Talk: JSarek/Archive3

< User talk:JSarek

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! —Xwing328(Talk) 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)

  • 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)

Is the 'j' supposed to mean that this Sarek is a Jedi? Will (Talk - contribs) 02:24, 31 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. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 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)

Olabrian trichoids

Heh heh, didn't like my xenomorph comment eh? :) You might want to archive this page. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • [Redacted by administration] jSarek 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Understood. Back then I was just finding parallels. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User check?

Could you check to see if this user is legitimate or using somebody else's IP address? I don't even know if admins can do that. He's contributing strictly to QOTD, and now I'm getting to the point where some quotes have 10 votes with him, 9 without, so I need to decide quick. Enochf 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Alas, I can't; it's not a power granted to mere mortals, even adminly (or bureaucratish) mortals. If you think it's a concern, you can try raising the issue with the staff at Wikia. jSarek 08:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Zirtran's Anchor

Hey, thanks for the encouraging comments. KEJ 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I love SWAJ. It's some of the best EU material. I only own a couple of issues, and they're not that easy to get by in this backwater country I live in. Anyway, I've finished writing all the Zirtran articles I could think of. I'm sure there are a lot of things that can be done to improve them - like correcting typos and stuff. I still have a bunch of articles to write concerning the Belt Pirates though. I haven't updated the Kalai article either. KEJ 20:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the Belt pirates are taken care of. KEJ 20:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Time periods

Thanks for your help on my time period questions. I'm checking out the Sidereal Period now, (and interestingly, I now know that it overlaps with the Manderon Period), and I was wondering if your reference showed when the Sidereal Period ended. The article states that it was being used in some parts of the galaxy up until the Galactic Civil War, but I was wondering if there was some end to the period in some general/official sense for the Republic. Again, thanks! ~ Jaywin

  • You've been so helpful, I can't help myself but ask another question at Talk:Old Sith Wars#Timeline correct?. (It's almost like we've got an unofficial mini WookieeProject goin' here!) I just keep asking because a lot of these time period articles look like they could really use some development. Personally, I think the only decent period article is the Pre-Republic era. Maybe some kind of WookieeProject would be in order. Have a good one! ~ Jaywin
  • As always, thanks for your response. Much appreciated. I left a question about this issue at the Senate Hall just in case someone has a source or sources to clear this up...or at the very least, to come to a consensus of some kind. Again, thanks! ~ Jaywin

No longer a Hyperspace member?

Either you stopped being a memeber of the Hyperspace fanclub over at the official site, or someone has stolen your name. The latter seems unlikely, but the former makes no sense. Does membership cost any regular fees? Our article didn't answer the question, so I'm left to wonder.

Care to enlighten me? I sorta liked your Gilad Pellaeon(?) avatar. DarthMRN 21:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Celebration IV Montage

You're an admin, and I saw that you commented, so I thought I could ask you. If we want to be in the montage, who do we send the image to? Or do we just load it on our page? Jedipilot94 21:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving

Thanks for the heads-up, jSarek. I orignially tried to move it, but the page was already made, so I cpoy+pasted. I had a feeling I needed an admin's help, but, hey, I'm on the side known as "don't bother them, they're busy" thinking. Thanks again for the move fixes. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, honestly, I'm not sure whether or not this particular droid refers to the one droid or the series (of which only one was made, IIRC)... sort of like C-3PO or R2-D2 over 3PO-series protocol droid and R2-series astromech droid. If you feel like it should be changed back, I have no objections. Maybe I should have checked consensus? That may have been better in the long run. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 05:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Platt

Hi jSarek. As you may know, I've been researching Platt Okeefe, and I now have all the major sources involving her. However, what I'm still looking for are any relevant pieces of information on Okeefe that may be found in her various Smuggler's Logs or the Galaxywide NewsNets articles. Perhaps an example of what I'm looking for would be useful. One piece of info I found here on the Wookiee was Okeefe meeting the Dread Pirate, Mendel Cutter while she was a "waif". If you could help at all from your Adventure Journals, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Eyrezer 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Florn Lamproids

I've been footnoting the articles on my watchlist, and I noticed three facts in the Florn Lamproid article which are almost certainly in one of the sources listed: I just don't know which one. Since you're the only other active editor who's expanded that article, I don't suppose you can add the necessary footnotes? Thanks, —Silly Dan (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That was fast, thanks! As for the expanded telepathy thing, I'd have to read the story again more carefully to see if it can be extrapolated from there. Perhaps it should be left out. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Powah.

Damn. I was banking on using it to hold the whole site hostage until Burl Ives got on the main page. .... 00:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The CIV Table

Hey, just FYI - I volunteered to Xwing328 that I would set up a master schedule, so that we can keep the table manned at all times. Would you please head over to my Manning the CIV table page and let me know when you can volunteer? Thanks! --Bobvitas 13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerec's Vengeance

hi, thanks for your help on the page, but the user nebulax is keeping to edit the fanon stuff back in. (Well at least in mine and obviously your point of view its fanon). any idea what to do? Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Rayze

Hello Sarek this is Rayze.You banned me earlier becaus me being a user on this site was not in concordance with COPPA.Well just to let you know i turned thirteen on May 4th69.221.234.21 01:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Happy belated birthday. You're unblocked. jSarek 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Z-95

I thought Swiftsure's edit made more sense than the previous version. The sentence seems to be comparative, at first...leaving "tight" instead of "tighter" is confusing. --School of Thrawn 101 09:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I read it differently; it looked to me to be more like "Also, despite the later T-65 being more maneuverable and capable of even tighter turns than the Z-95, the Z-95's turns were still very tight." jSarek 09:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it depends...if the sentence is trying to say that the Z-95 out-performed the T-65 in turning, then "tighter" would be appropriate. I think that makes more sense, as claiming that it was still a fairly tighter turn wouldn't serve much pupose for a comparative. Besides, the sentence doesn't claim that the T-65 made a tighter turn, anyway. Mind if I revert you? --School of Thrawn 101 09:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Go ahead, though if it still looks as ambiguous to me tomorrow as it does right now, I'll probably have a go at rewording the whole thing. jSarek 10:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, despite the later T-65 being more maneuverable, the Z-95 was known to be able to perform a tighter turn. There you go, buddy. Get some sleep. --School of Thrawn 101 10:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wookieecast X

No doubt I'm rather late in this, but great work on your Picard interview. Awesome! I was very impressed. Greatly enjoyed it. --Eyrezer 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I just found this video today. You might enjoy it. It is a SW vs ST one. --Eyrezer 08:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pellaeon revert

Any particular reason my edit to the Pellaeon article was reverted? It merely showed the first time Pellaeon's first name was identified. Rather how we have the same sort of thing in Ghent article.--SOCLcomm 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, hell, I could have sworn I checked The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook, but apparently not. I don't recall him being called "Gilad" in any of the Thrawn Trilogy novels, though, but I suppose I shouldn't say anything else since I was wrong the first time.--SOCLcomm 23:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be interesting to track down a copy of The Last Command Sourcebook just to see if he's named as "Gilad" there. I'm not sure how much interest you take in the evolution of canon, but it's always interested me. For instance, how Coruscant went from just concept drawings to how we know it today, or how the Clone Wars went from a a vague allusion in Star Wars and some other vague allusions in The Dark Empire Sourcebook (I think...) to what it is today. You know what I mean? Like back in the day when the Clones were actually a pack of Mandalorians and such instead of pre-stormtrooper good guys? That sort of thing. Well, anyway...--SOCLcomm 03:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User template

If you're going to do it, do it right. Subst the bloody thing. {{SUBST:User}} -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No subst? --School of Thrawn 101 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No, no subst. Contrary to Mr. Culator's above opinion, it's better to be able to modify all the user templates at once if need be by simply editing the template. Furthermore, should MediaWiki ever fix the Wanted Pages code so that "user" is no longer needed, having it as a template instead of as subst'ed text will make it easier to find the pages that are in need of deletion. If anyone argues with you on the point, point them here and tell them an admin told you so, one with at least one other admin (Green tentacle) backing him up on it. jSarek 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chimaera rewrite

I very much appreciate the rewrite you put in concerning the mythological creatures for which the various Star Destroyers are named. There is a small problem, however; you mention that it is unknown how the creatures fit in with the Star Wars universe. I believe in Dark Apprentice, C-3PO mentions that the Manticore was an ancient creature devised from incorrectly assembled fossil remains. This happens when Threepio and Chewie take Jacen and Jaina to a holo-zoo on Coruscant, right before Jacen and Jaina get lost in the lower levels of Coruscant. Manticore, of course, played prominently in that particular novel as Daala planned to crash it into Coruscant—I'm sure you know the rest. In any event, in so far as the Manticore is concerned, we do know how it figures into the Star Wars universe.--SOCLcomm 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry I don't have the page numbers for it.--SOCLcomm 03:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

4000 edits

  • Congrats on making 4K John! -- Riffsyphon1024 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. :-) jSarek 02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pellaeon's age

Born in 57 BBY. Still operating as a career military officer in 40 ABY. That would make him 97 when he retires from Supreme Commander of the Galactic Alliance Defense Force? I mean, I understand retiring at age 87 at the end of the Yuuzhan Vong War, but he would be 97 at the time of Legacy of the Force: Betrayal. I realize Leland Chee gave this date, but doesn't this make him a bit...old? I'm curious about your thoughts.--SOCLcomm 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yikes. Not that I doubted the validility of your addition, but when I did the math, I was like, "What the f*ck?!" Just surprised, is all. Thanks for the info!--SOCLcomm 05:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Admin

Thanks jSarek :) Greyman(Paratus) 11:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Firebird

Most interesting. I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't know that, even though I'm a fan of Tinian. Thanks for sharing that with me! Ib'tuur jatne tuur ash'ad kyr'amur. Tracynsenaar 23:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding fanon pics

Thanks for your input. --School of Thrawn 101 06:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thingy

Hello there, I just read the whole 3 to 1 thing :p thats what ya get if your not reading the forums and stuff for a few weeks :p Either way fair enough, Now I just need to be able to make a usefull common edit... ( which will be a little tricky considering the fact that there are severall people who edit about 18 hours a day. ) Either way untill I found something usefull, I'm just gonna copy paste my edit code, and paste it into Word just in case the next G-move comes such as delete etc. Well once I made an edit or so I'll give you a note or I hope you'll see it as you have seen my minor edit on me page on the recent changes... haha. PS: ( and yes now this is pretty ironic but I didn't even get a warning... it's because I have blond hair huh :p Galedze(Connection Trough The Force) 13:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Alright fair enough :p I'll just edit something once my eyes take notice of something, and since the fact your reasons are oke and you can handle a bit of humor I can life with it :pGaledze(Connection Trough The Force) 15:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • oke just to let ya know I now have not counting this user talk edit... 20,4%... :p haha beating the 1 out of 5...so you know what that means :p haha I just can't stand locks or blocks as we refer to as protect, but oke just to let ya know.Galedze(Connection Trough The Force) 19:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Wedding

Thanks jSarek :) Greyman(Paratus) 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Signing

I now notice i'm supposed to sign my comments.......but i have no clue how.....enlighten me?

  • thanks a bunch man. now i get it. Also, like say for example you go to a page about a starship or something, and you see the blue box thing that's got the picture and all the info. going down in it, with all the stuff.....How the heck do they do that?!? i read the script for it, but i can't find how they fit that in......Also, on userpages, like those things on both sides, like languages you speak, and what about star was you support, and misc. stuff about wookieepedia that is relavent to you, how do you do that? I have basic editing down now that i read a little about it, but i'm still confused, mostly about the above two things.....sorry to throw all this your way......but if you could help that would be great. Thanks! Zinthematrix 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Cool, well how exactly will i know that it will be on the side and not right in the middle of the page? Is there any specific place the code needs to go in relavence to the other stuff to do that? Zinthematrix 03:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Ok well now that i know that they are programmed to automatically go over the the sides that takes care of that. One problem though, Do you put the codes at the beginning or the end of your page code box, or in the middle. Like what i mean is, do you type it out at the top, or the bottom, or inbetween everything so they line up? Ok i'm not making much sense here. Pretty much, where on your page do you type in the userboxes so that they go down strait. I know they automatically go to the side, but does it have to be in a certain place so that they are all touching each other in a strait row? Zinthematrix 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • If you want them to go down straight, you'll probably have to put them in some kind of template, rather than leaving them bare (leaving them bare puts them in horizontal rows); I personally don't know how to do that other than copying and pasting one that looks good to you. The template goes where you would want to see the actual table begin. So, for example, if you wanted the userboxes to start at the top of your page and go down from there, you'd put it at the top; if you wanted them to start in a new section halfway down your page, you'd put them halfway down the page, below the section header in question. jSarek 21:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, so do you know of any templates? Like where to find them? I'll start looking around anyway, i though i found one on another persons page, but i have no clue how they work, like all the userboxes are piped off the template...... Zinthematrix 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • As a non-expert on this, I'd just grab one off of someone else's userpage, delete the userboxes you feel don't apply to you, and add ones that do. Alternatively, you could ask advice from someone more knowledgeable on that front than I am. jSarek 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Cool, that sounds like a good idea. I think that is what i was planning to do. And since this considers Wookieepedia, I posted something in the Senate Hall that will hopefully pull up some more results. Thanks for helping me! Zinthematrix 21:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

XM-1 Nova Wing

What types of things should be edited on the Missile Boat page to make it FA worthy? I appreciate the support by the way--MIS Tau 1 22:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on the 'cratship, you deserve it :-)Maybe you can acquire some better ninjas with your new POWAH. --Azizlight 01:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anakin

Thanks for attending to that vandalism...for some ridiculously strange reason, I could not get version differences to load. I tried getting to it by like...three different ways, and my browser just died every time I got to that point. Anti-vandalism work is greatly hampered by the inability to view the differences between page versions. Bah, I say! --School of Thrawn 101 08:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

K'Kruhk

  • Hi, I really meant to address Havac's objections last weekend, but I'm very busy with the dreaded real life at the moment, and just haven't had the time for Wookieepedia that I would have liked. In fact, it seems that may continue for a few more weeks, so I was wondering if perhaps the best option isn't to hold off on FA K'Kruhk for now, move him to perhaps the lest stringent GA page, and come back and revisit him at a later date. Thoughts? I had a lot of other articles I meant to work on, but, as I said, I've been burning the candle at both ends lately. :| QuentinGeorge 09:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image sourcing

Hey, I noticed you joined the image WookieeProject. If you come across any images that are unsourced but are only used on user pages, tag them with {{User unsourced}}. It will remove them from the main category, while still leaving them unsourced. --Eyrezer 10:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Contributing

I noticed that there isn't very much stuff to do here (as in editing articles), and I was wondering if there is anything that I can do (beside editing my userpage)? I would love to contribute here, but I don't know what I can do here that hasn't already been done. LethalReflex 01:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Same here. Zinthematrix 03:56, 4 September 2007 (UT
    • Look here: Wookieepedia:Things to do. There's always more content to be added to articles, too; we may look complete, but our coverage still has substantial gaps in a number of areas. 67.161.172.162 07:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Message

Please don't shoot the messenger... but a certain blocked individual wanted someone to tell you (with "he" being you) "he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about." There seems to be a disagreement on the definition of "flounce." Anyway, said individual is in IRC if you would like to discuss it. Or whatever. :-) -- Ozzel 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Redemption

I didn't really interpret it that way, if it comes down to rules. "Flounce," particularly where Red used it, is a transitive verb. I believe he was referring to the actions of Livingston, and not Livingston himself. When asked what he meant, Red clarified in the direction I had suspected—and I think we all know that Red says what he means, no more, no less. As a (more or less) impartial party (Red has angered me many times previously), I would like to state that I don't exactly agree with the action taken against him. - Graestan 20px (This party's over) 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know if it's within my rights to do so, but I would like to request that Redemption not be banned for his comments towards me. Though he was insulting towards me, your words to me allowed me to see my own words from a more objective viewpoint, and I admit that they did come off sounding *whiny*. I think this voting thing has gotten people a bit bent out of shape, as many of us seem to have very strong feelings one way or another, and aren't controling them as well as we should be doing. So would it be too much to ask to revoke his weeks banning, and simply give him a warning? Livingston (The Force will be with you. Always.) 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Per your request, Livingston, as well as some doubts raised by Graestan, I have gone ahead and unblocked Redemption. jSarek 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

CCG

Sweet. In other news, have been let down by the Wookieepedia. I have just written an article and is has 10 redlinks. How incomplete we are! :) It's WEG stuff though, so many of the ones that are there, have been written by you. --Eyrezer 11:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Cool. :-) Which article? jSarek 12:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Gunman. I think I'll wait until I've done the redlinks before I post it to increase the impact! --Eyrezer 12:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, but of course. jSarek 12:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Conan Q&A in Insider

Hey, only just noticed it was you... nice work with that! Is it the first time you've had a letter published in Insider? --Azizlight 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Banning question

Hi, this is IthinkIwannaLeia. I had to logout to contact you because I have been banned by Sikon. (and I could not access IRC--portal was down).

Sikon has banned me for "Username." I have been unable to conntact him because he, himself, was banned for a year for "stupidness."

I can only assume that he banned be because he felt that "I think I wanna Leia" fell into the catagory of "obscenity." As this is a humorous pun on the phonetics of the princesses name, and only peripherally even aproaches the subject of sex, I don't believe this comes anywhere near being obscene. The most fitting definition of obscene in Webster's is, "containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage." I believe that that would inlcude Cursewords, graphic discriptions of sex or violence, and some topics concerning Kink. Not all sexual subject matter is obscene, and this little pun hardly has anything to do with sex at that.

I have used this username on theforce.net and several other forums for over 6 years now and have never gotten one complaint! Since, under current american law, obscenity is defined by the local community(usually by a jury of 12), I would like to appeal this banning. I think it is unfair that Sikon ban my username without getting other peoples opinions (especially since this isn't an obvious case and Sikon himself is banned!!!).

I request that you and at least a couple other big bosses (or regular users) put your opinion in. I will respect the majority opinion. I firmly believe that most users would not find my username offensive or obscene.


The procedure of appeal was not very detailed in the banning message, and I was locked out of most of the forms of communication on here, so If I am not speaking to the right person, I apologize.

I hope you can get rid of this ban for me. Until then I respectfully remain, --IthinkIwannaLeia (Dr. Justin Hand)

  • Sikon hasn't been banned; he himself keeps that template on his userpage for reasons beyond my understanding. I personally don't find your username offensive, but I'm also not one to butt into the decisionmaking of other administrators, a problem that has garnered some attention lately. I'm sure Sikon will respond to you shortly, in which case you can point to my opinion in your argument. As an aside, I'd strike the "furry porn" comment from your message on his talk page; while I don't know his *porn* proclivites per se, I happen to know that Sikon is proudly furry in other areas, and thus the comment might be construed as a personal attack. jSarek 01:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your quick response. I hope that Sikon will respond to me sooner or later. The banned template is very confusing. I wish he would remove it, but one problem at a time. I have removed the other comment and thank you for the suggestion, as it was not meant to be an attack. I hope I can resolve this with him. If I can't, I take it to the administrator forums right? (rhetorical unless incorrect). Thanks again for your help. ~~IthinkIwannaleia.

Thanks and can I get a favor?

My allergy meds are starting to hit me so I'm starting to pass out... sorry for the way this message may sound, i'm not very clear headed right now.

Thanks for the help. Oh, and I was using the CUSWE as a starter before changing the words... I hit "save page" too early..... anyways, over on the list that i do the most work on, i'm having trouble with some of the ranks....

chiefs bast and retwin, chief warrant officer, chief master sergeant, chief something else? any ideas?

officer evax: i can't come up with any good definitions of an officer right now, keeping in mind the existance of commisioned, warrant, and noncommisioned officers.

there's also a guy who was a fleet sergeant. do you have any idea what a fleet sergeant is and where in the chain-of-command it sits? i don't.

i'm gunna go to bed now.... thanks for putting up with this and me.

-icepirate

  • Alas, I don't think it's been established what their exact ranks are, or where the anomalous ones fit into the chain of command. Frankly, the Imperial rank structure is a bit of a disaster to try and figure out, with lots of curious and questionable references. Sorry I can't help more. Good luck with your allergies and your sleep. :-) jSarek 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rank_insignia_of_the_Galactic_Empire/old_version

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rank_insignia_of_the_Galactic_Empire

all 3 of these show different ranking systems for the Starfighter Corps. How do we clean it up for synchronized harmony? (been watching martial arts movies)

  • And now you see just how badly it's all messed up. What's more, there's substantial debate about whether there even IS a Starfighter Corps, in terms of a separate unit from Army and Navy. It's a mess, and I don't even know where to start with cleaning it up. jSarek 03:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Uulshos Justice droid

Eh... May I know why did you reverted my edits to this article: Uulshos Justice droid? Is there something in particular that you thought should not be there? Carlitos Moff 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Darn it, the revert button reverted everything you did, instead of what I wanted it to revert, which was just the masculine programming cat. THAT I reverted because we've seen in other kinds of droid both kinds of gendered programming in the same model. Thus, I didn't think it was appropriate to claim they ALL had masculine programming. The rest of the reversion was an accident, which I will now fix. jSarek 02:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, ok. That's a relief... I thought I might have been considered a vandal or something. By the way, I do agree with you on the "Gender" thing. I don't even know why I added it on the first place... It must have been a mistake. Thanks for restoring everything. Carlitos Moff 00:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Need help with resurrecting something from the Archives

You may or may not have noticed that I got into a discussion in Forum:I suck. I can't find a good S-canon tag over whether the Wook should tag S-canon information or not. I am not politically active out of principle, but that does not mean I wouldn't want such a change to take place. I simply won't involve myself in the political process for it. Starting it was not an attempt at lobbying or some covert attempt at policy change, but since it played out the way it did, I would like to have that thread open for the community to see, against the odd chance somebody agrees with me. However, Ozzel archived the thread, by his account for no reason other than because I said I was done. I was, and still am, but would like to have it returned to the Senate Hall to die an ordinary death where it can be seen by anyone interested. I have discussed this with Ozzel on his talk page, and while he sees no reason to undo his action, he would not oppose it if another Admin did. And since the Admin autonomy thing hasn't passed yet, I believe you can. Now, as you are one of the few Admins whose desicion I will respect almost unquestioningly, I'll let the issue drop if you ask me to. Your call. DarthMRN 18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Archiving IS the "ordinary death" that comes to threads that are finished. While Ozzel may have been a little quicker than usual to archive the thread, you did say you were through. Note that the archives ARE viewable by anyone interested; there's a link right next to the Senate Hall link in the forum headers. If someone wants to re-approach the issue, a new thread is easy enough to create. Anyway, if time permits (which is a big "if" right now - busy slice of life on my plate at the moment), I'll dig up some of Tasty's quotes for you that might help illuminate the substance of the debate itself a little better. jSarek 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you know how likely people are to view an archived thread, but very well. Also, no need to find any Tasty quotes for me, unless they come from somewhere else than the Holocron thread. I read them all, which is in fact where my argument comes from. I'll put this behind me now. DarthMRN 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

SW TCG 'non-canon removal'!???

Dude, all that stuff IS canon, taken from sources such as the movies, comics and books. Isn't that what canon is??? I spent about 3 hours trying to get FOTR article sweet, with a minimum of red links, and then i check it today and it's gone as is all the other stuff??? PLEASE explain —Unsigned comment by Manoof (talk • contribs)

  • The expansions are unofficial, as you quite clearly indicated. And unofficial stuff is, by definition, not canon, even if it may contain information from canon sources. jSarek 10:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I indicated that they are Canon. Official is not by definition Canon. And look at the Star Wars Customizable Card Game page, much of it talks of their CCG:Players Committee, which is comparative to the IDC. Yes I am a wiki n00b, but that doesn't mean it is incorrect. and don't go over there now and delete it all because I have pointed it out. If need be I will contact someone in higher authority, since I believe you are being unfair. WotC contains non-canon information (see Talk:Star Wars Trading Card Game), does that mean it should be taken down? By your thinking, yes it should. Also, some of what you removed was not editing by me and was there for a long,long time; so you obviously had no problem with it being there until i came along and tried to expand on it. Manoof 00:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Official is not sufficient for canon, but it *is* necessary for canon. Something that's not official is by definition not canonical. And, as you'll note, we have no articles on the Virtual Sets the SWCCG Players Committee released, and have deleted numerous articles related to the Players Committee in the past, including the Players Committee article itself. WotC may have made errors, but those errors are still part of an official product. As for what was removed, I only removed three links (here's my edit, if you don't believe me); any other edits were not by me, though claiming someone had no problem with what was there in the past assumes that they were aware of it; sometimes making an edit brings larger problems with an article to the attention of the community. jSarek 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting useless images

Hi, I was wondering if I did the right thing for images that should be deleted. They're listed on Wookieepedia:Images and media for deletion. I want them to be removed because they're very ugly and are useless, for they're only on an user page gallery. And I think it also violates the number of allowed images on the user page. Of course, I don't have anything against this user, it's just that these pics are ugly and Wookieepedia doesn't need them. So, just tell me what to do if I forgot something and tell me if these pics will be deleted one day, so that if would shorten a lot the "images for cleanup" page. Regards, Klow 13:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, adding them there and notifying an admin was the right course of action. Alas, I wasn't here to get your message until just now. ;-) It appears from Steininn and Acky's discussion that they've gotten Greyman involved in this particular affair. jSarek 13:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

Thanks, jSarek. -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 17:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the congratulations. And thanks for the vote and kind words! Graestan(This party's over) 04:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • IRC? --Eyrezer 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • According to our Side Trip page, the story makes mention of a "Cracian Thumper-back". May be of use in your article. --Eyrezer 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

YodaClaus-SWAJ8
Graestan would like to wish you a Merry Christmas!

I'd like to thank you all for the friendship, guidance, and support you've given me in the past year. Were it not for people like you, Wookieepedia would not be the success it has become. Keep up the good work! -- Graestan(Talk) 18:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)