Talk: RC-0407

Hi there! It's important to remember to use four tildes (~) to sign your name on talk pages. Thank you! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:37, January 9, 2018 (UTC)

I kindly ask that you refrain from including links to websites that offer free or illegal comic reading in your edit summaries. Thanks! --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 09:17, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

The reason the TIE pilot corps was removed from the infobox is due to redundancy. Listing every single element when it's already part of the navy, which is present, would make the infobox excessively long. --Lewisr (talk) 18:29, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding that particular information to the Adelhard article. It is based on speculation and doesn't belong in the article. Please be mindful of the three-revert rule. Thank you! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:38, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

Hello RC-0407. I've taken out the external link to the Battlefront II wiki you added to Reconfigurable blaster‎‎. Our general practice is to only link to unique sources of information directly related to the article's subject, not other wikis. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:09, March 3, 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit on the Phasma page because it lacks proper sourcing from Episode VII. Additionally, please pay closer attention to grammar and clarity in your writing, as some parts were difficult to understand. Furthermore, what do you mean by claiming she fired her blaster 'the proper way'? Such statements are unhelpful to readers. --Lewisr (talk) 17:34, March 8, 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, RC-0407. The List of First Order pilots was removed because we don't maintain lists of that nature. I hope this clarifies the situation. Supreme Emperor (talk) 16:37, March 10, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wookieepedia! Please be aware that at least one of your recent edits introduced unverified information into a mainspace article. As per our sourcing policy, all additions to Wookieepedia articles must be supported by a reliable source. Unverified information is subject to reversion or deletion. Continuing to add unverified information may result in an administrator blocking you from editing. Thank you. Also, we utilize categories instead of maintaining extensive lists within articles, so please refrain from re-adding them. Supreme Emperor (talk) 16:52, March 10, 2018 (UTC)

While we appreciate all good-faith contributions to Wookieepedia, we kindly request that you consult Wookieepedia:Images, accessible via the "other policies and guidelines" link in your welcome message. Please familiarize yourself with the sourcing and licensing requirements before uploading any further images. The only supported method for uploading on Wookieepedia is Special:Upload, which prompts you to provide the necessary information. Wikia's alternative upload forms are not supported under Wookieepedia policy, and ignorance of the uploading rules is not considered a valid excuse. Continued violation of the image policy or providing false information in an upload description will be treated as vandalism and may lead to a block. Thank you. 1358 (Talk) 16:09, March 13, 2018 (UTC)

Please correct your referencing style to match the way I've been correcting your edits. Alternatively, please review [this link to learn the proper method](Wookieepedia:Sourcing. Thank you. --Lewisr (talk) 16:58, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions! I've noticed some errors in your recent edits, particularly with references and certain layout aspects. You can find relevant information at Wookieepedia:Layout Guide and Wookieepedia:Sourcing. Regarding layout, please ensure there are no spaces between == headers or * bullets. For references, the initial reference to a source should be formatted as Source, while subsequent references to the same source should be formatted as .

Greetings! When you are making edits, please be sure to include your references and sources within the same edit, rather than adding them at a later time. Also, please remove the spaces surrounding the == symbols in headers and the * symbols in bullet points. Thank you! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:57, March 20, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate your message and am always willing to lend a hand if I can, so don't hesitate to ask if you need assistance. It's perfectly fine if your grammar isn't perfect, as I understand that English may not be your native language. I am delighted to hear that you have learned how to add references, and I appreciate all of your edits! I apologize if I have ever come across as harsh or anything, as that was not my intention. May the Force be with you as well, and please remember to use the signature button to sign your posts. --Lewisr (talk) 19:16, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

• I am still in the process of learning! And there's no need to worry. You have always been a true gentleman. I wish you the best of luck and send my best wishes from your eastern neighbor in Scandinavia. -- RC-0407 ( talk ) 21:44, March 28, 2018

Hi there! I was able to resolve the issue for you; it turned out that one of the references was incorrect, but it's all sorted now! Also, just so you know, the Bad Batch content is considered canon and does not fall under the Legends category. --Lewisr (talk) 20:54, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks -- RC-0407 ( talk ) 10:49, March 29, 2018

Hello, I previously reverted your edit as it did not adhere to the MOS and lacked any references or sources. When making edits, please ensure that you include references in the same edit as when you add information, or your work may be removed. If you need to make multiple edits and your work is not yet complete, feel free to use the or templates to indicate that your work is in progress. Additionally, I removed some repetitive unit types that were listed below. If you have any inquiries, please let me know. Thank you. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:52, April 3, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wookieepedia! Please be aware that at least one of your recent additions introduced unverified information to a mainspace article. As per our sourcing policy, all additions to Wookieepedia's articles must be supported by a reliable source, and any unverified information is subject to being reverted or deleted. Repeatedly adding unverified information may result in an administrator blocking you from editing. Thank you for your understanding. You have received warnings about this previously, so please take this advice seriously to avoid being blocked. Tommy Macaroni 20:58, April 7, 2018 (UTC)

• Please adhere to this requirement. All additions must be properly sourced, or they will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation. Tommy Macaroni 10:47, May 6, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wookieepedia! We would like to remind you that at least one of your recent additions included unverified information in a mainspace article. In accordance with our sourcing policy, all additions to Wookieepedia's articles must be verifiable through a reliable source, and any information that is not verified may be reverted or deleted. Continuing to add unverified information may lead to you being blocked from editing by an administrator. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Tommy Macaroni 12:51, May 6, 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have a proper response for you at this time. However, I want to acknowledge that I understand your message now. This was written by RC-0407 on the 23rd day of the 5th month at 21:43 in the German time zone. talk

I apologize for not responding to your message sooner. I did see it, but when I went to check the link, it was no longer available. I then forgot to reply to your message. I was also away when you initially messaged, so I was unable to assist you. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. --Lewisr (talk) 12:17, May 28, 2018 (UTC)

• No worries, my friend. I am aware that you provide assistance to many people. And that is what truly matters. Furthermore, I am nominating it for deletion. As long as this wiki maintains its quality, I am content. Have a pleasant day, young Englishman. RC-0407 ( talk ) Thank you, and please don't hesitate to ask for help if you ever need it. If I am available, I will do my best to assist you! Thank you, I hope you have a great day as well. --Lewisr (talk) 15:53, May 28, 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts to add more details to various articles, please note that the Negastrike Platoon is a Stormtrooper Corps platoon, not an Imperial Army platoon. The source from which they originated, Star Wars: Imperial Handbook: A Commander's Guide, was designated as Legends, despite being released after the Legends/Canon split. Within the Legends continuity, the Stormtrooper Corps operated as a completely separate branch of the Imperial Military, distinct from both the Imperial Army and the Imperial Navy (similar to the Marine Corps). The concept of them being an elite unit of the Imperial Army was introduced in the Disney Canon after the split (possibly slightly before, based on Rebels promotional material). When adding categories to that article, it would be more appropriate to create a new category specifically for Stormtrooper Corps platoons, rather than adding it to Imperial Army platoons, as they are separate entities in Legends. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 15:47, June 3, 2018 (UTC)

• Is that so? That's quite peculiar! Nevertheless, thank you for the information. I was unaware of that. Also, I must admit that I didn't realize you had counter-edited the first or second time. Farewell, and have a wonderful day. RC-0407 ( talk )

Thank you for your contributions to Wookieepedia! Please be aware that at least one of your recent additions introduced unverified information to a mainspace article. As per our sourcing policy, all additions to Wookieepedia's articles must be verifiable through a reliable source, and any information that is not verified may be reverted or deleted. Repeatedly adding unverified information may result in an administrator blocking you from editing. Thank you for your understanding. You have been warned about this previously. Please do not let it escalate to a block. Tommy Macaroni 16:56, June 12, 2018 (UTC)

• I will examine it shortly. RC-0407 ( talk ) Thank you, although "examining it" should ideally occur before you make your edits, to prevent myself and Lewis from having to clean up after you. Tommy Macaroni 17:07, June 12, 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a dedicated page for Imperial weapons, as it essentially functions as a list, and we generally avoid creating lists for such topics. It would be more appropriate to add information about the use of specific weapons by the Empire to the individual weapon's page. --Lewisr (talk) 15:37, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

• The article also consists primarily of a chart, which is not something we typically do here. Additionally, creating a category page is not ideal, as the weapons are not exclusive to the Empire, and we would eventually end up with an extensive list of categories under each weapon. -- Vitus Infinitus Talk 16:04, June 20, 2018 (UTC) The primary objective of that article is to discuss an Imperial topic. Furthermore, we cannot overload all the other articles with an endless number of blaster models. They serve no purpose on the Imperial Army page. It is preferable to have a dedicated article about Imperial blasters rather than simply adding them everywhere. RC-0407 Hi RC-0407. I have removed the Imperial small arms article as it was a list article, and the community has previously decided against including this type of article on the wiki. You are welcome to incorporate the information in prose into other relevant articles, such as the Imperial Army or individual troop types. If you disagree with this decision, please feel free to initiate a wider discussion about the inclusion of lists on the Senate Hall. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:46, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content and replacing it with a list. Wookieepedia discourages the use of lists, and prose should be used whenever possible. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 17:34, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

Hello RC. I am curious as to which source uses the term "AT-series", as myself and other users have been unable to find any mention of it. If it turns out that the name is fabricated, the article will need to be deleted due to our notability policy, as it already has a name in Legends. Thank you for your assistance. Tommy Macaroni 16:43, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

• I don't recall. However, I believe that deleting an entire page is excessive. If you are unable to locate the source, consider changing the name. Many people use the term unidentified when they cannot find the name. RC-0407 This was written at 09:51 in the morning. Date: 24/6 Year: 2018 I suggest examining this. It explicitly states that "subjects that have appeared in both new canon material and have received names and backstories within material that falls under the Legends brand shall not receive new canon articles until they receive names in material that is considered canon." The article cannot exist under canon until it has a confirmed name, as it already has a name in Legends. If you did happen to make up the name, don't worry, it was simply a mistake, but I would prefer that you admit it. Tommy Macaroni 08:05, June 24, 2018 (UTC) Tommy is correct, for the same reason I just explained to you regarding the armored division issue. If there is no source for the name "AT-series" in canon, that article will be deleted in accordance with our policy. This is not an overreaction, as you should not have created it in the first place. If you have a source for that term, now is the time to share it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:40, July 27, 2018 (UTC)

Could you please provide the specific location within the Solo guide where this information can be found? Thank you for your assistance. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:05, July 27, 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to add that the continued existence of your recent contributions regarding both these Armored Divisions and the AT-series depends on you answering this question. If you do not respond, the information will be removed, and you may face further sanctions in accordance with our Attribution policy. Toprawa and Ralltiir ( talk ) 19:24, July 27, 2018 (UTC) You require some form of response. However, I am unsure what that should entail. Are you requesting a page number, or perhaps an apology? RC-0407 (talk) Please provide the specific location within the Solo book where the information you added to the Imperial Army article can be found, so that we can verify its authenticity. If you are unable to provide this information, we will assume that it is not authentic. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:51, July 27, 2018 (UTC) Ah, I understand now. Sir, we are dealing with visual evidence. On both Mimban and Atollon, we are aware of one type of military unit, which is an armored division. On both planets, we observe two-legged self-propelled gun platforms, along with infantry. This confirms that multiple Imperial armored divisions have these specific sub-units. The book confirms that what we see on Mimban is an armored division, specifically Nr. 224. Am I being bothersome? RC-0407 (talk) We place a significantly lower emphasis on visual evidence compared to confirmed nomenclature. In other words, unless there is a formal name for the Imperial Army's armored division, creating an article for that subject is questionable. The Legends counterpart appears to be Assault Armor Division, but since we do not yet have a named canon counterpart, our Notability policy prohibits creating an unidentified article for the canon Imperial armored division. Instead, you should add this information to the Division article, as multiple other people whom I have consulted on this matter have expressed doubt as to whether "armored division" warrants a separate article at this time. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:19, July 27, 2018 (UTC) That sounds acceptable to me. However, it is somewhat frustrating that I have to recreate this information. Regardless, have a pleasant day, and may the Force be with you. RC-0407 (talk)

We avoid creating such lists, as that is the intended purpose of categories. You can refer to this discussion where an administrator provided an explanation to another user. I hope this clarifies the matter. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:00, August 15, 2018 (UTC)

• I would recommend consulting with an administrator to clarify the matter and ensure that you are following the correct procedures. -- Vitus Infinitus Talk 20:12, August 15, 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I agree that both of those articles should be merged together. --Lewisr (talk) 17:12, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

• To be honest, you wouldn't need to merge 543rd Denbari Attack Company and 543th Denbari Attack Company, as they essentially convey the same information already. It would be best to simply tag the incorrect one for deletion. For the other one, you would simply need to transfer the information from one page to the other, ensuring that you do not duplicate any existing information. Does that make sense? If not, please feel free to ask for clarification. -- Lewisr ( talk ) 19:54, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Hi RC-0407! I wanted to inform you that I have redirected your new page, "AT-AT Platoon," to Armor platoon. According to both the Imperial Sourcebook and Star Wars: Imperial Handbook: A Commander's Guide, this is the correct name for a formation of AT-ATs. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 20:10, September 19, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, one of those categories is for the individual named AT-ATs that we see, while the other is for the different variants of AT-AT. Therefore, merging the categories would not be the most appropriate course of action. I hope this information is helpful. --Lewisr (talk) 13:54, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

You uploaded an image with the file name File:Arctic AT-DT.png‎, but you have added it to the AT-ST and AT-MP articles. Which one is it? Is the file name incorrect? Does an AT-DT exist? --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:26, July 18, 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will examine it shortly. --Lewisr (talk) 18:50, August 31, 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Are you familiar with User:73.40.63.96? I was simply curious after seeing your edit on my talk page. --Lewisr (talk) 17:14, September 9, 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there's a broken reference on your user page that's causing it to appear in an error category. If you search for "Cite error" on the page, you should be able to locate it. -- Sulfur (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please ensure that categories are listed in alphabetical order. UberSoldat93 (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I agree that Category:Imperial Sector Fleets should be categorized under Category:Imperial Navy fleets, but not under Category:Imperial Navy organizational fleets, as they represent different concepts. The organizational fleets category is intended for types of formations, rather than actual units themselves. That's why I've added it to Category:Imperial Navy and Category:Organizational military units, which is consistent with how the Category:Imperial Army categories are structured. I will proceed to add Sector Fleets if they haven't been added already. Thank you for your input! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, RC-0407, I was wondering where you found the Cold Weather AT-MP Mark III in Star Wars: Commander? I can't seem to find any mention of it in the game. Thank you for your help. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I see, thank you very much! It appears that it is actually the Cold Weather AT-MP Mark III, not the Cold-weather AT-ST Mark III. -- Vitus Infinitus Talk 20:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• I can't believe I asked about the wrong thing! I actually meant the Cold-weather AT-ST Mark III, not the Cold Weather AT-MP Mark III. -- Vitus Infinitus Talk 20:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC) I understand. Thank you very much; I would greatly appreciate it! If we are unable to find any further information, I will likely create a TC (stub article). --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC) I see, it seems that my rookie self was the culprit! I may have made that mistake by confusing the two vehicles, just as I did earlier. Thank you for your assistance, RC! I will proceed to TC it. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! Here's how it's done. You may notice this particular warning on quite a few pages at the moment (as the community recently voted to adopt these specific template parameters). On Wookieepedia's Discord server, I've requested that a bot operator automatically fix all of these, but it may take some time for that to happen. I hope this is helpful! Imperators II(Talk) 20:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the edit in question can be found here, and I understand the issue now. When I patrol articles, I make sure to check for missing references at the end of paragraphs. In my haste, I overlooked the fact that you did provide a reference "before continuning rimward.''[[The Essential Atlas]]''", which I missed because you split the paragraph into two. However, that edit was problematic in other ways that I am now noticing: (1) the reference you provided was already defined earlier in the article, so you should have simply used ""; and (2) the entire paragraph was unsourced, so did you intend for the full sentence: "It is not clear how effective the Imperial military presence at Corellia was after Tralus, but, the New Republic was slow to take control due to various other threats including the Reborn Emperor. His forces engaged New Republic forces in the Battle of Corellia before continuning rimward." to be sourced to the TEA? If that was not the case, please note that it is acceptable to remove content from an article if it is not properly sourced (we generally keep it around because it comes from "Old Wook," as we call it, and may still be accurate but is awaiting confirmation with a source). Just ensure that within a paragraph, a reference is defined for the entirety of the paragraph before it or until it reaches another reference, which leads me to (3) this paragraph already referenced the TEA earlier, and that reference should have been removed, as it would have been redundant with the new ref you added to the TEA further in the paragraph. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 04:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, I've reverted your changes regarding the Dreadnaught/Dreadnought categories. As frustrating as it is that the spellings differ between Legends and Canon, we treat them as distinct categories due to their different names. Cade Calrayn 17:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)