User talk:JSarek

Archive 1

Slight concern
Just wondering if, as an Admin with a level head and some knowledge of the debate involved, you could take a look at VT-16's comments to me here. Maybe I'm paranoid, but being called an "internet stalker" makes me feel uneasy. I'd appreciate a more detached POV on the situation, if possible. Feel free to pass this over to another Admin if you want, though. And thanks. --McEwok 18:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

SSDs all over again
I was wondering if, as someone who doesn't share my POV, you'd be prepared to take a dekko at this and offer your thoughts, and perhaps some edits: Super-class_Star_Destroyer; the one thing I'll add is that I've been told Denning compares 8km Killik battleships to "Super-class Star Destroyers" in The Swarm War....

Thanks!! --McEwok 04:26, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I reorganized the article and clarified some of the stats from the Imperial Sourcebook; I really didn't have much to add, though you certainly want to get those that Dark Nest references included as soon as possible. jSarek 06:11, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
Enjoy your new and well-earned abilities! Now you just have to wait for WhiteBoy to get moving with his bureaucrat business, and you'll be ready to face the vandals. Congratulations! --Imp 01:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC) "Henceforth, you shall be known as Administrator jSarek"
 * Holy cow, is it time already? Wow, two weeks sure fly by when the real world soaks up your time.  Thanks for the congratulations. :-)
 * I'm on it, man! :D  WhiteBoy 06:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

- Darth Sidious --Azizlight 06:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Congrats, dude! StarNeptune 10:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not Darth Sarek? :P Congrats. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Given my area of expertise, surely it should be Grand Admiral jSarek. ;-) Anyway, thanks guys. Now I just need to learn how to put the white uniform to use. ;-)  Too bad this comes at a time when a lot of RL issues are probably going to reduce my Wookieeing time even more than usual, but at least I can be a force for Order while I'm not off exploring the Unknown Regions. jSarek 09:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

CCG
The weird thing about the CCG is, the card images are still on Decipher.com, but they deleted the sub-pages under the card list which display the images. Personally, I use archive.org to browse their whole site. Anyway, I just linked that card on One-Arm. &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. :-) I'll have to remember that they're there. jSarek 18:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Galaxywide NewsNets
It appears we're working on this simultaneously! I've thought about it a bit, and it makes sense to me to list the newsnets at the top of the article and link them there only (in other words, no need to link the newsnet names in the issue-by-issue breakdown part. Also, we don't italicize CNN, Fox News, and other news services, so I think we don't need to do so with these. And per the talk discussion, it's probably a good idea to copy the timestamp codes, as well. I had no idea they meant anything! What issues do you want to do? I've got all the Journals 3-15, but I'd be glad to divide them up with you. — SavageBob 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got 3-15, excluding 4; however, I've got to leave my computer for the rest of the evening in about twenty minutes (i.e. about 5:00 PST) to attend to other matters, so my time is probably best spent trying to clean up the comment I made on the talk page for the Encyclopedia. As for the italics, that gets a little tricky . . . looking over the "Annual NewsNets Summary" starting on page 243 of SWAJ#11, it seems that most NewsNets are unitalicized, but not all; e.g., Imperial Holovision and Galaxy News Service are unitalicized, but Imperial Defense Daily and Galactic Resorts ARE italicized.  Go figure. jSarek 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe IDD and GR are analogous to newspapers or magazines, whereas GNN is like CNN. In the real world, you italicize New York Times, but not Fox News. I think perhaps we should follow the italics in the articles themselves, as you implied. — SavageBob 01:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Logging Out
Hey JSarek, I was hoping you'd have some ideas of how to help me fix this annoying thing that is logging me out all the time. It may not look like it, but I'm Darth Cow. I got a new computer and it's constantly logging me off.

Just yesterday my dad and I looked hard for the setting of cookies. We fixed just about every problem on this compy except that. I use IE. I was thinking that it might be some stupid firewall or Norton or Mcafee or something, or, because I'm not an admin on my compy right now.

I just tried to change the settings and it wouldn't let me 'cause I'm not an admin. Gahhh!!

K. Thanks.

--Darth Cow

I'm on my compy as an admin and it's not logging me out! (My dad left himself logged out and I'm afraid to log him out.)

Darth Cow again
Hey, I was hoping I could get your thoughts about what Maaul's doing. He's creating archived talk pages, but then he just deletes the talk on his talk page and archives and adds "interesting facts" and "Cool pics" in his archives! I've tried to tell him it's for TALK, but he won't change them back. Please give your opinion on this matter.

Thanks,
 * I've commented on his page. jSarek 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think he should now respond.



I've been having this problem for years; I go to starwarsgalaxies.com, click on the installation link, and... It says it's installs but apparently it 's not. Here're the screenshots.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:StarWarsGalaxiesGlitch.PNG
 * I'm afraid I don't know enough to help you on this one. :-/ jSarek 21:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I figured this out too! While my dad was logged in and ran a scan, I downloaded it and it worked thenafter.

Sorry to keep bothering you.

http://www.hrwiki.org/skins/monobook/hr.png'''   --Darth  Cow--  Talk  undefined

Signature!!!
My sig has seriously been acting up. For a while. It was fine before, but when wikia (I guess) automatically added the SUBST: line on my nickname box, it's all messed up. Normally it just says

But it now says

Now when I sign it messes everything up!

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Pref..PNG

-There's a screenshot.
 * I'm afraid I'm not sure how to fix this problem; the technical aspects of Wookieepedia are not my strong point. You could ask someone who seems to be a bit more knowledgeable about coding, or you could make your sig less elaborate. jSarek 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been fixed now.

Yeeeah. So sorry to bother you again. Well, for a very very very long time Jack Nebulax and I have been arguing over whether or not Sev should have a spoiler warning on it. This page gives away the surprise ending for Republic Commando; there should be a warning. look Here. Thanks, http://uncyclopedia.org/images/1/15/Darth_Cow-Small.PNG''' --Darth Cow-- Talk undefined
 * Republic Commando came out a year ago, Darth Cow&mdash;hardly worth a spoiler warning. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Wookieepedia is a use-at-your-own-risk environment when it comes to spoilers.  jSarek 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested Images
Huntersquid 21:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea for a requested images section that you supported is now in the consensus track. Please come and show your support for it! http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:New_Section_for_the_Wiki_%28Wookiee%29

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd just like to thank you for finally banning that idiot. My revert button finger has never felt any better. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just wish I'd reloaded the Recent Changes page sooner . . . teach me to multitask! jSarek 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Thanks for the ban but I have to cogratulate Jack for doing a great job of reverting the pages over and over and over and over and over again. Well done. --Redemption 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The trick is to use a couple of browser windows at a time. That's how I managed to revert most of the page moves. And thank you, Redemption. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you definitely kicked but on those hardcore highspeed reversions. jSarek 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also... it would be good if you would browse the move log and delete all the "on Crumb" redirects. I can tag them with speedy, but it would probably be faster if you just did it :-) Thanks, RMF 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been trying, but there were a LOT of edits, and there are other things I'm trying to do as well (like repair ViP). This is going to have to be a joint effort, methinks. jSarek 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * *nods* Okay, I guess I'll tag 'em then. I'll also keep an eye on recent changes to make sure he doesn't come back. RMF 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking
Are we unblocking every IP block over three months old now? Because that sounds like a good idea to me. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Every infinite one. It was talked about, it seemed to have consensus, and so I decided to be bold and do it; if the vandals return on those IPs, we can stick them with another ban.  I think I'm going to stop where I am, though . . . my finger is getting tired. ;-) jSarek 22:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll take over then and get rid of some of the 10-year ones. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourceless
Please mark new sourceless articles with verify. - Sikon [ Talk ] 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

List of redlinks

 * Thanks for pointing out to me about the Special:Wanted Pages. I wasn't aware of them. I just went there and found 21,776 redlinks! What a mess! Maybe that should be an improvement drive sometime! Jaywin 02:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are a LOT of Wanted Pages. Sure, some of them are probably just misspelled or otherwise bad links to existing articles, but there are indeed a LOT of topics in need of articles just based on the Wanted Pages page alone. jSarek 03:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What rule says this and where?
I kept getting reverted and told not to change other users' comments, even though these comments were mixed with a dash of dark side flavor, directed towards me, and posted to my talk page. In what seemed like an attempt to make my blood boil with rage (and thus send me down the dark path), I was told not to remove these comments either.

If there are rules that dictate against this, where are they? I hope I can cope. Even though there is no emotion, there is peace, it can be easy to forget when someone gets on one's nerves. --68.102.193.78 10:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for stepping in and posting your explanations on my talk page. I appreciate it. --68.102.193.78 10:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless the comments contain profanity, it's considered bad form to delete comments from your talk page. (In addition, it's only your talk page in that it's purpose is to house messages to you - the ownership of it is not solely yours). QuentinGeorge 10:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * QuentinGeorge has pretty much said it. It's bad form to delete or modify other people's comments on talk pages, because it looks underhanded and could easily be abused.  Lord Hydronium's heated language was probably inappropriate, but deleting it or modifying it yourself is still wrong.  And, also as he pointed out, your talk page is for people to edit to talk to you (and for you to respond on, though many instead choose to respond on the talk page of the person who posted the message).  It's not meant to be your exclusive playground; that's what the userpage itself is nominally for. jSarek 10:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal from Traviss article
Why exactly was the link removed? It contained notable quotes from the author and the discussion itself. VT-16 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's more inflammatory than informative, and it's about an argument that is a very small part of who Traviss the Star Wars author is. If we can't be bothered to put up a proper biography of her, even a link to a balanced discussion of her role in the argument would unfairly weight that argument in her article. jSarek 11:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, then. VT-16 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be a small part of who she is an author, but I think it's a good example of who she is as a person. If Timothy Zahn or Troy Denning or Dan Wallace ever said "my gut reaction is that they all need garotting" or that they were "driven to the brink of ripping someone's trachea out of their pitifully unworthy neck," I'd want a quote or a link to a quote of that on their page too. But none of them would say such a thing, because they're not total raving lunatics. Why is it wrong to show people what kind of a person an author is? -- Darth Culator 12:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fear of some kind of retaliation? I seem to recall ugly things happening between LFL and fansites some years ago. Don't want this place shut down because of one angry author. If anything, some of those quotes could go into the bts for the GAR article, since that's partly the main problem here. VT-16 15:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Establishing a blocking policy
I have started a CT thread about creating a unified blocking policy here. As an admin, your input would be appreciated. Thanks, RMF 01:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sikon" moving articles.
I don't know how, but some vandal managed to make an identical user name of the real Sikon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sato

 * I'll try and rectify my page, sorry. Sato Stars 07:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wookieepedia email
Would you send me an email, please, so I can send you instructions for logging into your new Wookieepedia email account? whiteboy !at! wookieepedia !dot! com. Thanks! WhiteBoy 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this mean we've purchased wookieepedia.com now? -- Riffsyphon1024 05:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
I have notified several admins many months ago about a certain user's internet behaviour, even corresponded with one of the authors he's bothered for years, there is no slander involved. I've asked to have him banned from this site several times, but barring that, I just don't want him to put fanon ideas into articles. Which is why I'm hoping that someone is actually keeping an eye on him in the articles he contributes to. VT-16 10:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume that you're talking about me again, and yes, I believe that you are slandering me. Please tell me and the rest of us who these supposed authors are, or else retract your claims.
 * That said, I'm still prepared to believe this situation is entirely due to a misunderstanding, rather than anything worse or more malicious... not least because I don't understand what there is to argue about: there are places where canon is unclear, and there are the various fanon solutions that people have suggested in the absence of clear official retconning&mdash;and all these things should be recorded neutrally in this wiki, right? That said, I'm sure I'm wrong in some of my opinions, and I'd unhesitatingly acknowledging that some of what I've contributed could be rewritten and improved. I'm prepared to discuss every point on the basis of the evidence. I'm open to persuasion.... --McEwok 13:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Appearantly, individuals like Dan Wallace, Dr. Reynolds, R.A. Salvatore and Walter John Williams have had some less-than-pleasent encounters with your person. I'm not interested in entertaining you on this site (or any other, for that matter). VT-16 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very odd. I've never had any contact with David West Reynolds or R.A. Salvatore at all. I don't think I've ever had any contact with Walter John Williams either, though it's possible I may have made a brief post or two in his TF.N VIP thread back when he posted at the site. I took a TF.N discussion with Dan Wallace to PM once, arguing for a slightly eccentric calendar theory, but I don't think that amounts to anything more than a moment of eccentric fanboyish enthusiasm. Either you're pulling this rubbish out of thin air, or you're mistaking me for someone else, or you're being lied to. --McEwok 01:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the deal, from my perspective. So far, though his edits and talk page discussions have been extremely contentious, for the most part they've seemed to be the opposite of fanon - he's been contesting attempts to change what has been established in canonical sources by fan interpretation of other evidence.  While G-canon trumps C-canon nearly all the time, it isn't *our* place to presume to know with certainty when or how that happens, and McEwok's edits are a reminder of that.  Furthermore, he has always been cordial in those discussions, even when others have resorted to name calling.  Yes, he's stubborn, but he has also always demonstrated a readiness to compromise (or "agree to disagree") when his interpretations differ from others.  It doesn't help any that McEwok has a deconstructionist view of literature in general, and Star Wars in particular, which is at odds with the more strict interpretations most of us hold; but, given the essential malleability of the Star Wars canon, his perspective, realistically, is the more accurate one, though I find the fiction we hold about the reality of our fiction to be more fun.  As for stalking, I've never seen any evidence of it here or anyplace else McEwok/Policrat and I both frequent.  I don't discount that you may have heard something from someone, but ultimately it doesn't matter; barring it actually *occurring* here, it doesn't contribute anything to our discussions here.  Even if he's Hitler McStalin himself, unless he advocates The Final Stalagution on someone's talk page, his edits are as welcome as the next person's. jSarek 11:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * McEwok has never had any good arguments whatsoever. Most of his edits and dicussions here are nothing more than continuations of ideas he's had on discussion boards over several years, they've had next to nothing to do with any sort of canon, G or C. He's also infamous for using several different aliases and pretends to be a part of some form of post-modernist "collective" using the same handle. Either way, most of everything that comes from him is largely nonsensical. I really don't care about his views or ideology in these matters, they will be removed from the articles if irrelevant. If he (or anyone else, for that matter) can't handle some uncomfortable parts of G canon, that's just tough. VT-16 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take another look at some of the ideas he's had on those discussion boards. Some are indeed quite nonsensical, but the rest, though often wild flights of fancy, are often grounded in enough canon evidence that they can't be dismissed out of hand.  He loves to read against text, but he only does it when the text actually allows for it.  As for people not handling uncomfortable parts of G-canon, we've learned that, though critical, it's not the be-all and end-all of Star Wars, though it's not our place to decide when one interpretation trumps another. jSarek 09:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just think this trust is misplaced. He doesn't always limit himself to writing "where the text allows it", and that's what makes him a nuisance more than everything else. His so-called "cordial" behaviour is just a ruse, pretending to not really be interested in the debate by adding three or four smilies after each post, doesn't mean you're not obsessed with something. He's even gone back into year-old debates, trying to use the same arguments that didn't work before, over and over again for years. And as far as canon is concerned, I'm never going to back down when a lesser source contradicts the films. VT-16 12:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cane Adiss
CONGRATS man! Seriously, that must have been, what, one of your first entries? Man, you are good :-) --Azizlight 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Second entry. :-) Thanks, Aziz. :-) jSarek 02:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional congratulations here from me. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Yuvern

 * I recently made the Battle of Yuvern article based on your WTS contribution. Could you place it in the timeline?
 * I've placed it to the best of my knowledge; it has to be after Yavin, since that's roughly when Adiss first arrived on Tatooine, but before Hoth, since General Vernan, who is mentioned in the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook vignette, died before that battle. jSarek 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Weapon Categorization Revamp

 * Your vote is requested. Thanks. – Brynn Alastayr 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Board Game Canonocity
Firstly, greetings. I noticed you reverted jacks revert of my revert of the board game appearance. while i think it should be listed, i chose to let it go and let jack win on it. you may want to mention to him why you put it back up on his talk page.  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

IRC
Thanks for the help...that did work. I'm afraid I'm a bit ignorant as to how the whole thing works...but that link you send me does. Thanks. . .  .  .  23:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Saurin
p. 134 of Complete Locations calls Saurin "a subspecies of Trandoshans with humanlike hands"
 * Cool, I had missed that. jSarek 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mon Calamari Cruiser"

 * Could you take another look at the discussion on the Talk:Mon Calamari Cruiser page, and let us know what you think? Thanks! --McEwok 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Deny recognition
I have started a admin's noticeboard thread about changing some administrative details about blocked user's pages here. Please look over the thread and add your comments: there have been no votes against it so far, but I don't have enough input to assume consensus and start deleting things. Thanks, &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship
I'd like to nominate you for Requests for bureaucratship :-) Do you accept? --Azizlight 07:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else has nominated you. --Azizlight 21:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. Looks like it's time to dump or get off the pot.  Holy cow, has it been over a month since you first asked me?  Seems like a week at most . . . jSarek 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dankayo
You want to take over from Silly Dan at Talk:Dankayo, or recruit someone who can? I suspect he's trying to avoid the flames, and I've gone and given an insanely long reply again. --McEwok 15:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a pointer to the latest posts. --McEwok 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dankayo for keeping an eye on it: I've unlocked it and put in a compromise wording. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: A Guide to the Star Wars Universe
No, I was just about to explain why on the talk page. Somebody had already created a page for the first edition so we had two articles already. Bearing that in mind, and that the article which was supposed to cover all three was basically about the second edition (listing its contents but not the others), we could have either merged the first edition stuff into it or split it out into individual editions. I figured that having three massive contents lists in the one article (and you said it yourself, the contents changed a lot between editions) would be making the whole article huge and not very easy to follow. Therefore, at the risk of being unpopular, and since the first edition had already been done, I thought that splitting the other two was the best move.

Generally speaking though, I think you're right that having one article is best, with a list of changes between versions. If you want to go that way, we can merge everything back together, but since it basically all changed from the first to the second editions the list of changes would be very big. I think this works better as an exception (like The Essential Chronology and the New Essential Chronology, two editions of the same book which are basically complete rewrites. Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, if I haven't talked you round and you want to argue about it (which'd be fairly brief since I'm not particularly averse to merging again as long as we try to organise it a bit better), I've copied my rationale for splitting them onto the talk page so we can discuss it there. Green Tentacle (Talk) 11:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Its and apostraphes
Thanks, I was amazed, due to me studying English Language in High School, that I didn't ever pick that up. Well, as they say, you learn something every day. Darth Maddolis 08:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Late answer to an old question
Over on Talk:Star Wars Gamer, you asked about a preview issue. You may be thinking of the one that came with the Invasion of Theed adventure set. If you like, I can send you a totally copyright-unfriendly link to it next time you're on IRC (There Is No Cabal). -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 13:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Scrubber droid
You seem to be online based on recent changes and Yoshi626 keeps bumping this article for speedy. Being an admin, would you mind helping us out? Thanks Wildyoda 03:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * StarNeptune beat me to it. jSarek 03:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. I was about to post nevermind. :) Wildyoda 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
Do feel free to comment at Forum:Disabling creation of pages by anons and new users. Zainal 5:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nute Gunray.
jSarek, you protected it at the wrong time. I'm fine with Imp's change. Please unprotect it now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 01:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm on it, Jack. --Imp 01:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was a bit late on that. However, let me just say that *both* of you guys have been here long enough to know it's the 3RR, not the 13RR.  This should've come to the talk page long before the first warnings, let alone afterward. jSarek 02:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My edit to Expanded Universe
I was formerly known as 24.158.198.170, and I noticed you reverted my edit to Expanded Universe of keeping the grammar consistent and replaced all the Lucas' with Lucas's. I did some digging, and I found someone from October say that it was going to become an official rule. Now considering that you went and switched the spellings, could you give me a link? I'm not doubting you or anything, I'm just somewhat new to Wookieepedia, and I like to see things for myself.

And if you weren't planning something else, I'm thinking about changing the other s' to s's, such as Warwick Davis'. I've got a question, though. What about company names like West End Games or Marvel Comics?

As one more thing, I'd like to apologize for any trouble I may have caused you. 24.158.130.161 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember having that conversation, and the outcome, but I don't know if we put the final result up anywhere. Since our own Manual of Style points to Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the basics, we may decided it was unnecessary.  At any rate, no apologies are necessary, though if you like the place enough to be helping with style edits and commenting on user pages, do consider registering.  It gives you extra tools to work with, and means we get a name to associate with you instead of a rotating block of numbers.  jSarek 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Honor blade.jpg
Thank you very much! =) In all honesty, I don't know what oriental town that is in the background. If it is Hue (I don't know how to make the squiggly line over letters yet... workin' on it!) then you just blew me away by finding it. I googled 'old chinese city' to find it. Eh, I looked back at my history&mdash;it hasn't been cleaned out in forever&mdash;and it's actually this image of Bejing. I stylized it to look as if I made it in a graphics program (I cheat), then I enlarged, cropped, and faded it. The sword and scabbard is this image (I am giving away my secrets...). I love my Photoshop. Thank you so much for the compliment! -Solus 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I do whenever I have to write 'Padme.' Finally, a kindred spirit cheater! -Solus 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Conlanging
No problem, I have to admit I find made up languages interesting but it's not for me. Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Conlanging
...Wow. I've never heard of anything like that before. I'll take a look at them as soon as possible, they look cool. Thank you very much! -Solus 17:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just been reading the stuff and I find it extremely intriguing. Maybe it should be a not-so-secret vice? -Solus 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

note
well, its only partially tied to that issue, my friend. AIM me for more details;)JustinGann 02:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Link

 * Thanks. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 15:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Picard VFD
I believe that more than enough time has passed on this issue and the vote closed in favor of merge to InQuest Gamer 39. Savee? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh, nevermind, I'm not looking nearly hard enough at the correct sections of that VFD. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CIV Proposal

 * As you seem to be the ranking member of Wookieepedia attending Celebration IV, I'd like to ask you to review the proposal found here and send it in, along with the completed application file that Riff posted if we are going to have a table. I've updated the proposal (or will have, depending on when you get this), but the application needs filled out, etc. and sent in. Thanks. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, at least our application for free exhibit space and the proposal needs to be sent in. The proposal is done, and there's a link to e-mail LFL on their C4 site. As a last resort, I will send it Sunday evening myself, but I will also send them your contact info. TBH, this is not really a huge area of interest for me- I'm not going- I was just trying to help out the Wookiee. :-) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 15:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

McEwok vs. VT-16 again
You want to designate a referee here? --McEwok 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And we're still going round in circles. *sighs* This is a silly debate to have over one word in an infobox, but it's symptomatic of a wider disagreement. IMHO, the entire article needs rewritten and merged with MC80a and MC80 battleship, but I know the sort of fuss that that would provoke. --McEwok 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what to do here. You're both making good, polite, constructive arguments. jSarek 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that all of his arguments are based on his personal beliefs that a series of sourcebooks from the late 1980s/early 1990s are the end-all, be-all of knowledge about ship classification in SW and that nothing that has been written before or since can be accepted as adding to this. On the contrary, sources which present further classification at a later time in publishing perform the function of "retro-connecting". The Dorling Kindersley series is a prime example, as it connects West End Games inventions with inventions by other SW sources, published before and since. For some bizarre reason, this is a concept which paradoxally, a post-modernist" like McEwok seems unable to comprehend or accept. I have noted his trollish behaviour on the talk page, and will report any vandalism to articles that he makes in the future. VT-16 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * * smiles gently* My arguments are based on the following facts: 1.) the "sourcebook" terminology is the canonical "standard" system of ship classifications; and 2.) there's no evidence the MC80 isn't a "Star Cruiser" according to the alternative system implied in the DK books. There's nothing "post-modernist" about either of these points. --McEwok 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my point, for a person who used to point out this stance, you've been peculiarly conservative in regards to SW lore, only accepting one "standard system" when newer sources depicting the same fictional timeperiod(s) have several of them in simultanous use. How can you tell which one is more "standard" than the others? There's no indication of this, the only justification is a decades old book series whose only claim to authority is that it's been out in stores longer (approx. 11-9 years from WEG began their first books until DK released SW:ICS, for instance, and even before and after their publication, authors would not always follow those "standards" and relate their ships to them). There's a reason retcons exist, you know. I'm not claiming Calamari Star Cruisers aren't Star Cruisers in their own right. If this is about the word "downscaled", that can be cut out if it has to be. VT-16 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is about the word "downscaled", that can be cut out if it has to be. Thank you!! *grins* That was the issue at hand, if you can remember the start of the discussion. *wry* I know it was a while back...
 * How can you tell which one is more "standard" than the others? I'll take the one that's identified as a "standard" system in canon, especially when it's more clearly defined in canon, too. There's no dispute that there are other systems in use, but their precise parameters are less clear, and they're implicitly "non-standard".
 * for a person who used to point out this stance, you've been peculiarly conservative in regards to SW lore Canon is canon, and IMHO, we have to clearly respect where canon ends and speculation begins. The fact that I'm interested in doing this for the fictional Star Wars mythos in the first place could certainly be seen as postmodern, though... *winks* --McEwok 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * more clearly defined... ...implicitly "non-standard"
 * *rolls eyes* You should follow your own advice and stop speculating so much, especially since much of it ends up in the Bts sections and take up over half of the articles. Speculation should be kept to a minimum, as should second-guessing sources you haven't actually read. Anything I've written comes from sources I've actually read beforehand. Your constant dismissal, omission, and marginalization of certain sources in debates is what has infuriated me and others for these two years you've been here. It's obvious from most of your arguments that you haven't actually bothered to read the books you're referring to, which is why I consider you an arrogant and obnoxious liability to this encyclopedia. VT-16 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * VT, can you provide a proper reply to my post two days ago on the Talk:MC80 Star Cruiser page? The central points seem quite straightforward. If you have 1.) canon evidence that describes other warship-designation systems as "standard", or 2.) canon evidence that explicitly defines the categories within other systems, I would be very keen to know about it. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't actually exist (contrary to what you claim, I have read all the books except ItW/CL, though I don't own a copy of Saxton's ICS), but I'm happy to be proved wrong if it does exist. Thanks!
 * And, jSarek, I'm sorry about this taking up your talk page... --McEwok 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * canon evidence that describes other warship-designation systems as "standard"
 * Since the cruisers like the Dreadnaught-class are part of the Utapauns defense force of "downscaled" ships, this shows the "standard Imperial scale" is one of several standards, as it would be pointless to point out it being scaled down from another standard scale if this did not exist. I hope the admins aren't fooled by any of your arguments, as they do not follow any sort of logical principles. Your argumentation only serves the purpose of muddling texts and providing over-complicated counter-arguments against what are simple stated facts in official sources. This, coupled with a years-long vendetta against one specific author and the books he wrote for LFL, shows you as nothing more than a spiteful little shit. Your ridiculous arguments may gain you "points" on TFN, but they do not work here. This is not an ego-booster for self-inflated egos like yours, this is an encyclopedia. People care about articles, not who makes them.
 * canon evidence that explicitly defines the categories
 * Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy and Star Wars: Complete Locations both explicitly designate Super Star Destroyer as a term used to cover several ship-classes bigger than Star Destroyers, from Star Cruisers to Star Dreadnoughts (since you insist on having Calamari battleships in the Rebellion era smaller than ISDs, you obviously can't flip-flop and claim this refers to "Mon Calamari Star Cruisers", rather than Imperial Star Cruisers). Furthermore, Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections mentions two large ship classes, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts, making these terms older than "Super Star Destroyer", which was only used for slang, as per ITW:OT, SW:CL and the Starship Battles Preview 1 article on the Wizards of the Coast website. The "downscaled warships" used by the Utapauns include the Dreadnaught-class of heavy cruiser, thus making the system of the West End Games books one of at least two standards in place, since something can not be "downscaled" unless there's something to scale down from. I'll leave the verdict to the adminstrators, I've had enough of you and your lies. VT-16 08:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, though I appreciate you coming to me about the concerns, the actual debate should probably be kept on the article talk page. And if I see another user called a "spiteful little shit" anywhere, especially on MY USER TALK PAGE, I will beat the speaker with the ban stick so hard he'll wake up without Wookiee access for a year. I don't care how much you dislike the user or his methodology, be civil or don't be here.  jSarek 08:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as sticking to burden of proof rather than loose speculation is upheld, that is enough for me. Quite frankly, if every single article written on this site, got as much attention and second-guessing essays as the ship-related ones, nothing would ever get posted. It is ridiculous and I wish moderators and admins would read up on sources and end debates more quickly. VT-16 13:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * jSarek: I've taken my reply to VT-16 here. More than that, I probably don't need to say. --McEwok 14:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no evidence is forthcoming from McEwok and I have written an exhaustive amount of supporting quotes from official sources, I now accept his concession based upon seeing him lie and distort straightforward information, thereby ending my part in the debate. VT-16 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just in case it needs to be made explicit, I've made no such "concession". The disagreement is over the interpretation of the quotes already under discussion, most of which I had already quoted and discussed earlier on the talk page. See further here. *scurries quickly away out of jSarek's talk page again* --McEwok 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Action figure vote
JSarek - please view the discussion at Forum:Action figures - Revised and remove your vote/voting option. I'd revert it myself, except that you too are an admin. If you feel your option should be allowed, please state your case on the forum page. Thanks! 23:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No Disintegrations
Hi jSarek :-) Hey, I was just wondering if you have No Disintegrations. If yes, I'd like to know if it has illustrations of hydrobikes and/or Phyrstal Island. BIG thanks either way :-) --Azizlight 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, Jaymach checked it out and made some scans. Cheers! --Azizlight 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm late, I was out of town, buying new Star Wars sources among other things (oh, my aching wallet). I'm glad Jaymach was able to help you out. :-) jSarek 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you start out?
Was Memory Alpha where you created your account? It looks like it from your user name. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Is the 'j' supposed to mean that this Sarek is a Jedi? Will (Talk - contribs) 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. This was the first Wiki I ever edited, and the first I ever registered for.  However, I've been using this handle for almost 10 years now, and back in the day I was a much bigger Trek fan than Wars fan. jSarek 09:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's for my IRL first name, John. You can read more about the handle's origins here. jSarek 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon needing ban.
Please ban User:88.108.14.35 and delete his Minge article. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like Cull Tremayne already got 'im. jSarek 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Forum:Featured Article Reform Proposal
Is there anything we can do to get you to change your vote? Would you support this kind of group in any form? I just want to say that the group isn't going to have that much power, and the final say will still be up to the community as a whole. It serves more as a "quality buffer" so to speak. It will have little effect on users or the community but will help maintain the quality look of our site. I think that's needed. Cull Tremayne 01:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Socorro revert?
When I returned to Socorro to make Wikipedia links to the Behind the Scenes section I had added while logged out, I noticed with dismay that you had quickly and wordlessly removed it. Was there a specific reason for this? I think the fact that Socorro, New Mexico is adjacent to one of the world's largest and oldest nuclear test sites and the fact that Socorro is a desert planet whose name translates to "Scorched Earth" is more than coincidental, it's relevant. See for yourself. --Thetoastman 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Three vandalisations of one article in a row
McEwok has vandalized the cruiser article three times in a row now, by taking out a canonical piece of information with the flimsy excuse that it's "too close to the original source", which is complete nonsense. The only thing not allowed is direct quoting, which I did not do. I want to see these acts of vandalism dealt with. VT-16 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to realize that what you keep calling vandalism *isn't*. He's coming at articles from a very different position from you, but his edits all seem to be in good faith, whether you see them that way or not, and in many cases raise important points that need to be addressed, even if not in the particular way that he addresses them.  jSarek 11:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing actual official info and replacing it with something else is vandalism. There's no good faith involved, he just can't stand to see his old West End Games stats and info overruled. That's the problem. And I'm not going to compromise so he can put in fanon, that's just absurd. VT-16 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)