| I am currently involved in an independent research project at the university that I am attending, so I will be unable to immediately respond to comments and requests for a while. |
| Gethralkin: User Page | Talk Page | Personal Contributions | Successful Article Nominations | Sandbox |
Re: Battle of Patitite Pattuna GAN 
Edit
I'm waiting for a resolution for the discussion on Talk:88th Flight to see what to do. I'm of Cade's opinion that we need to have explicit confirmation that they appear in the episodes listed, so if and when that is supplied, I'll gladly add it to the battle article. CC7567 (talk) 19:05, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
- Gethralkin, I am well aware of the ongoing discussion on the 88th Flight talk page. Please keep it there. CC7567 (talk) 05:23, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
Images of based on real peopleEdit
I don't understand why you've removed a category I created only to re-add it to the same images. Huh? Jartka'irn (talk) 10:42, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Since you have removed your Talk Page discussions, I will answer this question here. It is obvious that the category belongs there, which is why I replaced it directly after I accidently removed it. Nuff Sed. —GethralkinHyperwave 14:41, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
EwoksEdit
I'm sorry for trying to expand the wiki but what is the point if we cannont add pages. Why did they have to be deleted. Just because they didn't have a name? Creating the page now saves having to search through endless unattributed images later when the character is finally named. Should not all characters that appeared in the films have a page? I suppose we should go an delete all the the other unidentified character pages (such as the unidentifed woklings - pages I did not create mind you) until there are no pages left on this wiki? Having a page with visual images and what little info we have on such characters plus the time they appeared in the movies would allow others to gather more info on these characters than if these pages did not exist at all. Jartka'irn (talk) 10:47, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Since this discussion is hard to follow without searching your archives, I will answer your post here. You created several characters that have very little notable context in the body of their articles. In fact, the articles' texts each have/had no more than one sentence to describe. This is contrary to the policy of notability that this wiki has. Additionally, you have not given any of them the attribution that they deserve. I explained all of this in the edit summaries. In one of them, in which you did finally follow proper procedure and discuss the reasons for keeping the article on the Talk Page, I elaborated on the reasons. Some agree, some don't. If it comes down to a consensus that the article should remain, then it will remain. —GethralkinHyperwave 14:46, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
Re: WarningEdit
Its not my opinion its just common sense. Regardless all you've managed to teach me is not to 'god forbid' edit any of the pages on your watchlist. Thanks Jartka'irn (talk) 11:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Common sense or not, re-reverting is very much frowned on here... especially if you do not even bother to open up a discussion on the talk page challenging the revert. If you follow proper procedure, you shouldn't have very many problems. —GethralkinHyperwave 14:48, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
NotabilityEdit
They can't get more notable than in the films. They're the highest level on canon we have and I remind you that using "Unidentified" to attribute names to characters that have yet to be given an official name is quite acceptable as seen Wookieepedia:Naming_policy here. Notability issues refer to fanon (see Wookieepedia:Notability_of_fan_projects here not official sources such as the films. So once again I do not understand your motivation to add the {{delete}} tag. Jartka'irn (talk) 11:26, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I am answering here because you are hiding your Talk Pages. The problem is not that they are not named, but their significance compared to the events in the film/novel/game/etc. that makes them individual. If they are just on of the background characters, then they are part of a collective and not individual. Anything created by an editor that is not specifically identified by the canon is fanon. So making assumptions about, say whether a wokling is ugly or an Ewok looks sick or the accessory on an Ewok is a holster or a hat on an Ewok is from a chicken, then you need to have attributable proof to support it. Otherwise it's fanon. As for one case, I took the time to research and found an attributable source to verify that one of the Ewoks did indeed have a blaster with a holster, and the article was edited to reflect that. I have had many article that I worked on reverted because I did not have an attributable source to verify the claims made by the information I put in. It is how it is here, and I believe that it is a good thing. —GethralkinHyperwave 14:58, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
The last strawEdit
How contrite. As you did not address anything I previously posted on your talk pages, just stop. This conversation is ended. Jartka'irn (talk) 06:40, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
- You do not seem to be getting the message. I do not want any further contact from you. Walks away from computer... Jartka'irn (talk) 06:43, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
- As to responding to your comments, please refer to the caveat above which informs every visitor to my pages that my answers to User talk page comments will not be immediate. Especially if you just "edit" my talk page without clicking "Leave Message," preventing me from receiving notification of a new message. Just so you know, the proper way to leave a comment on a user's talk page is to click "Leave Message" at the top of the page. This not only let's the user know that a comment has been left, but also prevents your message from being attached to a previous commentator's posts. —GethralkinHyperwave 15:12, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
Re: A certain user Edit
Currently, the matter is being discussed on IRC. Once we reach a consensus, then things will be dealt with. Technically, he hasn't necessarily done anything wrong. Annoying, yes, but he is archiving his talk page, which is acceptable. It doesn't make the matter go away, though. If this devolves into a petty edit-war, though, I or another admin will do something. Until then, we're watching the situation. Trak Nar Ramble on 07:26, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
Just a tip: Accusing people of sockpuppetry is not really a good idea unless you have a proof. The talk page matter has already been investigated. 1358 (Talk) 12:29, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
A certain user, part 2 Edit
These passed couple weeks have ended with the blocking of a certain user, due to his active vandalism for the sole purpose of being blocked. He had finally gotten his wish, though, the matter is not settled, as there are two sides to this whole thing, and I am now addressing your side.
First and foremost, your attitude is toeing the line of acceptability. Take care to keep your IRL attitude from becoming your Wook attitude, else you'll end up in the same situation as the aforementioned user. When he asked you to leave him alone (prior to his active vandalism), you continued to bother him. If you are having a problem with a user, please get the administration involved. We were watching the situation, and aside from his talk page archiving, he was not doing anything legitimately wrong. That doesn't mean that you should take matters into your own hands and essentially egg him into misbehaving. At that point, you were antagonizing him and it would have been best if you let the matter be.
Outright accusing that user of sock-puppetry was a bad move, particularly if you didn't have evidence on hand to support it. Not every admin can check for socks. Please avoid taking that route with other users in the future, unless, and only if you have evidence to present up front. And even then... go to an administrator first.
I understand that you are quite protective of the PocketModels. I have a few subjects on here that I am protective of, too. But, please avoid letting those projects cloud your judgement. So, a user doesn't quite believe that you had a hand in the PocketModels. Hey, for the record, I'm still shocked over the fact that Topps had shown an interest in my portfolio. Granted, the process is still ongoing, but I'm still trying to believe it. After everything is all said and done, I'll be as protective over the sketch cards line as you are over the PokcetModels. But, that should not cloud our judgement.
In short, please be mindful of your attitude and try to avoid edit-stalking users. If users are making mistakes, please correct those edits and alert the administration to their behavior. If users ask you to leave them alone after you had said your piece, please do so (unless they are actively vandalizing). Correct any erroneous edits, but avoid antagonizing them either through talk page messages or edit summaries. Thank you. Trak Nar Ramble on 02:35, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
"Bazookaman"Edit
Thanks for pointing it out, I will keep it in mind. But did you correct those pages where the link was put (eg. Revival)? --XXLVenom998 (talk) 07:37, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
- LOL it was me who corrected the links, just after I wrote the message to you. But no problem. Everything's fine now don't worry. --XXLVenom998 (talk) 16:55, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
Friends nominations Edit
Hi, you were wondering if people even pay attention to Wookieepedia:Official Friends of Wookieepedia/Nominations. My experience is that without a bit of legwork it will be left without attention. So perhaps try again a bit later and make sure people are aware that there's some voting that really is worth paying attention for. (: – Tm_T@Wookieepedia:~$ 05:10, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. I was under the impression that nominations are voted on by any who follow the page and that inviting editors to vote on it is looked down on as campaigning. —GethralkinHyperwave 15:04, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
Re: CAN to GAN Edit
I'd be happy to archive it for you, though anyone is allowed to archive CANs. It's rather simple really, as there is an archive checklist that is linked at the top of the CAN page, which gives you step by step instructions on how to do it. Let me know if you want me to archive it, or if you are going to do it yourself. 501st dogma(talk) 22:03, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
Happy New Year!Edit
Hey, I wanna wish you a happy new year! :) --XXLVenom998 (talk) 10:50, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. —GethralkinHyperwave 17:14, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
Re: X-wing Miniatures Game source template usage (fixed) Edit
Nice work, but there's a problem with the template. When I click the link I get a 403 error page with Access Forbidden. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 14:35, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Re:Adminship Edit
Thanks, Geth. :) JangFett (Talk) 19:57, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
Mobile Proton Torpedo Launchers Edit
Hi.
Question about the Mobile Proton Torpedo Launchers (Great job expanding the articles, BTW): Which variety was used to ambush the Blizzard 1 in the Zaloriis Battle in Galactic Battlegrounds (ie, regular or heavy?), and when are they used during the events of Galactic Battlegrounds (I know they are most likely used during the Empire, Rebel, and Wookiee campaigns, but that's about it, and by "when are they used," I mean in which missions?)? We need to expand the history sections of both variants' articles to make sure its up to date. That probably includes the Empire of War games as well (although that only being the case for the enemies, obviously). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:02, June 6, 2013 (UTC)