Hello, I'm sorry for the delay in my response, and also for the potentially disorganized nature of it, as I may address various points by including smaller details throughout. Due to circumstances beyond this site, I'm unfortunately limited in what I can fully express here. However, if you'd ever be interested in a more thorough conversation elsewhere to completely clear the air, I'm open to that; it could be beneficial for both of us moving forward, either with or without a mutual friend present as a mediator. I realize we haven't really spoken before, but it's often said that communication is always a good thing.
Even though the shared statement from Jayce and myself is no longer accessible on Wook, I want to briefly assure you that I do recognize the situation could have been handled with greater care in several ways, including those you've mentioned. It was a very confusing period of time, but it was still a learning experience. I (along with the rest of the team) am committed to ensuring that similar situations do not occur again. I'm eager to continue supporting marginalized communities on Wook to the best of my ability as we move into a more positive chapter, and I appreciate that others—like you—often share the same goal: improving the site.
I'm unable to provide any information about the bans that were issued since I wasn't the administrator who issued them, nor was I consulted for either the initial or subsequent rounds (just for clarification). I apologize for any harsh remarks I might have made. I believe administrators best serve a community when they can be held responsible for their actions, and it's important to voice disagreements. In that regard, there's no need to apologize. However, I do value your apology for the offsite issues—thank you—and it means a great deal to me, although I can't go into detail here. Finally: that would be appreciated, in my opinion, but I'll leave that decision to you. Out of respect, I've generally avoided you, except for Special Articles, simply because I'm not seeking conflict and prefer to continue my work peacefully. But WP:RESISTANCE could surely accomplish much if we all collaborated as colleagues, I would think. Best regards, —spookywillowwtalk 02:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I appreciate the message you sent regarding redlinks and the inuse template. I'm coming from a smaller wiki (with 485 pages), where we're not allowed to use redlinks. I have approximately 3300 edits on that wiki, so I'm used to their guidelines and rules. Thanks for the information about the future! —Unsigned comment by AceTheAnonymous (talk • contribs).
"
Imperators II(Talk) 19:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for letting me know that I have the option to display redirect links as orange; I honestly wasn't aware of that. Besides that, I made an effort to be careful and avoid creating any redirecting links, but it seems some of them slipped past me. I actually intended to correct some of them (like the Palpatine/Sidious link), but you already took care of it. By the way, Bionicle FTW! I'm glad someone finally commented on my profile picture! Timjer (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Your undoing of my edit on the Eurus page was entirely unjustified and unnecessary. There was absolutely no reason to undo it. The capitalization of the link in this instance is not required for it to effectively link to the other page, and it was never established that Eurus was non-binary and used they/them pronouns. Andrewh7 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Andrewh7
The evidence you're referencing IS the fan-edited version found on Bonjiorno's website. The fact that those other appearances are present in Bongiorno's fan-edited version hosted on his website doesn't imply that they were included in the original manuscript that was submitted to Lucasfilm. https://web.archive.org/web/20191230071348/http://www.starwarstimeline.net/The%20Heart%20of%20the%20Jedi.htm provides all the required evidence. Bongiorno himself admits to removing Gathol, so that's the only appearance we can be certain of. There's no proof that the other appearances were ever in the original manuscript, however likely it may be. 188.214.122.250 03:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
-
It's not very comprehensive. We don't have a clear understanding of exactly what he has edited, altered, or removed, other than his explicit admission of removing Gathol. He has also since taken down the scanned manuscript of Lightsider, which showed differences from the now-typed "manuscript" hosted there. Combined with the entire Supernatural Encounters debacle, he has proven himself to be a completely unreliable source. 188.214.122.250 03:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC) Please cease the edit warring! Those appearances are not valid. 188.214.122.250 03:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
-
Hello! I appreciate your concern regarding the edit warring. I'll concede that I did exceed the 3RR rule (by one edit, to be exact), but I had no intention of continuing it further as I consulted with the administration, who have now locked the article to prevent anonymous users from editing it. As for what he changed or removed, he does indeed clarify much more about his personal revisions to Heart of the Jedi beyond just the name of Gathol, and he further states that the majority of the source's content remained unchanged. His unreliability concerning another source doesn't justify completely disregarding information he provided about a different, completely unrelated source. I strongly suggest that in the future, you bring discussions like this to an article's talk page to involve a larger group of people, rather than just an individual editor like myself, who has every right to disagree with your changes. There's an argument to be made about whether or not cancelled sources qualify for Appearances sections, but claiming that the subjects you removed from the Appearances section were entirely fanon to the work was unfounded, especially considering the actual text of his notes following his publication of the novel. It's incredibly important that you exercise due diligence in providing sufficient evidence for something when removing such substantial content from an article; otherwise, other editors are well within their means to revert such changes if they believe your reasoning is insufficient. Thank you, and your contributions to Wookieepedia are greatly appreciated. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts to improve Wookieepedia.
Regarding this edit, based on what I've observed, the established practice is for =Behind the scenes= sections of pages about Canon subjects to mention if and when the subject initially appeared in Legends before becoming part of Disney's continuity. (Thrawn and Boba Fett serve as prominent examples.) The wording you restored suggests to me that the Harch species, and indeed the entire Star Wars: The Clone Wars series, didn't exist as part of Star Wars fiction until Disney acquired Lucasfilm.
How about we simply state Harches first appeared in "Cat and Mouse," the sixteenth episode of the animated series Star Wars: The Clone Wars' second season and omit any mention of canon or Legends? That way, we avoid what you consider an unnecessary mention of Legends and avoid what I consider a misleading emphasis on canon.
Wishing you safe, happy, and productive editing, and may the Force be with you.
--173.67.42.107 23:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- You would be accurate in that assessment. Following the precedent set by the status article (see Dud Bolt as an example), if an article subject's first appearance is in the same source across both continuities, then neither would be mentioned in that specific context. However, if a subject initially appeared/was mentioned in an earlier source than the shared source in either continuity, then you would mention the first appearance/mention in both continuities, as that's essential to the character's BTS history. However, that doesn't seem to be the case for the Harches specifically. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) ( talk ) 23:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)