User:Copperchair/Archive2

Palpatine edits
Hey, next time you edit the Palpatine article, do you think you could drop a line explaining your little dispute with The Wookieepedian on the talk page? Thanks. Jon Hart 17:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you know those edits to the Palpatine article you made today? That kind of thing was what I meant by "next time you edit the Palpatine article." So that would have been what I'd like you to justify on Palpatine's talk page. :) Jon Hart 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A call for mediation
I've made a call for mediation in the many style disputes over the various Star Wars articles at Talk:Star Wars. Your comment and participation would be appreciated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I already have. Thanks for the heads-up. Copperchair 20:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Your star wars reverts
Why do you keep reverting my edits to Boba Fett? He was voiced in the DVD by Temuera Morrison. That's a fact. I made note of that in the "portrayers" section of the article. That explains why I added him to the info box as one who portrayed him. Don't just remove it like you do everything else to pretend the special editions are the only versions of the movies that are notable. Same with the Palpatine article, I keep trying to make note of how he looked in the non-DVD version, but you continue to remove it. At least with the Vader article Phil made note of the different portrayers of Vader. And he was specific in the caption who exactly was being seen as Anakin. If you controlled the article, you would probably have it read something like "Anakin Skywalker in Return of the Jedi," rather than what Phil has which is: "Sebastian Shaw as Anakin Skywalker in Return of the Jedi." There are different versions of the films, and major differences in them need to be noted. Now, I allowed Phil to keep the vintage pic of the ROTJ Anakin for film history's sake, and I have the Palpatine article as well. However, it must be noted that there are differences in who played the characters in the different versions of the films. I would think that if you studied law for four years like you have, you would be better able to reason than you have shown. The Wookieepedian 22:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello Copperchair. A Man In Black has filed a mediation over Star Wars related articles and styles. I urge you to accept the case and follow the suggested injunction, to keep the temperature down. I see this is a pretty big case, so I've assigned Ed Poor, one of our best mediators, to look at it. The case is listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Dispute_over_style_in_Star_Wars_articles. I am waiting for Ed to accept, which he says he's gonna look over and accept tomorrow. Cheers! R e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

response
They help you discuss better? You mean the way you have been discussing issues on here? WTF? And, with Palpatine, tyhat's exactly the reason we have to specify the pic from the original version, since we can't explain the bit on the original actor. The Wookieepedian 01:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, so you are saying that you support stating the facts, rather than opinion. So do I. That's why I keep the fact in articles that new actors have played roles in the DVD's. You pretending the special editions are THE only versions of the movies and wishing to remove all references to the newest versions would be like me removing all references to previous versions of the films. Now, if I did that, I wouldn't be giving the complete facts, would I? No, of course not. That is why I want all the facts in an article, not the ones I select, and leave others I don't like out. The Wookieepedian 02:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The original versions are just as relevant as the originals or special editions, and deserve the same treament. You are saying an article should only be based on original version. Lucas sure doesn't see it that way. In the newest versions, for instance, Boba Fett is voiced by Temuera Morrison. Why is that not as notable as who originally did the voice? Both played Boba, how can you say one is more notable than the other, just because they were in an earlier "draft" of the movie? The Wookieepedian 02:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Injunction
I know I may not have a particular authority, but its a goodwill gesture to abide by the injunction I suggested at the mediation. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Deceptive edits
Please refrain from posting deceptive edit summaries, such as here. – Mipadi 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The way things are done on Wikipedia
Instead of simply reverting each other's edits every day and hoping one of you gets tired, you should try to participate in constructive dialogue and reach a compromise. Coffee 02:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine
If you are intent on reverting Wookiepedian's edits, spare my good edits by manually changing back the edits, not wholesale reverting. I'm thinking of pushing Palpatine through peer review and FAC, and reverting my improvements won't help. Until you produce a version of the page with my new edits in, I will be throwing in my reverts on the side of Wookipedian. --Maru (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I will, but next time, see that the last version is not disputed before making your edits. Copperchair 05:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The only one who is disputing the content is you, Copperchair. See that your versions are not disputed before making your edits.--chris.lawson 18:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for a 3RR violation
Once again, I'm here to let you know you've violated the 3RR, this time on Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Please, stop just reverting and engage people on discussions on talk pages, after your 24-hour block expires. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that, on at least some these issues you might actually be able to build a consensus to support your point of view. But your current behavior is not only disruptive to the Wikipedia community, it's not accomplishing what you want to accomplish. Justin Bacon 05:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair, I'm at my wit's end. Every day I log on I'm blocking you for a 3RR violation, this time for reverts on Star Wars. This can't keep happening; you either need to engage people in conversation or give up on this, or else...well, I don't know what else. Nobody wants to see this before the arbcom. In any case, you're blocked for another day. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars fan works section
Stop deleting the Fan Works section from the Star Wars article. At the moment there is a clear consensus on that page to keep it. If you think there is a good reason to remove it, please mention it on the article's Talk page instead of constantly unilaterally removing it without comment. PurplePlatypus 06:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Either give a reason, knock it off, or sooner or later get an RfC or worse. Those are your choices. PurplePlatypus 08:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm adding my name to the above request(s). Dystopos 18:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am as well, since I created the section. The Wookieepedian 02:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars.
I respectfully request that you cease your bad edits on the Star Wars article. There is clear opposition to your edits to the cast list section, and to the abbreviations. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The mediation was cancelled. No one was interested with making a deal with you, because you would want the cast list set up to your liking, and no one is interested in that. The only decision we will be seeing is to make you stop your editing. Do you really not care what others want? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you're God, a god or some otherworldly force, you have to follow what the majority wants. Fun Fact: Nowhere in the copyright information on Wikipedia does it say that you own Wikipedia, or any single article on it. Another Fun Fact: There is a clear consensus on how the cast list should be set up. You don't like that? Create a Wiki where you have full control over how it's set up. So, it's you and Lucas against the world. Does Lucas want it this way? Then he can voice his opinion! But democracy (which you seem to loathe) happened, and it ruled against you. So, yes, I'm sorry that you don't control Wikipedia (*chortle*), but as I said, you don't. The majority decides how Wikipedia is, not someone with a superiority complex, who is such a sore loser that he would fight simple democracy on Wikipedia to the death. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll respect it by taking it into consideration. But, yes, if you hadn't already realized, Wikipedia is run by a collaboration of many people, not George Lucas or you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars
Copperchair, I want to personally applaud you for playing nice in your most recent edits of the main Star Wars article. Other than your daily reverts, most of your other edits have been constructive, as far as grammar and wording. If you'll just follow consensus, most of your other edits are helpful. The Wookieepedian 04:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I retract that statement. Hm, guess you'll never learn. The Wookieepedian 05:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
Well, I hate to have to do this, but I've opened a Request for Arbitration against you, pertaining to the unexplained and occasionally deceptive reverts. Please make a comment there; you are Party 1. I don't want to have to do this, but I don't see any alternative. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? User conduct RFCs don't mediate content disputes; they highlight problematic behavior so that the user in question can do something about it. You kept reverting even though your strongly supported user conduct RFC asked you not to. Moreover (and correct me if I'm wrong), you made it clear that you were going to agree to the RFM voluntary injunction (and even referred to "until this is decided in mediation"), but continued to revert.

You need to accept that, until a debate is settled, a version you don't like may be up for a while, instead of just reverting until the debate is settled. Moreover, if you're unwilling to discuss changes civilly, you have no business reverting (particularly in cases where you're deletion large amounts of prose). This is what your RFC was about; it wasn't a decision on the content issue, but the problem of your conduct.

If you stop reverting, stop getting in shouting matches, and calmly and reasonably discuss disagreements (including conceding fights where consensus is truly against you), then all of this nonsense with the RFAr goes away. But if you're going to keep fighting and attacking those who disagree with you and reverting, you're not giving anyone any choice but to respond accordingly.

By the way, I replied here because the RFAr application isn't really the place for lengthy discussion. There's no need to further rebut any arguments made there; the RFAr is going to be accepted, and you'll have a chance to respond to other peoples' statements once the RFAr is opened. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There was no decision made on the RFM.

And why is it ME who has to stop reverting? I am keeping the original versions of the articles.

Finally, I don't start shouting matches, I only respond to them, "accordingly", as you put it. Copperchair 13:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please reply here instead of on my talk page. I hate having discussions split like that, and I've had your user page/talk page on my watchlist for a month.

The RFM fell apart because you promised to stop reverting and didn't. It's just that simple. Not all of the disputes even involved you, but your actions scuttled that attempt to resolve these disputes.

If there's an ongoing dispute, everyone needs to stop reverting. In general, the version that should stay up is the most inclusive version (unless basic factual accuracy or some other pressing concern applies), and, as a more-or-less impartial observer, I don't see any basic accuracy or other similar issues.

Likewise, I didn't say stop starting shouting matches, I said stop participating in shouting matches. This isn't elementary school, it doesn't matter who started it; it needs to end, and the best way for things to end is to not respond in kind.

Incidentally, not all of these disputes or all of this acrimony can be blamed on you. Your contribution to the general state is large and problematic, however, and now is the time to start changing your conduct, by not reverting and not participating in shouting matches. I have a feeling that if you gave your parole not to revert and responded to shouting with reasoned, calm responses without going on the attack, things would get a lot better. If there were still problems after that, I'd be happy to talk to the person causing these problems with the same amount of patience (a great deal) I've shown you. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop replying to this on my talk page. I mentioned it here, it's mentioned at the top of my talk page, your talk page is on my watchlist.

You have failed to convince anyone by reverting. If two (or more!) people revert you, the burden is on you to stop reverting and convince them that your version is superior, not revert war against everyone. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm vindictive?
OK, Copperchair, I'm getting sick of dealing with you. Now, you are calling my edits, which were per consensus, vindictive. Looks like I'm going to have to take a little trip over to your rfa page. The Wookieepedian 02:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In the past, and still, you have shown yourself to make good edits, such as corrections to spelling and grammar. If you would just refrain from your recent destructive edits, you would be welcome to edit the articles without your edits being reverted. The Wookieepedian 02:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR (Again)
Hello Copperchair and Wookieepedian, both of you have broken 3RR with eachother again on several Star Wars articles. Please don't argue over who's right or who's wrong, as the point of 3RR is to stop edit warring. Thus, have a hearty 36 hour block for both of you. R e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't. What articles are you referring to? Copperchair 03:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I expect an answer... Copperchair 03:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems like it's A New Hope, looking at the edit history.

A while back you said you would stop edit warring when you got some sort of administrative ruling. Well, these 3RR blocks are an administrative message. Please, please, please stop edit warring. I have no stake in these disputes over style, but this daily disruption can't keep going on.

I know of at least one and possibly two users who have an interest in trimming down the articles to be more encyclopedic and less overly-detailed (I assume this is what you want, yes?), and if you stop edit warring and join the dialogue (without personal attacks and without rhetoric; I know other users by and large took the first shots, but it has to stop somewhere), you can actually get some of what you want, instead of getting none of what you want plus an Arbcom case to boot.

This reverting is merely self-destructive and disruptive. Can you please stop it, if only for your own ends? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert more than three times A New Hope! See the edit history. I reverted it twice, then only made a minor edit correcting grammar, which appears twice I don't know why. Look at the last two: they are the same, with one second apart; it wasn't my fault it was edited twice. I hereby appeal my blocking. Copperchair 03:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll handle the appeal, then. I realize the two "sp." edits are the same edit duped by accident or server error.

The four reverts, however, are...
 * diff - 20:59, Oct 17 (this edit is repeated a minute later, but the 21:00 edit isn't a revert)
 * diff - 20:56, Oct 17
 * diff - 20:32, Oct 17
 * diff - 22:05, Oct 16

Does this satisfy your desire for justification?

Incidentally, I noticed you blanked your talk page again, including all of the warnings (some of which are linked from your RFA). I'd rather not revert that, but I will if I must; could you please fix that, either by archiving your talk page or replacing the previous conversation? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, since it was coming up in some related conversation, I've restored the blanked part of your talk page. I hate to be fiddling with another user's talk page (and I don't plan to revert war you or anything), but please archive instead of blanking.

If you'd like, I could archive some or all of it for you instead. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My block was supposed to expire yesterday, but was blocked again yesterday. How could I have violated the 3RR if I have been blocked since 9/17? The Wookieepedian's block did expire... Copperchair 01:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I DEMAND an answer for this arbitrary decision. Copperchair 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll give you an answer Copperchair: STOP EDIT WARRING, AND YOU WON'T GET ANY BANS. How about you stop you insistance onkeeping the articles tuned to the 97' versions? If you really want facts in articles, LEAVE IN THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A VERSION PAST THE 97' VERSIONS. Your edits aren't doing any other good to you. They only get reverted, and get you banned. STOP. The Wookieepedian 04:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so you're saying that I don't give credit to the fact that there were original and special editions of the films? Why would I leave in the picture of the original version of Palpatine in ESB if I didn't respect the fact that there WERE films before the ones that I happen to prefer. If I truly were like you say I am, and pushed my preference for the 2004 versions, I would have completely removed your picture of Palpatuine, and removed all references to the originals and special editions in the articles. Have I? No. (pats self on bacl). OK, let's consider the Boba Fett article. Did I remove the fact that Jeremy Bulloch played Fett originally, or that Jason Wingreen originally voiced him? Nope. I merely added that Temuera Morrison voiced him for the DVD versions. Now, had I been like you, I would have removed all references to Bulluch or Wingreen and pretended that Morrison played Fett in all of the versions. And, you know what would have happened if I would have done that? MY EDITS WOULD BE DEEMED AS DESTRUCTIVE TO THE ARTICLE BY THE COMMUNITY, SINCE THEY REMOVED USEFUL INFORMATION, AND YOU KNOW WHAT, SOMEONE WOULD REMOVE IT. Sound familiar Copperchair? It should. Now don't be trying to rephrase my original comment above on your talk page and poutting it on mine, without even thinking what you're doing, okay? And you know what, you probably still don't get the point. You'll probably not respond to this, and delete it from your talk page tonight or tomorrow becuase it EXPOSES you and your actions. And you know what else? You'll still blindly revert any and all edits that don't fit Copperchair's 97' Special Editions agenda. You might as well put up a notice "All negative comments toward me (Copperchair) are not allowed, as I am the God (and the George W. Bush) of Wikipedia." The Wookieepedian 06:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You're both wrong. Stop this useless shouting match immediately. If you don't stop, I'll block you, and this goes for you both. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Really?
You keep the references to the originals and special editions in the articles because the 2004 version includes the originals and special editions, with FURTHER changes.


 * If that were the case, then why would I keep the original image of Palpatine in the ESB article? And, why would I keep in the fact that Jeremy Wingreen did the original voice? Did you even read what I wrote?

And why would you want to remove the fact that Jeremy Bulloch played Fett, if he still does in the 2004 version?


 * You found a mistake of mine, I meant Jeremy Wingreen, who did the original voice.

And you know what? You'll blindly revert all of my edits, regardless of the grammar and spelling corrections, and other contributions by me. Copperchair 05:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you just can't break the habit of copying, pasting, and tweaking my original statements becuase you can't come up with anything original yourself. If you made good edits, and good edits only, then maybe you wouldn't find your grammar and spelling reverted.

The Wookieepedian 05:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for coming up with anything original since it is pointless to argue with a 2004 version lover who doesn’t realize it is not what people saw in theatres, and that ignores the fact that they were controversial.


 * Hearing something like that from you is classic. If only you saw the irony...

Did you notice that none of the actors included in the changes was credited? Look at the IMDb pages, for example. I don't see the need for listing them in the "Portrayers" sections, even though it is obviously worth mentioning in other section of the articles. Copperchair 05:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Is wikipedia the IMDB? No. Must we follow that site, or any other for that matter? No.

The Wookieepedian 05:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, they haven't changed the end credits yet. One of the reasons they left in some of the original actors names were out of respect for them and their performances. The official site actually makes note of any change in actors, as they list BOTH actors who may have played a particular role. The Wookieepedian 08:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, yes they do. They make note of that fact. George sees to it. The Wookieepedian 08:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you stop to think why? They base their credits lists off of the actual, current, film credits, which have not been changed for reasons I explained up above. The Wookieepedian 08:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And I go by reality. The Wookieepedian 08:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

ROTS DVD Trailer
Just out of, um, being helpful, I thought you might be interested. This is a link to the ROTS DVD trailer released today on hyperspace.

I removed the external link, as you should never have posted it - whoever reposted that trailer away from the official site is violating the Hyperspace terms-of-service with Lucasfilm and starwars.com, as that trailer has *only* been posted as a Hyperspace exclusive for now. Unless you want to open yourself and Wikipedia up to the possibility of legal action from Lucasfilm, don't do that again. TheRealFennShysa 15:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well Copperchair, did you get it before Fenn removed the link? To clear it up, I posted the link in order to "spread the joy," so to speak. It's the underground sites (killerfilms.com in this case) that get fans their Star Wars fix. It has been downloaded nearly 250 times in the last 24 hours. Some of us just don't want to have to pay Lucas for some of that, especially after all the re-releases we've bought all these years. The Wookieepedian 03:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll post it over on my userpage for you to download. The Wookieepedian 03:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Copperchair, did I accuse you? No, I think you'll find that I accused "whoever" posted it... perhaps you should take a chill pill and relax for a moment, my friend... Now, regardless WHO posted the link, or your motivations, the fact is (and this is undebateable) that the trailer was released for now to those with Hyperspace accounts, which is a paid service... if you don't have a Hyperspace account, you don't get access. It doesn't matter if you want to pay Lucas or not, or whether you feel that you're entitled to something or not (which you aren't), you're re-posting stolen intellectual property. Now, odds are, no one's probably going to do anything about it, but (and this is directed at Wookieepedian) by posting that link here, as I said before, you've opened both yourself and Wikipedia up to the possibility of legal action from Lucasfilm - I wouldn't do that again. TheRealFennShysa 15:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop petty reverting on Darth Vader
Your preference for one version of the movie over another is not justifiable for removing factual information from the article. Regardless of whether you like it or not, Hayden Christiansen is in the 2004 edition of ROTJ, and a footnote has been added to clarify this fact. Your constant removal of the "VI" is arguably vandalism. --Poiuyt Man talk 04:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By that logic, the whole infobox is redundant, as all the information within it is mirrored in prose within the article. The infobox is meant to summarize various crucial details, and the footnote is used to prevent bloating the infobox by inserting the entire explanation into it. --Poiuyt Man talk 09:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Splitting edits
I'm no stranger to making controversial edits, including major removals of text, so I'd like to give you some advice. (Bear in mind, this isn't endorsement of your continued reversion, just general advice.)

When an article needs both minor edits (like copyedits) and a major change, I usually do the minor changes first, as a separate edit, then do my major changes (like a section blanking, a merge, etc.) as a separate, second edit to make good-faith reversion easier. I find it goes a long way to helping to establish goodwill, as people are often quick to resist major changes to articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comments
What does my profession have to do with this edit war?


 * Hmm... your training should have allowed you to think clearly on issues such as those involved in this edit war.

I am going by the credits, as I told you before, so I am not having it "my way", I am having it the filmmaker's way.


 * And I suppose George Lucas prefers the 97' editions?

If you just bothered to look, you'd find that in each article where it belongs, there is a mention to the respective 2004 portrayer.


 * And there is to the original as well. You only prefer one to be proudly featured, and the other to be noted. That method is not being completely honest to the reader, now is it? Noting only the original actor in the infoboxes implies that the original actor holds a higher place than the new actor. Is it not true that both Sebastian Shaw and Hayden Christensen played Anakin Skywalker in ROTJ? They both did, and deserve the credit for it.

I just want the "Portrayers" section to go by the credits. It's not like I am erasing every reference to the DVD changes. Copperchair 07:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course not, you're just not giving the new portrayers the equal credit they desrve.

The Wookieepedian 10:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, first off, Hayden confirmed in an interview on AOL with George Lucas, that he specifically shot that footage for ROTJ, and was honored to be given a chance to "stand next to Alec Guiness." Second of all, as much Lucas likes the changes he makes, it's likely he just "forgot" to change the credits, due to the hurry the whole DVD set was in to be completed. But for some credits, like Clive Reville, I'm sure he simply left them in out of respect for the original actors. He clearly doesn't see them as the roles they played though, as he has replaced them. Besides that, you are trying to lie to the reader with your changes, claiming Hayden never techinically played Anakin in ROTJ. The fact is he did, credits or not, and you can't dispute it. If you are looking for the "proof" that you claim the credits give, watch the end of the 2004 DVD's. Well, on second thought, you probably won't, becuase you don't like to think about them, and like to pretend Lucas never made the changes he did. And please tell mne how in the hell you got the idea that all the star wars articles are based on the original versions?!? When has anyone ever said the articles should be based solely on the original versions? The Wookieepedian 01:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And another thing, check the link here to watch that Hayden/Lucas interview to prove my first point. The Wookieepedian

Yes, copperchair, that is correct. I said "forgot," as neither you nor me know why he left them out. And, as I said before, you may go by the credits, but the rest of us go by reality. The Wookieepedian 01:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And I like to be reallistic, and I will continue to go by reality. The Wookieepedian 02:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You do that then, but leave it off of encyclopedic articles. The Wookieepedian 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey...
Why in the hell would you remove that from the Anakin infobox? It gives references and specifies that he played Anakin only in the 2004 versions! The Wookieepedian 09:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm, going to repeat Philwelch's comments on your rfc that hit the nail right on the head:


 * Copperchair is possibly the most uncivil, impossible-to-work-with editor I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. He has claimed, falsely, at various points in time that (a) consensus does not matter, (b) the views of others do not matter, and, oddly enough, (c) that he was either following consensus or that there was no consensus in those cases where he is editing blatantly contrary to consensus. However, it's not his bizarre inconsistencies and idiosyncratic views that trouble me. It's the fact that he acts upon these idiosyncratic views with no concern for other editors, alternatively using blunt personal attacks, blatant dishonesty, subtle deception, and outright revert-warring to put those views into practice. Although Copperchair has claimed that he never knew what the consensus was regarding, say, the inclusion of Wedge Antilles in the credits for various Star Wars films, one of his own talk page links [11] shows that myself, A Link to the Past, and Clawson all agree Wedge should be included, which at least provides a rough consensus. The fact that Copperchair's attempts to add Wedge have been reverted, at various times, by just about all parties listed as "Party 2" in this RfAr and then some also demonstrates a consensus. As for Copperchair's assertions that "we should follow the filmmakers’ decision" and that, in that respect, "consensus is irrelevant", Copperchair is demonstrating a severe disagreement with the policy of Consensus. Copperchair is of course free to disagree with some Wikipedia policies, so long as he does not violate those policies to the detriment of the community and the Wikipedia.

The Wookieepedian 09:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Copperchair has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Requests for arbitration/Copperchair/Evidence. Fred Bauder 19:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Vader
Please explain to me agian, your reasons for deleting the info in the Vader info box. The Wookieepedian 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine
I can see you POV on why you don't want to include the new version of Palpatine, but why do you insist on removing ALL photos, mentionings, etc. with him in it, as far as ESB goes? The Wookieepedian 15:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Block
I blocked you for 3 hours for edit warring, but more specifically for this edit. Looking at your contributions I see you corrected it just prior to the block; but it still indicates to me you were more concerned with reverting The Wookieepedian than making constructive edits. Please focus on another subject while the Rfa is ongoing. - RoyBoy 800 15:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * All I need to notice is an edit war, period. What I did notice is a massive revert campaign by you. I did notice Wookieepedian reverting your changes; but as I noticed you first I blocked you; and I certainly wasn't going to reward your behavior by blocking the person who was reverting and reacting to your changes (I would have reverted them myself if necessary). Of course if I see Wookieepedian do something similar to what you just did, he'd be blocked too. But in order for that to happen, you would have to again edit the very articles you shouldn't be touching right now.


 * Your edit summary was honest, and so you were blocked for a short period of time. (if you hadn't mixed up the Palpatine image it may have been only a one hour block) The point is not the content of the edits, but the context. The context is you are in a dispute with other editors regarding Star Wars articles. Making any significant edits to those articles isn't the best thing for you to be doing. It's really simple, stop or be blocked. - RoyBoy 800 19:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring
Okay, you're up to at least two dozen reverts today. This means you're ignoring your RFC, you're ignoring the reason everyone pulled out of the RFM, you're ignoring the RFAr, you're ignoring at least two months and probably more of people telling you to stop reverting.

As such, I'm forced to use a sanction you can't ignore; a 48 hour block.

And yes, I'm aware that the Arbcom hasn't yet issued a ruling on your RFAr. This doesn't mean you have carte blanche to edit war until they tell you to stop. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I responded on the RFC. If everyone pulled out of the RFM, it's their decision. And I didn't start this edit war, so I am reverting to the original article, and I am waiting for them to tell me to stop because of that. Copperchair 07:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyone is telling you to stop. At least three, possibly four administrators have asked you to stop. The RFC was everyone asking you to stop. It's time to stop reverting. Reverting back to the "original version" is your problematic conduct. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would I leave bad edits in the articles? I do what I think is right. Copperchair 01:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You might leave a bad edit in an article because you respect the person who put it there, or because you respect some or all of the people who agree with that person.


 * Is there anyone here that you respect?


 * Regards, Ben Aveling 01:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair, removing useful information is not a "good edit." You may not like the fact that Ian McDiarmid played Palpatine in ESB, but that doesn't mean you must remove every mentioning of him in articles. For instance, in the ESB article, when I wrote a paragraph explaining the new Palpatine scene that was filmed during the making of ROTS, you simply deleted that section without explaining why. The Wookieepedian 09:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove it for what it was. I didn't even know you had written it. I just reverted. Now you know what it feels to have your edits indiscriminately removed. Copperchair 00:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." Blind reversion, when you have been asked numerous times to cease this behaviour, is utterly unacceptable. Were I an admin, that comment alone would have earned you a 24-hour extension on your current block. What's it going to take to get the message across that your behaviour is unacceptable and wrong? Isn't it blindingly obvious at this point that you're simply digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself?--chris.lawson 00:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I just don't know what to say. You are blocked for 48 hours for revert warring, cautioned against revert warring in the strongest possible terms...and you go right back to revert warring when the block expires. You're blocked for a week for blatant revert warring, after being cautioned repeatedly. Please spend this week considering how inappropriate and disruptive your actions are. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin input
Note that admins are not in charge of making sure edit wars are ended. There is clear opposition to your edits, and if an admin were to support you, he could not undermine consensus. Please stop saying that you will only stop when an admin tells you to. For instance, User:A Man In Black blocked you for a week, for continuing reverting. Is that not enough? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Copperchair 20:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for a week for reverting. Give me one good reason why that isn't telling you to stop reverting. You were blocked from editing Wikipedia because you did not stop reverting, and yet you insist that the block isn't the same thing as telling you to stop reverting. What would an admin have to do to get you to stop other than the constant blocks they've been giving you? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind the block, just above an admin has described his actions as "inappropriate and disruptive" in plain black and white. How else could CC possibly interpret that? PurplePlatypus 00:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it help, Copperchair if an admin simply told you: "You must stop reverting the pages."? That's their message in a clear statement. The Wookieepedian 11:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Copperchair you must stop reverting the pages. <--there. Edit warring is a Bad Thing, and to prevent it we can either force discussion on talk pages, protect the article, or block the edit warriors. Please, everyone, discuss, and don't just revert like the wind! R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Copperchair, you must stop reverting the pages. Just in case it wasn't clear. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We can't keep meeting like this. I see a dozen reverts in your edit history, all in the space of five minutes. As such, you're blocked for another week for continued revert warring. This is inappropriate, disruptive, useless behavior, and I will continue to block you until you desist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't "revert". I kept all the changes made from the day I was blocked until today. I just fixed what was wrong. Copperchair 04:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In no way, shape or form does deleting the Fan Works section, AGAIN, in the face of a clear consensus you have been made aware of countless times, count as "fixing what was wrong". Not only have you persisted in exactly the behaviour that has you before the ArbCom and that multiple administrators have clearly and specifically told you to stop, but you're trying to deny it too. You're not fooling anyone. Do you really expect this to be permitted to continue? It's like you're TRYING to prove that the ArbCom needs to ban you. PurplePlatypus 08:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll do what I think is correct. If you have to ban me, then so be it... Copperchair 06:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So, you think that lying is the correct thing to do? You have stated time and time again that you won't stop without admin input, and now two admins have told you to stop. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I said I'll wait until the arbitration commite makes a decision.Copperchair 05:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're certainly doing your part to make it easier for them. — Phil Welch 06:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi CC,

When the arbitration comittee make a decision, I trust you'll respect it?

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will. Copperchair 08:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC) comment removed by Copperchair in this edit
 * Kind of like how you respected the RfC decision? Or consensus? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No doubt he will. The Wookieepedian 05:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

War on Terror
Nice try at hiding your edit on War on Terror, removing the U.S.S. Cole bombing from the article. However, some of us aren't fooled quite that easily. JG of Borg 03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh and btw, nice try removing the War on Terror, Iraq Campaign medal too. Please get some etiquette, and show that you can make responsible edits. JG of Borg 04:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * He tries that technique all of the time on the Star Wars articles. The Wookieepedian 03:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Copperchair.

We both know that you promised to abide by the arb com decision.

Your word is good, isn't it?

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Total War Against Terror
Hi Copperchair,

Thanks for the message.

Why you do think that Iraq is not part of the war on terror?

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

But there are terrorists there now.

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

PS. I'm sorry I have to put this tag on your page, please don't remove it.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Copperchair,

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop your vandalism and blanking. If you wish to make substantial changes to an article, you must discuss it on that page's talk page and reach a consensus before doing so. JG of Borg 08:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why, after all this time, have you broken the peace...? It is too much to ask not to revert upon other's hard work..? Is it too much to ask not to use WP:POV...? Is it too much to ask to follow concensus for a change..?-MegamanZero 11:03 4,December 2005 (URTC)


 * For Copperchair? Yes, apparently. Sigh. The Wookieepedian 10:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter, for this purpose, why the terrorists are there. They are there, and Iraq has become part of the war on terror, because it was invaded.

Regards, Ben Aveling 10:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw your message on Ben Aveling's page saying that Iraq was/is not part of "The War on 'Terror'". I say sure it is. It's of course completely ridiculous for it to be since Iraq hardly has anything to do with terrorism and uses it as a tactic far less than say, Al-Qaeda or the United States, but it is not an abstract concept. Things connected to "The War on 'Terror'" are connected to it by the government of the US, not by abstract reasoning. So, since Bush, as representative of the governement, has said that Iraq is part of the US' "War on 'Terror'" then it is. It's like a brand name they can characterize all their actions with. Kentucky Fried Chicken sells coleslaw, but you don't take that info out of that article just because it's called Kentucky Fried Chicken. --Ben 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a good way to think about it. It's called the 'War on Terror', but it's actually about a lot more than just Terror. Ben Aveling 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Temporary ban on Copperchair editing
1) As Copperchair has continued to edit war on a number of articles pending resolution of this matter, he is banned from editing any pages other then these Arbitration pages and his own user and talk page. He may be briefly blocked should he edit any other page.

Please honor this. Fred Bauder 21:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As you have violated the injunction I have blocked you for a month. I will monitor this page for any input you might wish to make regarding your arbitration case.


 * Copperchair, please dissist this blatent insolense regarding the continuous blanking of your talkpage. If you wish, please archive these comments, or if you'd like, I can do it for you. In any case, blanking a talkpage, be it yours, or anyone else's, is considered vandalism, as you are deleting other user's comments. Just discuss the matter, or archive, and don't just revert like the wind! Regards, -MegamanZero|Talk 14:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair, you have violated the injunction again. I have blocked you for one month. Incidentally, if the anonymous user you appear to be using as a sockpuppet is in fact you, he will be caught by the autoblocker. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey.
I've noticed that you've been using IP as a sockpuppet. Please stop. The Wookieepedian 17:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jabba.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Jabba.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 21:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)