Wikia

Wookieepedia

Zeta1127,89thLegion

7,409 Edits since joining this wiki
September 12, 2009

Welcome, Zeta1127,89thLegion! Edit

Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

General help

Site policies

Contribution help

Wookiees-Transparent

Wookieepedia aspires to be a reliable source for all Star Wars fans to read and draw information from, and as such, fan-created continuity and fan fiction are not allowed within our articles. All in-universe material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Please do not remove talk page and forum comments, as they are part of the public record. Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask one of our administrators. May the Force be with you!

WP:RWMEdit

I've noticed you helping with Star Wars Main Title a little. I appreciate the help a lot. Since you show a little interest, would you like to join WookieeProject: Real World Music? MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 12:49, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 15:42, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Awesome!!!! Welcome aboard! Just visit the project page and add your name the list of editors in the infobox. If you wanna take on a project, sign your name next to one, or add your own, in the projects section. c):D MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 15:45, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

The Imperial MarchEdit

Hello Zeta! Just a reminder that you currently have "The Imperial March" as a project for WP:RWM. It's been three weeks since your last edit on the page. If you are still planning on editing the article, do so within the next week if possible. If inactivity is still shown, I may have to take your name off the list of projects. You can look at "Star Wars Main Title" for an example on how to write an OOU music article. Thank you for your time and God bless! MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 19:48, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

I have been busy with college classes. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 19:51, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Totally understand. Don't worry. The article isn't going anywhere. :P MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 19:56, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

DistasteEdit

I officially don't like this place very much. It has its uses, but you guys are just too strict and narrow-minded for my taste, so I don't think I will be able to do a whole lot here. This statement isn't meant to be offensive, only an opinion. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 02:43, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

My distaste stems from the fact that I don't like the culture here of cataloging every appearance without caring what the appearance did or did not do, and not being able to do anything unless it is in a canon source or article cleanup. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 00:27, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries Edit

Hi, just wanted to let you know that doing whitespace edit just to be able to communicate via edit summaries is not nice thing to do, as it causes unnecessary edit history noise and goes against the idea of edit summary, it is supposed to summarize the edit, not to comment (see Help:Edit summary). Please use article/user talk pages instead, as they are more fitted to the purpose, thanks. –Tm_T (Talk) 20:33, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Carida as a Good Article Edit

If you know how to add a notes and references thing to the Battle of Carida could you I don't know how? User:Grand Moff HopkinsImperial Emblem

Interdictor-class Star Destroyer possibilityEdit

Possible shipsEdit

These ships were Imperial-class Star Destroyers modified by the New Republic and/or Galactic Alliance to posses gravity well projector globes internally.

Your name Edit

Curious how did you get the 89th Legion part of your name? I've been working on making my own legion and called it the 89th71.209.84.5 03:36, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

89 has special meaning to me. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 04:03, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Unverified Information Edit

Per this discussion, unless we have canonical proof that those ships were named after the Roman/Latin/whatever foreign language, then it needs to be removed. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I had it confirmed by an administrator. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 20:41, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Canon, everything revolves around your precious canon, like that is the ruling force of the universe. You people can disagree with something and still do it anyway, amazing, simply amazing. I heard this tune before about the Tantive IV dramatic reversal retcon. This makes me wonder if as I said before elsewhere we would be better off with droids editing here instead of people. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 21:49, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Leland Chee seems to be able to poke his nose into everything, can't he resolve this, because it is blatantly obvious that Republic/Imperial Star Destroyer class names are Latin. The Imperator/Imperial-class Star Destroyer has this info, so why can't the others? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 01:10, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

HeyEdit

Hey, what exactly was Omicron reverting of yours? He's been removing 'unverified' info on the Jizz article as well. Destroying the wiki. I want to know so he can be reported. --Thesaurus Rex 01:20, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Omicron did not revert anything of mine, he reverted some of the long standing behind the scenes stuff on the name origins of a few Star Destroyers and their larger brethren. To my knowledge, the naming convention for most Republic and later Imperial Star Destroyers is Latin roots, and I don't particularly like the policy. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:11, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

XvT: BoP Easter Egg Edit

Hey there Zeta. I've contacted you as you're the most recent editor of the XvT article.

I've discovered an Easter Egg in BoP that features a cameo by the game testers (as evidenced by their names in-game and their designation as members of Bantha Squadron - they are credited as the Banthas in the XvT manual). My question is does this appearance, as it takes place in an actual mission in-game, render these characters and the squadron (as well as the ships they appear with) canonical? The whole episode is very jokey, with ships named Dead Meat and Already Dead being taken down by the Banthas.

To find the Easter Egg, play the BoP Combat Engagement 'Attack on Rebel Cruisers' (my memory may not be exactly right on this) as Rebels (haven't tried it as Imps yet) and, after all three cruisers are either destroyed or have went into hyperspace, wait for 9 minutes and 40 seconds. The Imperial team must have summoned reinforcements (which may need to be done by the CPU as opposed to a player). Two ISDs will show up and launch a squad of pathetically weak T/Is. About 3 mins after this, two CRSs will arrive, pursuing the ISDs, and Bantha squad will launch to take out the two ships.

I know this sounds very stupid, but you can corroborate what I'm saying by opening the mission in an editor.

Anyway, let me know what you think.ChebGhobbi 00:02, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Braha'tok-class gunship Edit

Hey Zeta1127, I noticed you've been trying to add a "Known ships" section to the Braha'tok-class gunship page, which I'm currently bringing up to Featured Article status. However, a "Known ships" section is not part of the Starship and Vehicle Class Articles' Layout Guide, which you can see here: Wookieepedia:Layout Guide. Before adding sections to a page, make sure it corresponds to the Layout Guide. Thanks. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 03:38, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

So, most of the Corellian freighters have such sections, I have seen them in other ship class articles, and have put them in articles with no complaints until now. There is nothing in that guide that precludes the addition of such a section, in fact, other sections can be added according to that guide. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 08:07, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

magna guard Edit

SInce you are a huge Star Wars Fan can you help me out with the Magna Guard article. Mostly just adding sources and appearances and adding to the Bibliography. Thanks,--kangaroopowahTalk 02:38, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

T2-b tank Edit

i have a question . why did you delete behind the scenes ? Did i do something wrong ?

I undid the edit because it was so poorly written and not that informative. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 18:04, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Re:T2-b tank Edit

Ok , but could someone edited it to make it informative

Stop doing that... Edit

I am being stalked, I am removing all things connecting individual websites with each other.

What is your problem...? Edit

I have a serious stalking problem... I am destroying anything that connects websites I go too from each other...

Please help Edit

I can't figure anything out

Nickname quotations in intro Edit

Hey, Zeta1127,89thLegion, I just want to let you know that please be more careful when you're editing in FAs, or in any promoted articles for that matter. If you take a look at CC-1119, I corrected a mistake you made in the intro. The comma after mentioning the clone's nickname, "Appo," needs to go inside the quotation marks. This is grammatically correct and should also be present in non-promoted articles as well. I just wanted to let you know just in case this occurs in the future. JangFett (Talk) 22:55, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least half of the clone trooper articles don't even have quotes in the first place, so I was just adding the quotes, and grammatically correct or not, it looks terrible, but it won't happen again. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:00, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comments on a revised Timeline of media Edit

As an editor of media timelines, your input is desired: Forum:SH:Making_a_better_"Timeline_of_media" --Morbus Iff 17:23, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Anakin Skywalker's Sith title Edit

Please do not change the name in the infobox. His name is Anakin Skywalker. Using Darth Vader is inappropriate as established by the Naming convention policy and as referred to in the discussion on the article's talk page. GethralkinHyperwave 15:46, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

  • What exactly is the difference between adding Darth Vader to the infobox and adding Darth Sidious and Darth Tyranus to their respective pages? Darth Plagueis was already renamed to his Sith title and Darth Tenebrous should probably be renamed to his Sith title too. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 19:24, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
    • Considering that you did those edits yourself, you should have come to the conclusion that the removing of Darth Vader from the Anakin Skywalker infobox should be applied to those as well. Plagueis is the name that that Sith lord was known by prominently ("remembered as"), as was Darth Caedus. Darth Vader (an apparent upstart with no military experience in the eyes of other Imperial officers) was not associated as being Anakin Skywalker (the best star pilot known throughout the galaxy). Please do not add or change the infoboxes until you have read the policies regarding those. These issues have already been discussed and decided. You can look over the archived discussions if their respective Talk pages do not make current mention of the policy guidelines. GethralkinHyperwave 21:19, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
      • Don't you dare tell me about policy, I was following the lead of an admin, CC7567, who was mistaken. I don't particularly like the policy around here anyway, since it allows for the existence of the abomination that is TCW (explained below), but I do respect the policy. Please don't use Jacen Solo/Darth Caedus (All of the evidence tells me he died as Jacen Solo) as an example, because as far as I am concerned, TCW and the post-Galactic Civil War are both scarcely canon, TCW blurs the lines between canon and fanon due to its lack of respect for existing canon, and the NJO and beyond is little more than one bad plot choice after another. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 04:48, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Okarr's demiseEdit

Why did you take away the information of Nico Okarr's death, demise means death. --24.115.227.131 02:19, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I know what demise means, but you didn't exactly add details so I assumed you were making it up, something unregistered contributors are notorious for doing, and you didn't exactly format it right. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:35, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Falleen's Fist Edit

Hello, I would ask that you please provide a reference citation for your edit here regarding this conflict being referred canonically as the "Battle of Falleen's Fist." Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:09, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Falleen's Fist redirects there and is used repeatedly including the article on the Falleen's Fist itself. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:12, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Just because you find something in another article does not mean that it's correct. Wookieepedia itself is not considered a source for reliable information. "Battle of Falleen's Fist" is a conjectural title someone came up with on this wiki once upon a time in order to name that article, but, as far as I know, it is by no means official or correct, whereas "Battle over Coruscant" is a verifiable canonical title for this conflict. Since you don't seem to have a reliable source for this information, I have reverted this edit. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:27, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, not trying to be a problem. What about the continuity concerns about the StarViper-class attack platform on its talk page? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:33, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
No need to apologize, it's a common misconception people have. Which continuity concern are you referring to exactly there? Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:36, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
I am referring to the potential discrepancy in the FoC campaign with the Zann Consortium deploying StarVipers as early as 1 BBY during the Mission to Mandalore. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
It seems like you guys have uncovered a legitimate continuity discrepancy. It's probably something that can't be truly ironed out without some official word from Lucasfilm reconciling this in some way. I would suggest simply asserting all information in the article, even where contradictory, and note the contradiction in the BTS, as you are in that discussion. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:48, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
So no one noticed that the Zann Consortium deployed StarVipers as early as four years before Xizor's death? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:52, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
If you mean no one on this wiki, possibly not. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:56, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. The MandalMotors verse Mandal Hypernautics debate has always bugged me too, it seems like the best way to explain that is Mandal Hypernautics being a subsidiary of MandalMotors. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 06:01, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
You could try posing the question to Leland Chee on his Facebook page blog asking him to provide a retcon explanation for this discrepancy. He seems pretty good about responding to questions there. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:03, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I want to do that, because I don't particularly like the way he handled the Tantive IV CR70 verse CR90 debacle, which made a mess out of Corla Metonae's history. While I have your attention, why is the CR-20 troop carrier not named the CR20 troop carrier, when the databank even referred to it as a CR20? Someone pointed this out on its talk page, and I confirmed it, but no one seemed to notice. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 06:11, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of this ship, but I would imagine because a more recent source like CSWE or Clone Wars Campaign Guide called it by this designation. At this point, the Databank is pretty outdated, especially now that it's been shut down. It shouldn't necessarily be considered a say all, end all source. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:16, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

New policy Edit

Do not remove perfectly good edits. They are not vandalism. Please see this new policy. Thanks, JangFett (Talk) 03:32, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Warfare Edit

Hey Zeta, I noticed you've been doing a lot of work with the EGW lately. Do you want to join WookieeProject Warfare? We'd love to have anyone who has the guide and is willing to help out—or even if you don't have it. Just sign your name with a #~~~ in the Participants section to join. Thanks! —Cade Calrayn StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 16:20, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

  • Think I will join the project, though I am rather annoyed by the way the Mandator III-class dreadnought and Praetor Mark II-class battlecruiser are named at the moment. Why can't they be named Mandator III-class Star Dreadnought and Praetor II-class Star Battlecruiser, because they are clearly derivatives of the Mandator-class Star Dreadnought line and Praetor-class Star Battlecruiser respectively? And why isn't the Mandator line spelled Dreadnought like the other Star Dreadnoughts?
    • Ah, spelling's a pain. It did clear up a lot of other crud that we've been wondering about, however. But the book itself is overall spectacular, on par with the Atlas, in my opinion. —Cade Calrayn StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 16:40, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

WP:WarfareEdit

Essential Guide to Warfare-cover
"War is ruin, predicted, and then remembered as glory."
Hello <insert name here>! Thanks for joining WookieeProject: Warfare! As you can probably guess, our purpose is to get all of the information from The Essential Guide to Warfare into the wiki.

If you have the Guide, you can tell there's a great deal of work to be done. The Guide has introduced a great deal of new characters, events, ships, and other information, and it's gonna take some work to get it all in the wiki. A major issue that we have to resolve is the new exact dates for all of the conflicts that the Guide has introduced. Many of these conflicts had approximate dates before the Guide was released, and we have to remedy these articles to reflect the new information. If you have any questions or comments, head on over to the forums or let me know on my talk page. Take a look around the project page, and good luck editing!
Cade Calrayn StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit

Welcome! —Cade Calrayn StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit<

Kagcatcher Edit

You changed the class of this ship from a Interdictor-cruiser to an Interdictor-Star Destroyer? Which source do you used for that (article:talkpage)? --Modgamers 22:00, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Cloaked Executor = Terror Contemporary Edit

Hi.

You undid my edit on the Imperial Navy with the reason being that the cloaked Executor in Rebel Strike was actually a contemporary for the Terror ship in Rebel Assault II. Can you tell me what you meant by that, and can you give me the source for it? Weedle McHairybug 23:56, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

  • The Super-class Star Destroyer (cloaking device) is an Executor-class Star Dreadnought, not some anonymous SSD, and therefore doesn't belong under Super Star Destroyer, since the Executor-class is already there. Contemporary means the Cloaked Executor is similar to the Terror, and it should probably be renamed to Executor-class Star Dreadnought (cloaking device) or something similar. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 00:07, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Warfare Edit

Zeta, I'd love your input here. Feel free to ask for assistance on your work with the starship classes—you've been doing great work. Cade Calrayn StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 13:54, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Republic organizationsEdit

Isn't the CEC, Rothana Heavy Engineering and many more corporations Republic organizations. Unsigned comment by 71.80.172.90 (talk • contribs).

  • No, those shipwrights and corporations are not Republic organizations, because they aren't a part of the Republic government. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 00:58, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, so instead they supplied or assisted the Republic, thanks for mentioning this. Unsigned comment by 71.80.172.90 (talk • contribs).
      • Unlike the Confederacy of Independent Systems, which was formed from corporations making them Separatist organizations. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 01:40, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Empire RebornEdit

From imperial dark jedi please this message must be ansered Hi zeta1127 i would like to tell you something you see there is a problem i have searched the history of the empire reborn and there is nothing to confirm that they have completly destroyed so would like to write on the page that they didn't dissolved what's your opinionUnsigned comment by Imperial Dark Jedi (talk • contribs).

  • Sorry to intrude, Zeta. From the Empire Reborn article: "With the crystallizing star dragged dangerously into the black hole, the entire Crseih Station was slaved to the Millennium Falcon and together they jumped into hyperspace to the Codru system. The remaining Proctors and many of Hethrir's supporters were rounded up and arrested on the station. With Hethrir, Fyyar and Desann killed, the Empire Reborn movement collapsed. Aware of its existence, Leia pledged to find the remaining Empire Youth saboteurs. Some remained at large and eventually joined Desann's former apprentice Tavion Axmis, in a Sith cult, called the Disciples of Ragnos. The cult was later destroyed by the joint efforts of Luke Skywalker, Kyle Katarn, and his new apprentice Jaden Korr." That's proof enough that the Empire Reborn is destroyed. For more info, just look at the sources in the article itself. Cade Calrayn StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 16:24, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
    • Its not an intrusion, Cade Calrayn, and as he points out, the Confrontation on Crseih Station that disbanded the Empire Reborn, with many of those who remain joining the Disciples of Ragnos. Then, the Battle of Korriban disbanded the Disciples of Ragnos, where the last of the Empire Reborn had, meaning the Empire Reborn was destroyed. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 20:23, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of media and TCWEdit

Glad to see I'm not alone with that stupid Clone Wars thing. I love that Timeline of media page. It's just so unreasonable to manage the Clone Wars stuff on there. (and they're not even good stories!) The old Clone Wars timeline is so much smoother. I'm often on this site, but I don't make many edits. (I'm more active on Wikipedia that way) With Star Wars, the timeline means a lot to me. I'm tired of the crap. I'm gonna assume a bit of control over that article. I've been observing it for several years now. This Clone Wars thing just isn't working. Maybe I should develop my profile page a bit too now that I'm back.
--EwokSithLord 00:15, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

  • I feel your pain on the stupid Clone Wars thing. I don't do a whole lot of work with the timeline pages beyond fixing people's mistakes when they add things, and I like them too. I can't stand the constant retcons and the baseless introduction of things without a mention in the existing EU, and from what I have also heard the stories aren't even that good. I will be glad to help you with this in any way I can. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 00:46, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Edge of the Empire sourcebooks Edit

Please do not move sourcebook pages to include the subtitle section. Those should not be included in the page title, as they are a subtitle, not the main title of the book. Thanks. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 02:18, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki