User talk:Rogue 9/Archive 1

Three revert rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. -- Rhobite 22:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Protest Warrior

Thanks for your message. Your help is appreciated. I am watching the article now, and Iwill revert vandalism as I see it. It would certainly be better for everyone though if the vandals would just knock it off. --Canderson7 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm now watching Kfir Alfia as well. I reccomend contacting Grazon on his talk page regarding the edits that you believe to be biased. --Canderson7 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For more Admin.s, go to Wikipedia:Administrators, and see the list of administrators, then pick one or more as needed.Martial Law 07:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism/non-NPOV

Please refrain from the blatant non-NPOV edits such as your recent "work" on Lew Rockwell:

"The site also hosts screeds against the United States' participation in the Second World War, hopeful if unrealistic speculations about an end of the United States as a cohesive nation, and accusations of fascism on the part of the free world."(Emphasis added)

How do you justify using these obviously inflammatory terms? I am removing them. Dick Clark 14:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You still have not responded to my above accusations. How do you justify obvious vandalism on a project that you claim to be supporting? Respond please. Dick Clark 15:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've posted your response below for clarity's sake. Dick Clark 17:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I justify my edits on the following: Inflammatory does not equal non-neutral, as it is an entirely subjective description. If the truth offends, then there is obviously some bias on the part of the one who is offended; and in this case, the truth is that Lew Rockwell is an ideologue who's willing to allow lies about the American/Japanese situation in World War 2 and the matter of the American Civil War to be posted on his website in order to justify his views about it, rather than conforming his views to the facts. Now for your specific objections:

"'The site also hosts screeds against the United States' participation in the Second World War, hopeful if unrealistic speculations about an end of the United States as a cohesive nation, and accusations of fascism on the part of the free world.'(Emphasis added)"

The word "screed" is in no way inflammatory by itself; it is an accurate description of the articles in question. Further, the article I posted on the future breakup of the United States is wildly unrealistic; for starters, even presuming that a breakup did come to pass, there is no way that the states would break up along the lines specified; economic, political, and logistical realities dictate that this is so simply because of the nature of the commercial relationships between several of the states depicted as joining separate factions. California, for instance, would not only never join with decidedly more conservative Arizona and New Mexico; it would experience massive loss of electrical service as energy from Oregon and Nevada is cut off. Secondly, no rational person could expect that to happen any time in the near future; I could have justifiably called it a pipe dream, because that's what it is. As for "free world," it's a common description for the West and liberal democracies in general; I have absolutely no idea how you consider it inappropriate. Rogue 9 16:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

To respond to the following: "I justify my edits on the following: Inflammatory does not equal non-neutral, as it is an entirely subjective description. If the truth offends, then there is obviously some bias on the part of the one who is offended" Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is true. What is not clear, however, is that your "truth" corresponds with "the truth." You claim that Rockwell posts, or allows posted, "lies." Why don't you substantiate this claim? There are plenty of scholarly endeavors underway to debunk claims on both sides of the historical arguments about the War Between the States, and also about World War II. Modifiying an article to reflect your own personal disbelief in a particular stance is neither scholarly, nor (more importantly for Wikipedia) neutral in its point of view. If Lew Rockwell promoted belief in Rael's explanation of the world, you would still be acting in bad faith by openly dismissing the belief, in the "encyclopedia's" voice (as opposed to in the voice of a source author). I might also add that you are committing this wrong in a rather inelegant way. As for your claim that, "The word "screed" is in no way inflammatory by itself; it is an accurate description of the articles in question," that is clearly a subjective valuation. "Screed" is defined as "A long monotonous speech or piece of writing." To call something monotonous is to color a description with your own, necessarily subjective view of a particular piece of writing. I have a hard time believing that you really want to defend your use of this word as somehow NPOV. Your own evaluation of the ideas presented on Lew Rockwell's website, be it professional or amateur, is not germane to the wikipedia article about him. If you were a notable source, then we might arrive at a different conclusion, assuming, of course, that you did not attempt to co-opt the requisite neutrality of the encyclopedic voice in the article by injecting your own opinion into the body of the article, rather than as a cited outside source. I believe that the term pertinent to this violation is "original research." As for "free world," it is a loaded term, and, given that we are talking about someone (Rockwell) whose article largely deals with how he defines "free," the equivocation could be problematic. Please abstain from such POV vandalism in the future. Dick Clark 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

From User talk:Fire Star

From User talk:Fire Star:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Protest_Warrior

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

132.241.245.132 04:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Cry your eyes out to the admins and then immediately turn around and start calling people brownshirts. How am I supposed to react to that? Rogue 9 15:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your reaction seemed appropriate in that you had a point that you wanted to make, which is fine IMO except for except for the one little bit I factored out. If the anon had done similarly I would have factored that out as well. They may have somewhere else for all I know, I only looked at the above link. They may have implied that anyone who disagreed with them was a brownshirt, but no one can actually call another user a little Nazi anything without consequences. WP:NPA is clear on this and is a non-negotiable policy. It is part of my job to gently remind users of that. I'm glad you people are discussing things, Rhobite has been around a long time and knows the ropes well enough to provide valuable advice. I don't think you are the bad guy in this and I didn't and won't pass judgment on the actual content of your argument. Regards, --Fire Star 22:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand why you had to take the action you did. I personally disagree that the rule should be absolute, but I don't get to make that decision. I simply object to Grazon's using Wikipedia as a platform to smear his political opponents and then having the gall to complain when called on it, even if he was called forcefully - which anyone who belittles the threat that the Nazis were by comparing lesser "offenses" to Nazism should be, in my opinion. All the best, Rogue 9 22:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wish you the best of luck. Stay calm and the **** should bounce back onto the sender. If you ever think I can be of assistance, let me know. Cheers. --Fire Star 22:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ripped-up sign

Re: The ripped up sign in my J20 photo set, you're right - it is a remnant from the scuffle. At the time of writing for that photo set, I had not yet learned of that incident (I would learn of it a few weeks later). It seems an update is in order...

BTW, I put up my J20 photo set as quickly as possible after the event in order to make up for having a two-month turnaround on my Million Worker March photo set. As a result, a few things didn't make it by the time I released it, and the scuffle was one of them. Another thing I didn't learn of before the photo set was released was the photo of me on carolmoore.net. [1] I was just tickled to find that.

Again, thanks for pointing that out. As I mentioned, an update is definitely in order.

Also, to satisfy my own curiosity, were you in DC on J20 as well? SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That works!

That works for me re: the photos. I guess it's the same kind of amused I get when I find a photo of myself at the protest on someone else's Web site. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for going through that bunch of 40K articles and tidying up my spelling a bit. I really appreciate the effort you've put in to clean up after my screwups. Saberwyn 01:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

keep an eye on this guy please (he cites stormfront)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:168.210.90.180

quick note

Hi Rogue -- thank you for you help on the FIRE article. Just a quick note: I am trying to keep discussion on the talk page focused on the mechanics of the article, and hoping that we can avoid more general discussion — just because it can be an explosive subject for people and I think it would be best if we could sort of "cover up" differences of opinion between editors to arrive at a neutral and balanced article. So can I ask that if you get a response to your comments about media bias etc. that you maybe follow up on the user's talk page or perhaps let them slide? Of course you are free to do what you want! Yours, Sdedeo 04:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No doubt that LTC position on FIRE is strongly influenced by his/her involvement in SAFER. I generally feel that "covering over" differences of opinion is an important thing (it slows the generation of ill-will) — but of course I certaintly don't mean that there should be no disagreement! Only that disagreements should be confined to the question of what to put in the article. Nobody has ever been convinced to change a deeply held political position based on a wikipedia talk page! All the best, Sdedeo 05:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, right now I am hoping that the amount of coverage on the particular Columbia case will stay fixed and not grow. As I've learned from working on the Brainwashing 101 article, campus controversies burn like gasoline, often over very very little of actual substance. Sdedeo 05:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Lion El'Jonson

Where did you get this information from? I'm curious. As far as I know, the official version of El'Jonson's fate parralels that of King Arthur; according to Luther, at the point of death he was taken away by the creatures known as the Watchers in the Dark to be healed, and will be returned for the 'final battle'.

The one at residing in the deepest prison cell in the Rock is actually Luther, waiting for El'Jonson to return and forgive him for his sins.

At least, that's the version I know of. The info about El'Jonson's fate is in the Index Astartes articles, but I'm not entirely sure about where the Luther info came from. I think that's what your source is talking about, but he got his wires crossed. Saberwyn 21:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I really need to get my hands on this book, just so I can see what all the fuss is about. The impression I get from what articles and books I've read is that he's been taken away, and as such is classified as Missing In Action as far as the Dark Angels Chapter is concerned. If you're 100% sure that's what the book says, I'm not going to stop you rewriting the article, but for the sake of all the Dark Angels players out there who have denounced the novel as heresy and non-canonical, be sure when you do. Saberwyn 02:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

El'Jonson was always going to return. I think it's just the way that the book handles a few of the issues regarding the Chapter in a very poor fashion, and others come out far more negative than previous fiction/history had portrayed. On the issue, my judgements out until I get my hands on the novel, and because I live in Australia, and it's almost impossible to get the books out here, that will be a long time. As I said before, if you're sure, write the article to say so. But I'm not touching this in any way until I'm sure. Saberwyn 09:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments on John Seigenthaler Sr.

I just happened to spot you comments on the John Seigenthaler Sr. debate. It seems that you are picking up on the smell of hipocracy that comes from the "leadership and adminstration", such as the "policy changes" as reported by the AP nearly two days ago that have yet to come into effect. It is a shame, or is it a sham, that this place calls it self an Encylopedia, as the title give off an air of crediablilty that is underserved, it even scarrier that this site hit high on many google searches. What get me is that lack of concern that this incident seems to be generating by the poweres that be, considering that Seigenthaler has every reason to put up a good lible or defimation of character suite aginst the foundation, that could easly put this out of service. Its also really sorry how people make this open-source/free speach argument as well. Would not be supprised to see more of these types of issues coming up in the future. Just figure i chime in with my comments. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, just a note to say thanks for the Barnstar. --Muchness 04:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. You deserve it; without your efforts there, the article would honestly probably have remained a stub for a long time. My Forgotten Realms books are at home while I'm away at school. Rogue 9 04:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Paladin user box

Hey, I saw your paladin user box in the sandbox (the edit came up in Lupin's vandal filter, actually), and thought it was hysterical. Just wanted to say kudos. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 07:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks. I am not a geek! I'm a level 12 paladin!  ;) Rogue 9 07:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

lol rock on!

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=120446

Protest Warrior again

I just got your message. The vandalism seems to have abated, but I've added Protest Warrior to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it over the next few days. Canderson7 ^(talk) 14:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

SAFER and FIRE

Hi Rogue -- I really don't have a strong opinion either way on including the SAFER blog reference (I tend to have a wide range of leeway in either direction.) I certaintly won't dispute your removal of it. As for the "SysOp" name, if it bothers you, bring it up to the administrators. Yours, Sdedeo 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Source for TIEvsPeregrin.jpg?

I just noticed you adding Image:TIEvsPeregrin.jpg to the Star Trek vs. Star Wars article, and it's very nice, but where is it from? Images uploaded under the claim of fair use should be documented as extensively as possible, including a source and an explanation for why it's fair use. The days of when a claim of fair use was a "get out of copyright free" pass are fading on Wikipedia so it's best to provide those things sooner rather than later. :) Bryan 05:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Source for Trekwars.jpg

Hi. Contrary to what you say at Image:Trekwars.jpg, the image was listed at WP:CP since November 26, as I listed it there (see [2]). I also tagged the image accordingly, six days after asking the original uploader, Gin and Tonic, for clarification as to why he/she had labeled it "Copyrighted, but free to use for any purpose" when it was seemingly lifted directly from [3] (see my question at User talk:Gin and Tonic), with no response. I'd ask you the same question as user Bryan above: how is it fair use? --Arteitle 21:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"User freespeech" template

Helloo.. Saw your free speech thing and thought you might be interested in this template (which is also linked from the WikiProject talk page: {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

A link so you can preview it: {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

Hope you like, it's pretty much the same but will also automatically add you to the Wikipedians against censorship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

re:Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment

I noticed you are categorized as a Wikipedian by alignment. If you are in to userboxes, there are now infoboxes available using a standard template. See the alignment category page for details. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist Userbox

I saw your Category:Capitalist Wikipedians and thought the logo there was a bit too huge, otherwise it could be used as a good userbox. I left a short message on the category talk, so check it out. Also, I am sorta opposed to the "It is opposed to Communism because it removes property rights and has killed 100 million people over the course of the 20th century." part because, for me at least, I support capitalism not because communism is wrong, but because capitalism is right. That is, even if communism had never existed, I'd still be a capitalist pig-dog. Cheers. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

SDNet-Big-4.jpg

I deleted the image because of WP:CSD I5 (meaning the 5th speedy criteria for images), which includes copyrighted images that are not used on any article. Fair use images are only allowed on articles, not on user pages. Coffee 05:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Userbox

That's an excellent template. I think I'll use it. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The personal attacks one. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Userboxes

You might want to check out WP:UB amd WP:UBX :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Answers.com

You've probably realised by now but if not, answers.com copies stuff from Wikipedia, fully legally and identified as from Wikipedia. So if you see stuff there that is the same here, it's probably because they copied it from us... Nil Einne 15:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Imperial Star destroyer

How can a Imperial Star Destroyer which has maximum acceleration speed of 2300g able to catch up to Millennium Falcon which has an acceleration 3000g? Shouldn't Han Solo use the 3000g speed to outrun the star destroyers? so the only explanation is that Imperial Star destroyer uses tractor beam in order to keep up the Falcon.

You're forgetting relative velocities and the Falcons maneuvering. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking to join up

Hi,

Well, the best thing is for you to visit the Project's homepage and discuss/add content. I see you already are in the contributor entry Reply to David Latapie 09:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please withdraw the personal attack you made on me

You called me "authoritarian" on categories for deletion. This is a clear cut breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is also doubly innaccurate: one's views on the proper use of the categorisation system having nothing to do with authoritarianism, and I am a passionate supporter of democracy, far more passionate than the vast majority of people. Please withdraw the personal attack on the page where you made it. CalJW 11:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This user responded with more and worse abuse on my talk page. CalJW 18:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to write on my talk page, kindly address me, not some absent third party. What I put on your talk page was not abuse by any stretch of the imagination. Rogue 9 19:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

I just wanted to say hi, that I liked your "I found more userboxes to use" comment, and that I'd like to suggest one more: {{userbox:wiki-nazi-0}} (I'm not exactly sure why that's not working... It works on my userpage. *shrug*)

:) Robert Paveza 00:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

archiving

I noticed you posted a comment about archiving the userboxes to prevent against future rogue admins. Did you know this already exists? Wikipedia:Userboxes/Archive1 - by the way, this page is huge and could crash your browser.--God of War 00:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. There's not much that's going to crash this baby. I'll give it a shot. But as long as the page is on Wikipedia, it's within the reach of the admins. Rogue 9 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:UNacceptable.gif

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:UNacceptable.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Nick Boalch 11:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've changed the tag on the image to {{no license}} instead of {{no source}}; can you please retag it appropriately when you hear back from the copyright holder? --Nick Boalch ^?!? 11:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing other's signed comments

Hi. I suspect that this edit of yours was probably some kind of mistake. Please do be careful about changing other editor's signed comments! One can use the "Show preview" button at the bottom of the edit screen to make sure that your changes are the ones that you want to make. Thanks. Jkelly 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Happy editing. Jkelly 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

repeated vandalism by user not even using the template of Template:User Aspie

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Revert_warring_by_a_user_not_actually_using_template_in_question

I think this person may have something against people with AS or something, seems determined to impose his version of the template on everyone even though he doesn't use it --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with obsessive, but this whole "war" could have been stopped if both sides had talked on the template talk page first. Prodego ^talk 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's usually returning vandals, and this was just a misunderstanding. Prodego ^talk 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese nationalism

Check out Flag of Taiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).. Chinese guy trying to deny Taiwan their flag. Keeps removing the updated SVG flag from Taiwan independence too... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. *Grumbles about PRC sycophants.* Rogue 9 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK

I have to agree with your position on her, I added a post over at the Admin's noticeboard about it. I can't believe some of the users on here. --Winter 16:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Acclamator.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Acclamator.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. CLW 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarcastic comments

Please don't add sarcastic comments such as "The copyright status is obvious. Would it kill you to put in the right tag?" when re-uploading deleted images. As far as I'm concerned the copyright status was far from obvious without a tag. It could have been a screenshot. It could have been an image from a book. It could have been a computer-generated image that someone had created and copyrighted. Adding sarcastic comments only winds people up. Regards, CLW 13:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

UDUIW

I, Shell, Welcome you to join UDUIW. If you are interested, include yourself in our category and/or add our userbox. Thank you, Shell. (Shell 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for backing me up!

Thank you for backing me up on the vote stacking accusation. I appreciate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

Star Dreadnought isnt the correct designation. Star Destroyer is, Super star Destroyer is kindof a nickname. Executor Class Star Destroyer.

Incorrect. And sign your comments. Rogue 9 05:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Geoffrey Mandel

Heres the email minus my address and his address is in here too.

• from GeofMandel@aol.com*

"I never worked on Star Wars or for Lucasfilm...the star destroyer blueprints were a fan effort.

Best, Geoff

www.geoffreymandel.com"(70.16.226.247 12:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

If you actually knew anything you'd know his name. this blueprints have been around for 27 years. if you choose not to ask him and go with the incorrect info I'll know youre insincere. inside the worlds of star wars is wrong, books are not 100% acurate all the time. remember that.

Btw if you look up keeper of the holocron and executor class star destroyer you'll find that the site has that title exactly. There is no star dreadnaught, actually leeland chan has a spelling correction page that says Dreadnaught is with an A not an O. there is no star dreadnaught confirmation on that site at all. the article is wrong and can be proven wrong very easily. the only Dreadnought with an O is in star trek with the three nacelled federation ship USS Star Empire from the novels. (70.16.226.247 12:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

Actually here ya go heres the Executor class page [4]

And the Dreadnaught spelling page from Leeland Chan. [5]

Enjoy (70.16.226.247 12:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

Sorry Rogue 9 for stealing your talk page but it dose not mater if Geoffrey Mandel made the name up, Incredible Cross-Sections guide for Revenge of the Sith clearly states that the name was originally Imperator and changed later to imperial. If it was originally a fan creation all it means is that it now part of canon. It dose not matter where things start but were they end. --Elfwood 13:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, this IP belongs to a person from SB.com by the name of JamesXMan. Alyeska 17:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)