Talk: McEwok

Let me make you aware that we do not plan to make an article for Howard the Duck, even though it is a George Lucas film. And would you really want to anyway considering how much of a flop it was? Please plan to stay within the realm of Star Wars as much as possible. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:00, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• Don't take things like that too seriously - and don't worry, I'm not planning to send the Wiki into silly street. I'm here in an effort slide my rigorous and disciplined self out of the Ewok-costume (cramped in there for someone a shade off 6 feet all these years)... McEwok 00:13, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• McEwok, you should really make a page about all the stupid theories youve had. I suppose you could add other peoples as well. All the stuff like 'Anakin Solo survived by soul transferring into a potplant.' Its as relevant as Supershadow at least ;).
• Thank you, Durnar. It would be a bit arrogant, I think, and anyway, I'm currently trying to fight (half-heartedly) against the tendancy to redact everything I do down to "stupid theories".

For the record, some are just for fun - for instance, producing infinite potentially canonical ways for Anakin Solo to not be dead, or the suggestions that Ewoks are Noghri in the same way that Kint is Soze; though even those are also intended to comment on aspects of SW and fandom. And, since I'm here, I might as well note that I'm more-or-less serious in (say) suggesting that Clone Madness could involve the resurgence of the template's memory and personality, or in questioning the superficially positive depiction of the "New Order" at the end of the NJO, or trying to stem the encroachment of fanon ideas about Star Dreadnaughts into continuity...

And as for Mar^H^H^HMarakin (thanks for nothing, SparqMan), I don't want to explain that in its entirity (but see my latest post here)...

That said, if any fansite wants an interview... well, it might be fun to try to get my head on straight. Good practice. That's what I'm here for, after all... --McEwok 21:27, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• I might take you up on that offer... j/k lol. But your page gave me a laugh. I haven't heard the infamous potted plant theory for a while. :) --beeurd 13:40, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• Just so you know, it's completely unnecessary to put underscores in internal links, spaces will work just fine. MarcK 14:59, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Curtis Saxton is connected to Lucas Films. He authored and coauthored many books about Star Wars such as Revenge of The Sith Incredible Cross Sections Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. These works are canonical. I do believe delinking his site in Star Destroyer is a mistake. On the other end of that link is a description of all Imperial battleships from the movies and any from the Expanded Universe. This is not just a random fansite where people just makeup numbers. The technical commentaries are better than StarWars.Com for technical information. I shall readd the link this weekend. --— Ŭalabio‽ 04:53, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• Nonetheless, his website is not in any way canonical, regardless of whether he has authored official works (which are rightfully cited where appropriate). The Star Wars Technical Commentaries are no more official than the fan sites of other Lucasfilm authors like Nathan Butler or Abel G. Pena. jSarek 05:03, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Okay. *deep breath* I'm not saying that ITW and ICS are fanfic. As official publications, these are canonical, and I respect them as such. And kudos to their author for the fact that LFL has contracted him to work on these things. What, I am saying is this:

1.) The canonical status of statements in these books does not endorse the real-world reasoning that (we might presume) led to them, still less does it legitimize anything at SWTC that is not in these books.

2.) There are problems, both in terms of continuity and simple logic, in some of the arguments presented that SWTC.

As to SWTC Saxton's analysis of the movie material is normally excellent, and the breadth and depth of what he's done has really raised the bar for both fan analysis and LFL. But his site is built on a debatable methodology (he assumes a visual consistency that the movies simply lack), and, like any fanboy, he often extends his work into downright speculation (for instance, his idea that because Executor is much bigger than other Star Destroyers, Star Destroyers are, in the general run of things, small ships - where the EU material makes clear that the Ex is just insanely big). This is especially unfortunate where his suggestions contradicts with what established canon shows to be the case.

IMHO, anyway. --McEwok 19:03, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, let us suppose that this is 2003, one year before the OT:ITW is released. Saxton´s site, which is a fansite (now don´t get that mixed up with what I am about to say), shows the Executor as 11 times the length of an Imperial-class SD, going by visual information from the films and quotes from the modelmakers. This is official info that contradicts most written material. Is it fan-fiction? No. It is official information used by the filmmakers while making the film and nothing less. The subsequent torrent of WEG and WEG-influenced tech manuals and novels usually ignore this knowledge and print 8 km/8 times the lenght of an Imperial-class SD as the length of the Executor. This info is wrong and contradicts the films and the intention of its makers. Now, because no OT:ITW exist, it´s considered ok by certain elements in fandom to "take a proverbial shit" on Saxton and his site for sticking by the former, even though the films (always higher on the chain than any tech manual) contradict their viewpoint. Was it ok back then to consider much of what Saxton wrote on his site to be the equivilant of fan-fiction?

• I would appreciate it if people signed their paragraphs so that we may not get confused here. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:39, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Okay - and, my apologies! For what it's worth, every signature down the page so far marks the end of one contributer's block of text, but I'll edit if that would help. Is there something on how to do this right in the style guide? --McEwok 00:47, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• In case you haven't seen it yet, I just thought you'd like to see this post (the one dated Oct 25, 2005 09:28 AM) from Tasty Taste about the resolution of G-canon and C-canon disputes. Bon apetit. :-) jSarek 22:18, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

You know, I was just gonna pop over and say hi, and then I saw the miles and miles of Saxton bitching, and now I need to go lie down. Thanks a lot. CooperTFN 03:49, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

• Now you know how I feel. I really don't enjoy it. At all. I'm just standing up for the evidence as it is, not as people want it to be. --McEwok 14:02, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hey McEwok. I'm trying to help QuentinGeorge in the despute resolution at Ship classification. I've read over your brief argument, but while it sums your polemics, it does not give me an understanding of what you would like to see the article contain. Can you please draft a quick outline of the points you think should be included (not what should not)? Please cite specific sources for each point where possible. Just e-mail it to me (my username @gmail.com) or leave it on my talk page. Thanks. --SparqMan 17:33, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"This is a piece of cap brought to you by McEwok. have a nice day :D" Is this really necessary? I deleted it. Θ 05:22, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Um. No. That wasn't me. --McEwok 00:55, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• K, sorry for accusing you. I should ask first next time. 209.26.220.227 19:19, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It appears that your recent Thrawn edits have thrown a spanner into things. We now have two different chronologies regarding his first Imperial mission to the Uknown Region. As far as I can tell, his first mission followed the staged political fallout. Everything after that was trips back to the Empire proper. --SparqMan 20:50, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• There's a continuity mess at the heart of it. A staged political fallout is mentioned in Command Decision, which has Thrawn, Commander Parck and Captain Niriz entering the UR aboard the Admonitor; that story predates Side Trip, which predates the Battles of Derra IV and Hoth... which predates Thrawn's public promotion in TIE Fighter... which has to predate the staged fallout with Tigellinus described in the old SWAJ stuff. The best retconn is probably that there were two staged fallouts, but that seemed speculative, so I glossed over the reference in Command Decision.... --McEwok 02:51, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The fallout with Tigellinus could be the one mentioned in Command Decision. Is there a piece of evidence that I'm missing which disproves this general chronology?

--SparqMan 17:07, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• The problem is this: as I understand it, TIE Fighter takes place after ESB, whereas Derra IV takes place before ESB, Side Trip takes place before Derra, and Command Decision takes place before Side Trip. I'm trying to get access to a copy of Command Decision to check if there are any specific dating details there (I have a vague memory that references to Alderaan may imply a date before ANH); and I think there are Tigellinus vs. Thrawn references in SWAJ that are calendar-dated in universe to post-ESB... --McEwok 20:28, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I just reread Command Decision. Thrawn identifies his ship as an Alderaanian colony ship (perhaps hedging his bets that the UR pirates have heard of the pacifist Alderaanians), but that's all that I can find. But 3 ABY is a big ol' year. What if he gets his formal promotion at the start of 3 ABY, gets punted from Coruscant, and then we get Command Decision, Side Trip, Battle of Derra IV, Battle of Hoth, TIE Fighter? Perhaps he is a Vice Admiral in TIE Fighter as one of those instances that he disagreed with Palpatine and got stripped down in rank? --SparqMan 21:38, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Doesn't work, IMHO - because the public promotion comes at the end of TIE Fighter (and he's wearing a white uniform already in the cutscene as an ostensible Vice-Admiral); and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the stuff in SWAJ about his spat with Tigellinus (a series of news reports) is dated after ESB.... --McEwok 16:52, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Well, SWAJ 11 says Thrawn is coming back to the hustle and bustle of the Core as of 37:9:13 (2 ABY). SWAJ 12 tells us that despite being gone for the Fete Week celebrations the next year, he is still around to get his Order of the Canted Circle membership card at the displeasure of Tigellinus. Hm...I can't find the issue with the mention of his social gaff. --SparqMan 11:16, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• This answers nothing mentioned above, but in that same Fel comic, Thrawn is shown with the rank badge of an Admiral and is refered to in the SWAJ Galactic NewsNets as "Admiral Thrawn" at the launch of Executor while Tigellinus is clearly called "Grand Admiral". More info. --SparqMan 08:22, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Thrawn promotion schedule has always been a pain. You can see my take on his biography here. For the record, Thrawn is never explicitly referred to as Grand Admiral in Command Decision, but the black-and white illustrations depict him with a light-colored uniform with epaulets, consistent with a Grand Admiral's uniform; however, the *color* illustration that starts the piece shows him in a regular admiral's uniform. Take from that what you will. jSarek 10:10, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. So, let me get this straight - in the SWAJ stuff and "Command Decision", he's always "Admiral Thrawn" rather than "Grand Admiral"? Hmm, how about "Side Trip", I wonder? Though that one I can actually check myself. As it stands, though, it seems that we have no firm date for the secret promotion to Grand Admiral, or for Thrawn's exile—am I right? --McEwok 22:32, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I have a inquiry, do you like or approve of the Star Dreadnought thing?(68.238.30.89 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

Well, that very much depends what you mean by "like or approve". There are three levels to this...

Wookieepedia is essentially an encyclopedia of Star Wars continuity. This means it is essentially a study of the 'story' told or implied by official material; and at present, we know there were "Star Dreadnoughts" before/during the Clone Wars, but the canon evidence for calling SSDs "Star Dreadnoughts" consists of only one ambiguous reference involving one class of SSD. Anything further than that is fan-interpretation.

It just seems a necessary inference of Wookiee's canon-based approach that non-canon material should be excluded. On the one hand, it is legitimate to juxtapose pieces of canon evidence that combine to produce a situation that their authors didn't intend; but only if the juxtaposition is inevitable. For instance, in Conquest, Tahiri says that last time he was on Yavin 4, Anakin Solo left with Mara Jade; although the author probably meant this to refer to Dark Tide: Onslaught, the fact that Anakin and Tahiri were shown on Yavin 4 in the same scene in Agents of Chaos: Jedi Eclipse implies that Mara picked him up after that, and probably chaperoned him and Jacen "off-camera" at Centerpoint; but the fact that some large ships are formally classed as Star Dreadnoughts and large SSDs are referred to once as "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts" doesn't mean that any SSDs are formally classed as Star Dreadnoughts; it only means what it says/is in itself.

The term Star Dreadnought is in itself canon, as is the specific Mandator-class Star Dreadnought, and so there's no problem with those; but there's only one place where it's used to describe large Imperial ships like Ex, and this one usage is not given as a formal designation. It's just a reference to "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor". In contrast, there are tons and tons of references to SSDs as some sort of Star Destroyer, formal and informal alike.

Now sure, some fans are convinced that SSDs are more correctly/formally "Star Dreadnoughts"; but using the same logic, I could go through Wookieepedia and change all the references to Battle Dragons to call them "Dreadnaughts", since they correspond in role and size to the Rendili and Geonosian ones.

I might think that was cool and appropriate, even 'right'; but it's not canon, so it doesn't belong in Wookieepedia.

Why do we need the term "Star Dreadnought" anyway? I don't actually have a problem with the idea of "multi-mile" Star Dreadnoughts in the Clone Wars, and I can understand why, due to their sheer size, some people might occasionally refer to Super Star Destroyers as "Star Dreadnoughts". That doesn't bother me. It's established canon.

But at the same time, we don't need to redesignate the super-large Star Destroyers of the Empire as "Star Dreadnoughts". Everything from the films onward described these ships as massive Star Destroyers, and variants on "Star Destroyer" work fine as names for them.

Moreover, given that wealth of established information, to suddenly decide that they should 'really' be called "Star Dreadnoughts" would create unneccessarily contradiction and confusion. Thankfully, so far, there is only one ambiguous reference in canon! I hope it stays that way - though if it does change, Wookieepedia should, of course, change to reflect it.

If changing Super Star Destroyers into "Star Dreadnoughts" is so totally unneccessary, why do people think it should be changed? This question takes us to the Star Wars Technical Commentaries website, to Curtis Saxton and to a small group of fans associated with him, who've been pushing for ten years to reduce the ISD to a small warship and to redesignate the Ex with a new name. I've been told that Leland Chee settled on the specific term "Star Dreadnought" in the reference in Inside the Worlds, but the impetus for change undoubtedly came from Saxton and his friends...

Now I don't pretend to understand their motives and I certainly think there are very positive features to their work - but unprejudiced presentation and analysis of canon material isn't one of them. SWTC has a lot of good aspects to it, but it also has a tendancy to let enthusiasm for an agenda override canon and effective analysis, and there are a range of errors and misrepresentations across the site.

The trouble is, SWTC superficially very convincing, and the casual reader comes away with a sense of clear and lucid structure. As part of this, the idea that a ship the size of Ex isn't/can't be/is much bigger than a Star Destroyer is disseminated through fandom, and has even gained a foothold in canon. It's just a shame that SWTC's structures often aren't anything to do with real Star Wars; rather, they're a detailed and impressive fan alternative, but one that is, on close inspection, built around assumptions on terminology and organizational patterns that aren't supported by the evidence, and irreconcilable with official canon on many counts. --McEwok 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Where does that phrase come from, exactly? — Silly Dan 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps its literal? :P -- Riffsyphon1024 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice you were planning on editing the fan fiction article: could you pop over to Forum:What Wookieepedia is not and suggest some sites we could include in the disclaimer as better sites for fanfic than our articles or user pages? Ideally, these would be newbie-friendly sites with lots of opportunity for constructive feedback and helpful beta-readers. Thanks, —Silly Dan 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They've been asking for you in the article. Only I think without talking about SSDs. What did they say? Someone said on the Fandalorian talk page said we might as well have a Saxtonite page, so I figured it was a valid point, especially given the huge controversy over it. I really don't have a view on it either way, so others will have to take up the work of expanding it. Someone get McEwok here! Kuralyov 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC) ... something like that. 66.57.46.109 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I *was* going to just say Hi since it seems evident you're the McEwok who spawned the crackship revolution on TFN and mysteriously vanished, but then I saw some people were writing a talmudic tractate on your talkpage and was like, *head meet desk.* Anyways, where've you been? Someone made mama vader write Qui-gon/Jocasta Nu and we're still trying to get Leona to write Janen. (Speaking of which, I saw the definitions for Marakin, Maracen, And Winterkin and *knew* you had to be involved.)

Well, that's about my two cents. (Is new here)

Vongchild

More writing now. I recently recieved a lovely PM on TFN from someone who had apparently assumed your interpretation of Kunra as Anakin Solo is canon. I straightened out the situation, but I do believe you've corrupted the general populace.

Vongchild 22:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

*laughs* Did you see my thread on the TF.N Lit. board?

Well, what we can say is that Kunrakin isn't not canon....

And hey again... *grins* --McEwok 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've addressed your slight concern in the ISD II talk page. Unfortunately, I'm going to be out of town shortly, so if issues continue, you're probably going to have to bring them up with another admin. jSarek 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And so noted on the "annoying gadfly" thing, too. :¬) --McEwok 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The souce is the first Rogue Squadron book whee it is stated as being a fact. Kuralyov 21:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! :D --McEwok 09:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• I believe the OR platoons come from Shatterpoint. Kuralyov 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

THe mcewok is it jsut me or does it sound llike something mcdonalds will make? personally i hope its deep freid

There is a right way and a wrong way to move a page, and I'm surprised nobody has explained this yet. When you want to move a page over a title that already has a page history, don't copy and paste it. Post a message on Forum:Administrators'_noticeboard and someone will move it properly as soon as we notice it. Copy-paste operations don't preserve the page history properly. -- Darth Culator 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've unshielded the page since you seem to be the only one still interested in it. Feel free to edit. QuentinGeorge 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The temp page you started has been moved to Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire, according to the results of Forum:CT:Imperial insignia page. Just to let you know. —Silly Dan 05:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the cleanup tag there because it was the most relevant thing I could think of, not because it was necessarily the perfect designation. The thing about it is that it doesn't seem to have that proper noun-ish quality about it enough to deserve an article, especially for that single reference. If there is supposed to be some special designation in pay or command abilities given to officers above a certain rank, that should be included (such as a reference I'm thinking of but can't find from X-Wing: Isard's Revenge about Wedge being a senior officer now that he's a General gets to sit at a special table). It's just my opinion, but the fact that you intend to use " 'senior officer' as a designation in the Imperial military" is really the main thing I'm getting at. Trying to determine if that is really canon or just a general description, the way you'd call General Douglas McArthur a senior officer in the real world.

So my explanation in a nutshell= My opinion is that it should be expanded toward all "senior officers" and what designates them as such, not necessarily as a specific designation in the Imperial military. But that's just me, and the point of the cleanup tag was mainly to draw attention to it in a more concise manner than typing all that drawn-out stuff in an edit summary or the talk page.

Like I said, just an opinion, and get back to me on your thoughts of that being intended as a specific designation, because I must have missed whatever gave you that impression (but then again I don't have Galaxy Guide 1: A New Hope and haven't seen much on Allegiance). Wildyoda 16:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Replying to this: Sounds good, and no problems with removing the tag. In fact, you might want to put nearly exactly what you just typed about those two being referred to that way in the "behind the scenes" section. Wildyoda 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See Navy MoffRebus 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Saw that you worked a lot on Callista Ming. Well, fyi, she's now a Good Article. Anyway, cheers. Atarumaster8820px 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through my watchlist making footnotes according to our evolving policy on more detailed sourcing of articles. Since you wrote more of our Captain article than I did, I'm not sure where some of the information comes from (except for the civilian use section.) Would you be able to provide a few more footnotes for that article? —Silly Dan 17:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! (After all, the more people adding footnotes to everything on their watchlist, the better...) —Silly Dan 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a relatively minor concern, but it may become mildly confusing for someone that is only a casual SW fan to read "Alliance" in regards to the Galactic Alliance coming immediately after New Republic. I made the connection after a double-take and a confirmation from the intro, but I'm thinking that maybe we can come up with something that clarifies the timeline a bit more. --School of Thrawn 101 10:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I had contemplated changing a few of the "Alliance" entries to "Galactic Alliance"...it just seemed mildly redundant. I'm contemplating a more effective way of addressing the issue. Although, you're probably right about casual fans not really knowing much about the New Republic, either way. --School of Thrawn 101 10:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• As in...more effective than simply slapping "Galactic" before every mention of "Alliance"... --School of Thrawn 101 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• About the only thing that will clarify a little more fluidly would be a...picture...maybe? I dunno...is there an official GA symbol or something like that floating around in a comic book? Either that or maybe a simple clause within the article along the lines of "...not to be confused with the Alliance to Restore the Republic..." --School of Thrawn 101 11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• I like it. I say keep it. --School of Thrawn 101 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Happy to be involved. --School of Thrawn 101 07:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

They eat roast hibbas breast. Kuralyov 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean you're a bra? Vongchild 00:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've checked TIE Fighter and X-wing Alliance and the Imperator does appear in those missions. It appears to be an Imperial-I class Star Destroyer. Green Tentacle 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has brought to my attention that you once more seem to be assuming this is a soapbox for you to push your personal theories when apprently they contradict what is stated by other works. Please stop, this isn't TFN. Kuralyov 16:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

New data points to a larger canon size. In the Home One-Type article, 1300 meters was stated, as well as new armanent.

No problem, I figured someone would do it sooner or later. Besides, it was conjecture, but I only called it what I called it because they did make a small mention that it was an assault starfighter.RushinSundaws 14:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Dug up my copy of The Last Command, and the relevant section is at the beginning of Chapter 8. Atarumaster8820px 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, there is no reference in "Big Quince" to where the sale takes place; all it says is that Quince's ship reverts from hyperspace, and the Moff picks up his stuff by landing a shuttle in Quince's cargo bay. There is an illustration of a ship and a Star Destroyer, and behind them is a planet. But that planet could be anywhere—it might not be in Galov Sector. It might not even be in the Outer Rim Territories (though it almost certainly was, since that's Quince's stomping ground). Sorry I can't be more precise! Gonk 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi McEwok. Missed you in IRC; the answer to your question is that the Baudo-class is established in Galaxy Guide 6: Tramp Freighters and Pirates & Privateers (and maybe even one or two other WEG books) as looking more smooth and skate-ish (see Gilded Lily). But throughout the Rogue Squadron comics, the Pulsar Skate (which is said to be a Baudo) looks like the more angular and complex ship, bearing pretty much zero resemblance to the Baudo art from WEG. I've always assumed that the Pulsar Skate was just a really, REALLY heavily modified Baudo ;) but that's fan speculation. Gonk 20:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help on Mara, McEwok- it's really appreciated. Would you mind adding reference tags to the end of each paragraph in addition to your work? Thanks. Atarumaster8820px`

Don't revert my edits. I'm cleaning up the articles, and in the case of White Eyes, greatly improving them. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax 20px 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please have some consideration not to say certain things about others behind their backs. Even though it says I was "Away" on IRC, it still logs the conversation for me. You telling others that "Graestan, Red and Grey-man were complaining last night", is false. I can't speak for Graestan and/or Red, but I can assure you I wasn't complaining, and it gives others a false impression about the conversation you and I were involved in. The four of us were having a discussion about something which we didn't see eye-to-eye on. Not once did I say that you were complaining about the edits to White Eyes, simply because I respect you as an editor and understood your argument, even if I didn't agree with it. Common courtesy, even when someone is not present to defend themselves, is expected from established users. Greyman 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the Galactic Alliance/Jedi change their wing formats? I remember the New Republic having 3 starfighter squadrons in one wing while the Empire has 6. Which is why I opted to write that Luke's Jedi wing has 3 squadrons instead of 6, plus the fact that only 3 were mentioned in the novel. --ToRsO bOy 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm asking you this because you're the one that added the NR Designations to the Yuuzhan Vong starship classes template, to see if you might know what to do with it.

There's a "warship analog" introduced in Agents of Chaos I (last page of chapter 13) that's missing from the analog pages - I just redirected it to Miid ro'ik, not sure why - Can you, or do you know anyone round here, that can place it somewhere, please? I'm just doing appearances for the book, fleet junkie knowledge is way out of my league. ;) Vetinari 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• replied here! --McEwok 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just use the "Move" tag at the top of the page, and type in the new title where prompted. If "a page already exists with that name," check to see if it's a redirect, and if so, ask an admin to delete it to make way for the move. jSarek 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good job on the expansion of the baradium article. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

McEwok, you've been told already. Stop putting bullets in the BTS. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you think there's a problem, you're welcome to edit them out. Until there's an official statement on the topic, however, I'm under no obligation to abide by the "general consensus of many" espoused by you and your friends - and given the apparent lack of a genuine policy, you might also do me the courtesy of replying to my comments in than link with a reasoned argument. ;)
• Seriously, it's mainly just force of habit on my part, and I won't do anything if the bullets are removed: but you have no authority to tell me what to do, and acting like you do isn't going to encourage me to change. --McEwok 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From here:

Graestan: you seem to imply that you think I indulge in "disruptive circular arguments" (I think you've accused me of this before). What exactly are you thinking of here? What do you think I could improve?

Culator: what would you define as "doing things"? You seem to be implicitly criticising my contribution. I'd have thought that my work on pages like Chiss, Bes'uliik and StealthX wing, and purges of uncorrected fanon and inaccuracies would count as "doing things". Please, in all sincerity, explain what you think I could be doing better.

Sincerely, --McEwok14:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your work on that page to User:McEwok/Imperial Starfighter Corps. Graestan 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm rewriting our midi-chlorian article, and I was trying to source this paragraph/find more information about how Lucas conceived of them in 1977, apparently from The Making of Star Wars. I see you added it, so I'm wondering if you can help me here. - Lord Hydronium 01:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad I found ya, good to see you on here. Is Excellence anywhere? Any of the crowd from Lit? Katana Geldar 11:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out my new Yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tfncensored

Invite all your friends. Make fun of the TFN mods. Lead a revolt worthy of an Ewok!