User talk:Jewbacca/Archive 2004

Note: This is an archive of posts in 2004. Please do not edit this page. Instead post new comments at my live talk page

Yitzchak ben-Zwi

Hi Jewbacca, congrats on your recent work (finally someone who looked at Yitzchak ben-Zwi!) You must have been an anon for a while before moving into your present username - your edits are too good for a newbie! :-)

PS You list a medical school on your userpage. You a doctor/medical student by any chance? We've got a WikiProject "Clinical medicine" here! JFW | T@lk 10:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! I'm still pretty new, only here a week or so, but I've definitely been lurking in Israel related pages, so those missing Israeli Presidents caught my eye to at least get started on. Not a med student, just an undergrad, but work for the med school IT group. Jewbacca 10:14, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hechsher

Well done on hechsher. There's also a case for moving the shechita-related stuff from the kashrut page to a seperate one, which will include stuff on cruelty in religious slaughter etc. JFW | T@lk 12:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, JFW. I haven't read through kashrut too thoroughly yet (just saw that nagging red link for heksher beckoning me). Does kashrut cover just food or how about other matters of kashrut like a Torah scroll, tefillin, etc? Jewbacca 12:22, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. There is no dagesh in the kaf of הכשר so I changed it to hechsher. Danny 11:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I suppose you're right about that. I just followed the null-link in the Kashrut article that had it spelled heksher (until you just fixed it). Thanks Jewbacca 11:22, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I'm rather new here. Is there a tool or easy way of generating the Hebrew unicode? I'm going to copy and paste that into the hechsher article now. --Jewbacca 11:23, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Zionism

I don't have any real problem with the wording as it now stands, but logically it doesn't make much sense to say that the principal objection to a binational state is that it would end the Jewish character of the state. Of course it would: that's what a binational state means. The sentence should really explain why opponents of a binational state think that would be a bad thing - presumably because it would put the Jewish population at a disadvantage. Adam 03:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I know many opponents of the binational state are concerned primarily that beyond being at a disadvantage, Israel would cease to exist, and would end up as another Muslim state in the Middle East. That would presumably (given the Jewish refugee problem seen throughout the MidEast) mean that Jews would eventually be expelled from the country. I can't think of the most elegant NPOV way of putting it, but I felt I could take some liberty in the wording given that I prefaced it with "opponents say..." Good point though about the "duh" nature of what I may have written. comments? Jewbacca 03:50, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

May I ask you to add to the Arthur Hertzberg article if you can? Thanks. - Sparky 06:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it is your view that opponents of a binational state oppose the idea because they believe that the Arab/Muslim majority that such a state would use that position to persecute the Jewish population and force them to emigrate, then that is what you should say. If others disagree they can say so. Adam 05:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hebrew language vs. "Canaanite languages"

Hi, please see:

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

Your interest and input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 10:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update: The above discussion was moved to Talk:Hebrew languages. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. IZAK 06:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ken Jennings

Sorry to get in the middle of your edit to that page. You'll see that I already updated the date and how many days he's won. I didn't see your previous edits until I had already clicked back to Recent Changes. Hope I run across your edits again; I LOVE your username. :-) Mike H 02:32, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Chewbacca

Joel, it took me forever to find out the pun in your username. A very oblique reference on your userpage would be immensely helpful. PS Would you be interested to join WikiProject "Judaism"? JFW | T@lk 20:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again, JFW. That's funny! I'm surprised it wasn't immediately obvious. It's my fraternity-bestowed nickname -- a not-so-clean-shaven Jew. Anyway, yes I'd be interested in WikiProject "Judaism", but I've never joined a WikiProject before, so how do I go about doing so? Jewbacca 21:06, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Follow the link to WikiProject "Judaism", see if you can find yourself agreeing with the general mood, and add your name at the bottom. In order to participate, it would help if you participated in the discussion on the talk page, or checked on the general state of things once in a while. It's all very new, and I'm trying to use my experience from the Clinical Medicine project to get this project up and running. So far, the debate has been open and constructive, and will hopefully lead to improved standards in articles pertaining to Judaism, which have previously been quite patchy. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zionism

Stop reverting the page. Discuss the issue on the talk page instead. My recent changes were hardly POV, and represented a valid attempt to reach a compromise on this issue. Your input would be appreciated. --Wclark 16:29, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Re: Tomorrow's featurd article

* (Does this belong here in objection or under Discuss?) -- I noticed you're using the British spelling of jewellery (American: jewelery) -- what is the practice we use here? Jewbacca 20:57, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC) (All hail the FAD!)

Wikipedia uses both American and British spelling. The manual of style goes into great details of the who/why/when of AE vs BE.

Current Events

Thank you for your help in English language on Current Events. My English ain't none to good. ;)

lol. Not sure if this is sarcasm or not. See you around wikipedia! Jewbacca 18:45, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Not sarcasm at all....my English aint that good and i figured i'd done give you nother example.

interesting differences between the APF and the NYT...18 years old vs 15. road side bomb vs qassam rocket. targeting israeli troops vs israeli towns.

Yea, I see that AFP always messes with the facts. In general if we link to the NYT we like to have another source (though there is surely something better we can put than AFP) since NYT requires registration. Jewbacca 18:51, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Agence France Presse...just like the Tour de France high ranking official that declares Lance Armstrong wont be riding in the Tour next year. "All the new we like to print" ;) (that was sarcasm! ;>) As some folks I know well would say....ing Frogs, were it not for us they'd still be german bed straw!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages. Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages Your input will be crucial.

McGreevey

Why do you think the power obtained by a successor because of an intentional delay in McGreevey's resignation is not relevant. The Times thinks it is. The Times also mentions the Jersey COnstitution in the same editorial. Did you read the editorial? -- Cecropia | Talk 21:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion for the reason for my revert. - UtherSRG 22:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did no racist attacks upon you, I merely wanted to add to the Zionism page peacefully without getting censored. Why must you cry racism when someone does something you do not like?

Occupied Palestine

You might be interested in the debate on this articles deletion: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine Jayjg 05:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

Poker edits

I noticed your edits to various poker players a few months ago. A few weeks ago I started writing about 40-50 new articles on poker players. Since establishing them I've started to go back and add more information as I do more in depth research. You may be interested in User:CryptoDerk/poker where I keep track of the articles, their progress, and miscellaneous information. CryptoDerk 00:08, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 09:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 03:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 09:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist categories

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion has two lists of categories related to terrorists up for deletion. Jayjg 20:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield

trying to get the NPOV marker removed by requesting specific examples of NPOV material. No presented by Alberuni. Keep an eye out there please. Lance6Wins 17:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your hard work keeping an eye on these pages. --Viriditas 21:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update

Please vote on Category:Advocacy. HistoryBuffEr created this category as a duplicate of Category:Activism, and fabricated a negative definition associating Advocacy with propaganda -- a definition that cannot be found in any dictionary. Then, he replaced Category:Activism with his new Category:Advocacy on Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Advocacy groups are already categorized under Activism so HistoryBuffEr's new category is essentially a duplicate, and contains a false definition. --Viriditas 10:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please vote on the title for Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. You can vote here.
Please keep an eye on Sabra and Shatila Massacre. HistoryBuffEr has already reverted the page three times in the last 24 hours. --Viriditas 10:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. HistoryBuffEr keeps reverting without discussion. --Viriditas 11:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Goldberg

FYI...Goldberg is most likely HistoryBuffEr. Compare the arbitration for personal attacks and sock puppetry. Also if you can comment on the arbitration itself, or in the Views by others section, that would be helpful. --Viriditas 23:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Yea, I figured as such. Either him or one of the others in his pocket. Almost as if s/he registered a name to appear Jewish for whatever motive. Jewbacca 23:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

It's also a reference to professional wrestler, Bill Goldberg. HistoryBuffEr appears to have created both accounts, User:Goldberg and User:BillGoldberg. --Viriditas 23:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definitely sockpuppets. Jayjg 00:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice censorship

Hello Jewbacca. I am writing to inform you that I have some issues with your edits to my contribution to the Condoleezza Rice article. Although you claim that I "poison the well with unneeded POV implications," I would argue that your ambiguous language leaves too much open for interpretation and lets Dr. Rice off the hook. Having a NPOV doesn't mean censoring controversial ideas. For example, you removed "criticized" from the line "Rice became the first National Security Advisor to campaign for her boss..." You make it sound like perhaps it is a good thing that She was out stumping for Bush instead of protecting the homeland. In addition, you removed another line I added that spelt out that there is a "controversial" link she perpetuates between Iraq and September 11th. The fact that this is even open for interpretation is beyond me. I believe my additions were in line with the NPOV policy and I have replaced them. It concludes with the actual quote so readers can pose their own stance. I am open to suggestions of maybe a better way to word my feelings on this topic. Please let me know. --Howrealisreal 02:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. I "make it sound like perhaps it is a good thing that she was out stumping for bush...". Well perhaps it is. By putting "criticized" you push the POV that it was a BAD thing. As I wrote it, it is not passing judgement one way or the other. Let it open to the reader's interpretation, not our's. That is the point of NPOV. And just because you don't think things are open to interpretation and should therefore include POV language, doesn't mean there aren't in fact several sides to the issue. Best to report JUST THE FACTS. Jewbacca 02:40, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Glad we could compromise. I just wanted to add that Rice's belief about the connection between Iraq and 9/11 is "hypothetical". I think this doesn't poison the well, but does signify that there is dissent to her views on this matter. I think this is important to indicate in order to accurately record the historical climate. Otherwise, I think people reading this from the future will not have the facts in context. Thanks for your time to explain your views to me. --Howrealisreal 14:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

George W Bush intro

Hi. I thought the Wikipedia guidelines always recommended talking about changes before reverting them, so I am a little disappointed that you reverted first before talking about it.

I would very much like to read the guidelines on biography introductions. Please could you reply with a link to this. Thanks very much, --Rebroad 19:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure the Supreme Court was involved in 1876? My recollection is that was handled by a congressional commission. Do you know the case name? Gazpacho 21:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gazpacho. Read U.S. presidential election, 1876. The commission was composed of 5 senators, 5 Representatives, and 5 justices of the Supreme Court. Jewbacca 00:49, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jewbacca. Ummm, how should I put this... "concise" implies "shorter", factual means containing only indisputably true statements and certainly not statements of thing that are chronologically impossible, and "neutral" means not using psychologically pursuasive words like "defeat". Nuetral does not mean excising genuine facts that do not sit well in your stomach. Kevin Baas | talk 18:41, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Terry. Here's some more kool-aid. Jewbacca 18:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

So I take it from your response that you don't actually care about wikipedia policy of neutrality and factuality? That would explain a lot. Kevin Baas | talk 18:56, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

You should take it that I think, with no offense intended, that you're deluding yourself to think that using a word like "defeat" when talking about a victor over his opponent in an election is "psychologically persuasive" and if I may extend your logic, POV. I know how dejected you are about Bush winning the election, but the sooner you accept it all the better. As one of the other users put it, you're "grasping at straws". Jewbacca 18:59, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

What you have just said is completely meaningless. You have not addressed anything that I have brought up. Kevin Baas | talk 19:02, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Jewbacca. It doesn't reflect favorably on you that you make changes to the intro without making any mention of them in your edit comments. At least have the courtesy to say what you have changed. You are not setting a good example to others otherwise. --Rebroad 12:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewbacca, why don't you want the category propaganda?

More hasbara? Hurts your feelings? --Alberuni 05:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The above has been moved by me here over from Talk:Hasbara, as it seemed a personal remark directed at you rather than real discussion attempt there. BACbKA 20:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Front page image alignment

Thanks for fixing that, it looks great. silsor 07:28, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Was my pleasure. Also nice to meet you! Jewbacca 07:34, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Stanford

Sorry for the delay. You're correct, I am a grad student at Stanford studying computer science. Gazpacho 11:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personal attack in Current events edit summary - an apology

I'd like to apologize for my personal attack on your edit over on Current events. In partial mitigation, I'd recently reverted anonymous deletions of the same item twice, and another by Jpkoester1, the last of which had been discussed on the talk page, and (I'd thought) a consensus reached. I was also put off a bit by your user name, as I haven't to my recollection crossed paths with you before and thus hadn't looked at your user pages or contributions; I have a very jewish name, which has caused people to make assumptions my whole life (though I've never practiced), and thus I'm a bit hair-triggered about perceived slights. I regret that I can't remove the wholly unjustified attack. --Korath ^会話 05:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please follow your own advice

Please stop mindlessly reverting Yasser Arafat, AIPAC, and List of ethnic slurs and then running to complain atWikipedia:Vandalism in progress. You and Jayjg do not own these pages any more than anyone else. Who do you think you are, Jewbacca? --Wiesenthaler 04:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Editing user pages

Please do not edit a user page in a way that the user may find offensive, even if they are an admitted sockpuppet. Wikipedia does not forbid the use of sockpuppets. Sockpuppets may not be used to cast multiple votes nor to evade policy, but there is no policy forbidding sockpuppets. Please leave all comments on the user's talk page. Editing a user page in a way that the user is likely to find offensive is considered vandalism. SWAdair | Talk 05:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Tagging_identified_sock_puppets. This would be appropriate, right? Jewbacca 05:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

You are not supposed to vandalize a User page unless you have proof by ArbCom or User's admission that he is a sockpuppet. You vandalized my page before I admitted to being a sockpuppet. Here is your vandalism at 03:50, 21 Dec 2004[1]. here is my admission at 04:54, 21 Dec 2004: [2]. Therefore you are a vandal. --Wiesenthaler 06:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dammit

You know that I'm now in the awkward position of having to work out whether I should block a person (yourself) for 24 hours? And you know that I don't want to? I'm going home to work out what the hell I'm going to do. Jewbacca, I have no actual proof he is a sock-puppet!!!!! Couldn't you have waited for me to respond? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Block me for what violation? I'm utterly confused. If you conclude I have violated a policy warranting a block, then that's what you need to do, block me. I don't want you to have anything unnecessary on your conscience as an admin. Jewbacca 07:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Dude, apologies. I checked extremely carefully before I did anything. You didn't violate the 3RR. Apologies. However, I should note that you're skating on thin ice. That's far too many reverts! Please be more careful in future over this. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipuppets

Jewbacca, the next time Goldberg et al shows up, please have admins refer to my Wikipuppet subpage. I think you will find this page useful. If you can help me expand it in any way, let me know. I'm planning on showing the relationships between each sock puppet in more detail when I have time. --Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Editorial policy to counter influence of POV warriors?

Hello Jewbacca. You seem to have a long track record of editing contentious articles in the company of contentious people, without blowing up over it. Impressive. Anyway, I wonder if you have any thoughts on whether editorial policy should be changed to discourage trolls and POV warriors. By editorial policy I mean stuff like, "Some articles are controlled by an editorial committee, which approves edits before they appear to the general public". That's just an example. You may reply at your leisure, by email if you wish. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 21:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What a great idea! For instance, only circumcision-certified Jews should be allowed to edit articles dealing with Israel and the Palestinians. That way we will avoid all this effort at protecting articles from edits that don't meet our Zionist standards. I can't believe this plan has not yet been officially formalized. Meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Oh well, at least we still have User:Jayjg to head up our very own censorship committee of Zionist Wikipedia POV warriors! Safety in numbers Moshe! Mazel Tov! --Wiesenthaler 03:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ding Dong! Stubborn mule at the door!

Been there, done that. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_slurs/Archive_of_previous_VFD --Wiesenthaler 08:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Following the various tos-and-fros on WP:VIP, I have made a request for arbitration. You are one of a handful of users in the "Various" request. Sockatume 21:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request withdrawn; turns out that the user accused of being a sockpuppet has been blocked, therefore resolving the issue. Sockatume 22:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You were included in the request because a suspected sockpuppet was making a big fuss on WP:VIP about being labelled as such. You'd called out a preceding suspected sockpuppet of the same user, therefore your input would've been valuable. User Talk: Sockatume|Talk 22:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Input needed

Hi Jewbacca: Please see Lost Ten Tribes Talk:Lost Ten Tribes as to how this article should be presented. This is how I recently found it: [3]. I then edited it to this: [4]. Another user then changed it to this: [5]. Finally, I edited it to this: [6] which is where it essentially stands, awaiting more input. Your suggestions would help, the topic is important. Thank you. IZAK 07:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

>>>

Thank you for leaving the comment on the main page, despite 'vandalism' trumpeted elsewhere, and changes of policy. That seemed a very decent thing to do, and I appreciate the sentiment. I think I disagree with most of your views (and it would seem that we're likely to meet again, in conflict), but in the future I will certainly follow your stated guidelines inre: your pages. Auto movil 21:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:User page: In general, avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission, but feel free to correct typos and other mistakes. However, some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Alternatively, if users ask you not to edit their user pages, it is probably best to respect their requests.

This is exactly my policy and Wikipedia's policy, which you violated by leaving your incitement on my page. I choose to showcase it there now for a constant reminder of the character of my fellow editors here. Jewbacca 21:50, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oh God, has someone done an offending thing? I'm actually starting to like you, and I'll just leave it at that. I admire your focus on things that are important to yourself, regardless of political implications or complexities. This doesn't mean I'll be nice to you the next time we come into conflict (I won't), but I can say that I think your project is admirable. One has to appreciate encomia from one's political adversaries, and this has been one from me. I'll kick your ass next time, etc., but if you get the chance, you give some too, to your adversaries -- make sure you stress that this is a collegial mindspace, despite differences. Oi! Auto movil 04:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please cease leaving threatening and harrassing comments to me or any other editor, such as User:Viriditas. This is a final warning before I file an arbitration request. Thank you. Jewbacca 05:00, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

File an arbitration request, Jewbacca, because nobody has threatened you or anyone else, and you're acting like a pussy-ass system-gamer, and nobody likes whiners such as that, and please quote me on every particular. I look forward to describing how disgusting this initiative is. Keep in close touch please. Auto movil 05:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I will post the requisite notice on your talk page once the arbitration is written up and filed. It will take me a couple of hours to put all the diffs together. Jewbacca 05:10, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I would recommend using an RfC or Mediation first. ArbCom rarely accepts cases without these measures first. Evidence gathered for an RfC can be used later in an Arbitration if necessary, and RfCs are quicker. Jayjg | (Talk) 05:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good, my friend. Why don't you sue me too? We'll have a good time with this. Auto movil 05:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

latest

Hey man, This 'dispute' would be easy to resolve if you and your boys would stop contacting me. See my response on the relevant page. It baffles me what you think you're battling against, but I think this is, at best, a Pyrrhic one. Why would you expose yourself in public with charges such as this?

Also please see the relevant guidelines for conflict resolution. Sending threats but refusing to communicate in an adult fashion is not what's specified. Auto movil 20:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not contacted you outside of Wikipedia pages. I have not asked anyone to contact you outside of Wikipedia either. If you have evidence to the contrary please post it in the RfC. Thank you. --Jewbacca 20:17, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

No, I'll post on your talk page first. Please review the guidelines for arbitration. Auto movil 20:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you have evidence of me or others sent by me contacting you outside of Wikipedia pages, please post it here as well as in the RfC for all to see. --Jewbacca 20:22, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Jewbacca, the RfC is liable to go badly for you. I will either discuss our supposed 'grievance' on your or my talk page, or I will put my lawyer-hat on and a big mess will happen in public. It's not my mess; it's yours. Auto movil 20:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you're giving me the option, as I read it, I would like to see this discussed fully at the RfC. Thank you. --Jewbacca 20:28, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines on arbitration. You have been asked nicely to resolve this conflict privately, and you have repeatedly refused. This is against Wikipedia policy, and I will ask one more time that this conflict be resolved privately. Auto movil 20:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)