangers of the formed ranks they used on Geonosis. In all of these cases, there are seen medium and light walkers and tanks mixed among them and providing direct fire support. I wrote "contrary to the small unit skills" because clonetroopers are in most sources considered to be adept at platoon sized attacks (possibly because the real-world "stormtroopers" of WWI used this to great effect). And the CIS has, in every appearance I know of, deployed its soldiers linear wave formations. The speculation on my part was that the clone formations were a response to this. I then proceeded to explain why such a response would be effective.

As to the ground-space cooperation, I admit this is a little less certain. Still, it is known, documented, and shown that the Grand Army did not use permanent terrestrial bases but instead transported themselves in conjunction with the fleet. And what, afterall, is a marine but ground and naval soldier?

Your honor, I rest my case... <Perplexed-4E-Turnitee>

  • Until you provide a source for all of that, it's fanon. And you, my friend, aren't making a good image for yourself. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Neither are you, Jack. You are pretty much backing up his accusations regarding your behaviour. He doesn't know the norms and rules around here, that much is obvious. Did you even try to explain, on talk pages, histories or elsewhere that you reverted because it is fanon? Did you make any attempt whatsoever to housebreak this guy? It should be obvious to anybody that his intent was not vandalism. Its too well written and thought out for that. He simply didn't know that not even common sense interpretation of the movies is valid around here. His only crime was ignorance, not vandalism. So did you even try? That is what I want to know, seeing as you want to be an Admin. DarthMRN 00:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally! A reason for my contribution to be condemned! The objections are explained! Let there be dancing in the streets! To be fair though, Herr Jack did tell me it was fanon. What he failed to do is to explain why it was. The "Fanon" article does not mention what DarthMRN said. And if Herr Jack had become an administrator without first getting an attitude overhaul, then I just might have started a rival website. Okay, I'm happy now. <Perplexed-4E-Turnitee>

  • First of all, stop changing my name. My name is Jack Nebulax, not "von Nebulax" or "Herr Jack", so show some respect already. Second of all, I simply don't want to be an administrator. Now, admins, please blast this forum into pieces. It has no more purpose (not that it ever did). —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And there are two E's in Wookiee. -- Ozzel 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I showed respect when we first began clashing. You then demonstrated yourself to be an irate individual with a tendency to condemn opposition by means of circular logic which has as its pinnacle the assumption that if you yourself disagree, then it is immediately false. Look over the messages you've posted over the past year. It is a continual trait. Right, y'all can ban me now if you want... <Perplexed-4E-Turnitee>
      • In case you haven't noticed, all people are like that. Instaed of complaining by creating an entire thread in the Senate Hall, you should have taken it up with Nebluax yourself instead of whining. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • True enough. Whining solves nothing. Therefore I created this thread which seeks to legitimately challenge a problem. But you have just further proven the defficiency which this thread complains of. Also, I did challenge Obersturmfuhrer Nebulax (sorry, I just love giving Prussianized nicknames to authoritarian figures) directly. His answers were insufficient. Now (since the subject seems to have resurfaced) are you Wookieepedians going to be civil or will you drive away opposition and then call it victory? <Perplexed-4E-Turnitee>
        • 4E-Turnitee: 1) Please register your username if you want to sign with it. 2) We are well aware of Jack's edits. He does not have final say (one of the key parts to a wiki), and anybody can freely and easily revert his (or any others') edits. 3) Jack already asked you not to call him by other names. What you are doing now can be considered a personal attack. 4) This thread shouldn't even exist. If you have a problem with a user, bring it up on the user's talk page. If that doesn't work, seek an administrator's help. Thanks. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You know, I never actually saw you say you confirmed that you knew military tactics or show where the sources for your assertions were in written form outside of looking at their tactics in the movies. You've also admitted that you made some strong assertions in your argument. So...where is you source? -- SFH 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Anons. Cutch 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, I recant on the nicknames. However, I firmly believe that this thread should exist. It attempts to bring attention to an atmosphere of hostility possessed by the Wookieepedia and made very manifest in the behavior of Jack Nebulax. I have no wish to register because of this very fault. Think of me as the lone, loud voice declaring what just might be the opinion of all potential Wookieepedia users. Also, I have not claimed knowledge of military tactics because such an action would be arrogant and presumptious. I am an amateur historian. My assertions on clone tactics have not been written anywhere for the sole reason that (until now) none have bothered to comment on them. I had thought that what I wrote was made self-evident by the films but seemingly I was wrong. I even posted in the article's discussion page a request for any and everyone to edit the information into an acceptible form. But, no, it was just removed. Understand this: I no longer care what happens to my text. I am objecting to an ideal. <Perplexed-4E-Turnitee>
          • It attempts to bring attention to an atmosphere of hostility possessed by the Wookieepedia and made very manifest in the behavior of Jack Nebulax. Big whoop. I will tell you right now, that Jack is probably one of the least hostile people here. I have no wish to register because of this very fault. So we lose one registered user. Big whoop. We have enough active users to keep this going for awhile as it is. Hell, the registrations can be closed and nothing would change. Quit complaining and get on with your pathetic life. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Forgive me while I chuckle warmly at your verbal attack on my person. I already know my life is pathetic. I'm here at Wookieepedia after all. But seriously, the "big whoop" is that you Wookieepedians are turning this place into a private website where influence and patronage rules. Should this continue, then you will have invalidated your definition as a wikia. The ball is in your court. Close my thread. Ban me from editing. I don't really care. At least I'll get the satisfaction of having been proven right. <Perplexed-4E-Turnitee>
            • Did I say you were wrong? It is my personal belief that we are hostile in someway and strive to dominate and rule over the other. But that is human nature. I say good for us if we become private. No more vicious attacks, no more annoying anons. The only thing we claim your wrong about is your statements that were reverted - but that's beside the point. The point is that you are acting like an immature brat. If you have a problem with someone, take it up with them personally. Don't waste everybody else's time but bringing us into it. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm ready to move this into the archives. -- SFH 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)