Line 475: | Line 475: | ||
:I am not prepared to accept a limitation on where I choose to edit; I anticipate that if I agree to this, Alex is going to make wholesale edits in articles where i edit, and I've no recourse but to accept them. I didn't start this problem. And I am not cool with having my freedom to edit dictated by the guy stalking me. With an IBAN, I won't be able to edit on those pages I usually edit on, bc Alex edits there as well. Tell me I am misinterpreting the way it works. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian#top|talk]]) 09:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
:I am not prepared to accept a limitation on where I choose to edit; I anticipate that if I agree to this, Alex is going to make wholesale edits in articles where i edit, and I've no recourse but to accept them. I didn't start this problem. And I am not cool with having my freedom to edit dictated by the guy stalking me. With an IBAN, I won't be able to edit on those pages I usually edit on, bc Alex edits there as well. Tell me I am misinterpreting the way it works. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian#top|talk]]) 09:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
::Not where you choose to edit: who you choose to interact with. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
::Not where you choose to edit: who you choose to interact with. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::If you agree to the IBAN, I see no need to keep your user rights revoked. And IBANs do not stop you from editing the same pages, or even the same discussions, you just can never talk about them or interact with them and vice-versa. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a</font> ☕️]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 15:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:37, 19 December 2017
2010: 4.16 - 11.02 |
Legends listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Legends. Since you had some involvement with the Legends redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies.
Regarding my misinterpretation of your contribution on the Space Elevator talk page 2.5 years ago, my face is completely red. I had interpreted it then the same way as the other commenter. It would have been odd for an author to hype up his article like that, but I think that's why it lodged in my memory and led me to looking it up again. I can also see how the rebuking from the other contributor would have lodged into your own memory. Sorry to have pointed the finger at you so wrongly. Skyway (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for an elegant apology, Skyway. All is forgiven. I honestly wasn't aware of the other editor's rebuke, as I didn't follow the page and wasn't aware of it until you provided a link to the comment. Anyway, have a great day! :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Condescension vs. Constructivity
I find the tone of your comments on Captain Hook overtly condescending, and I ask you to try being more respectful. If you see a problem with an article, don't issue a vague "warning" from on high to that you're going to come in and fix things if somebody doesn't clean up their act. And don't tell other editors that we should be relieved that you didn't delete more. That isn't constructive and it certainly isn't "polite" (as you believe yourself to be), because it's pointlessly antagonistic. Wikipedia depends on civility, and frankly: you're not doing very well with that here. If you wish to make constructive criticism, try doing so by tagging specific things you think need improvement (citation needed, original research, etc). Or actually make the improvements that you think are needed, rather than berating other editors for not making them already. You are no one's supervisor or superior here; please stop acting like you are. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly, you missed the point. If you choose to revert things twice without discussing them, and without a solid basis for doing so, you are going to get trout-slapped. Yes, I am not going to stay polite and gentle if you refuse to get the point. You got civility in the edit summary. When you fail to heed it or get offended by the suggestion of doing the actual work, then you are essentially handing me the paddle to smack you with. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict."[1] You are being rude and disrespectful, and making thinly veiled personal attacks. The metaphors of physical violence are inappropriate. Please try to be less confrontational. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Copy/pasting blocks of policy text on my page doesn't help your cause, Jason. My comments and edit summaries were polite until you decided to go ahead and revert with the comment that the info you thought should be in the Lede was obvious.
- Which begs the question: aren't you getting the point? Is it because that, while recognizing that my points are correct, that you simply don't like the way they were made? If so, then II am sorry you felt your feelings were hurt by being told to fix the problem instead of reverting.
- Now, unless you plan on actually getting down to brass tacks (the actual problem), I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict."[1] You are being rude and disrespectful, and making thinly veiled personal attacks. The metaphors of physical violence are inappropriate. Please try to be less confrontational. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Bruce Wayne
I hope this will suffice, as I believe it sounds more encyclopedic than "other characters" and there is a page for List of Batman supporting characters. DarkKnight2149 14:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- The reason I find the phrase "Batman's supporting characters" to be correct is because Batman is the primary/titular character when it comes to the Batman franchise. That's why there is a page called List of Batman supporting characters and that's why the phrase "Batman's rogues gallery" is correct. And if you still disagree, how would you propose we re-word it? "Batman and other characters" just doesn't sound encyclopedic and "other characters" could mean anything. DarkKnight2149 14:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Darkknight2149. The reason why I find the phrase "Batman and other characters" is that Batman is in fact a character, and Gotham is an ensemble piece. If anything, it could be strongly argued that the show is arguably more about Jim Gordon's evolution than Bruce Wayne's. So we aren't talking about stories that rotate around Batman as the centerpiece. They are all characters. What they will possibly become is in the future, and we have to deal with the material we are given.
- The edit you are suggest would in fact be more appropriate were the Gotham series more like Smallville, wherein virtually every scene from every episode used Clark as the main character. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- What is your opinion on these possible alternatives?:
- Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the Batman franchise characters
- Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the Batman mythos
- Gotham, a 2014 series that acts as a prequel to the Batman mythos
- Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the DC Comics characters that appear in Gotham City
- Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the DC Comics characters that appear in Batman comic books
- Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the characters that appear in Batman comic books DarkKnight2149 22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I can see you have put some thought into this. Of them, the last would work for me. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago!
Come join us on Saturday, March 5th between 12PM - 5PM for the Art+Feminism 2016 edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago! We'll be focusing our efforts on women involved in the arts, and a list of articles for artists in Chicago and the U.S. Midwest has been compiled at the project page. The event is free, but only if you register at the project page ahead of time. I'll be there, and I hope to see you there too! I JethroBT (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
April 2016
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Natalie Portman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See the talk page. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Listen, you pretentious ass-hat: if you consider this edit to be "blanking page content or templates", you might want to consider how we do things here in Wikiedpia. First of all, you don't template the regulars. Secondly, you actually take the time to use the discussion page to hash out difference of opinions. Thirdly, you had best understand the terms that you are accusing people of violating. I will get over your behavioral faux-pas (aka, 'major fuck-up'); if you do it again, however, you will shed any assumption of good faith you will ever get from me. Consider that your last warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Jack Sebastian, I have refactored the template above so it is easier for you to parse and less likely to push your buttons. My apologies for the need to template you. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
20:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Jack Sebastian, I have refactored the template above so it is easier for you to parse and less likely to push your buttons. My apologies for the need to template you. Cheers!
Talkback
Message added 23:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sundayclose (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It's Bolter21
I will return to Wikipedia on the 21st of April after a vacation for Passover. I accept mentorship and to ceaes my work on the State of Palestine and other related topics. I decided to block myself becuase I really have other things to do and this whole topic really makes it difficult and this have harsh consiquences on my daily life. I have mentioned it already before it happened--User:Bolter21 22:43 (UTC+2), 15 April 2016 (not logged in).--User:Bolter21 22:43 (UTC+2), 15 April 2016 (not logged in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.220.222 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's part of the thing, Bolter21; you cannot let this become an all-or-nothing arrangement for you. There are absolute effing trolls rolling around Wikipedia, and 90% of them just think they are smarter than the average editor, and don't see their trollish behavior as such. I lose my cool with recalcitrant ass hats who think our policies are only ther for lesser folk; I still have trouble keeping my cool, and I've been here in one form or another since 2008! We are all works in progress, as my sister would say.
- I am not suggesting that you leave Wikipedia altogether, but instead to edit something you don't have deep feelings for, like a tv show from your childhood, or a town in a country where you have never been (but always wanted to visit). By not having any real need to edit an article except to simply do it for fun, you get freed up to see the process of editing. You get to see compromise and consensus get built up organically, and not via an external, nationalism pov. I can absolutely guarantee you that no one is changing their viewpoint of either Palestine or Israel based upon a Wikipedia article. So let go of the need to "win". Just have fun, and contribute something to the wiki because you want to, not because you feel you have to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Searched for a mentor, found two options, but now I don't know. Do I really need a mentor? I still belive what I had on the talk:State of Palestine was just a huge overreaction to a dispute. I withdrew from the debate on the article, which generally ended immidiatly after and my question is, why do I need a mentor? I now return to the starting point of the discussion, saying I did nothing wrong and my position on the debate was not based on POV but on over 45 sources I cited, which were saying a different thing than a consensus, reached by a democratic vote and horribly presented, with no sources at all (although later one miserable and highly dubious source was given, but WP:WEIGHT). I changed my focus to other things for now, continued my work on the Musmus article and made a stub for Rashid Hussein who was born in that village. Less politics, more things that interest me, and much more AGF than a POV Push. I am on Wikipedia for almost a year (actually, tommorow will be my first anniversery) and the last time I violated a law was in September, some six months ago. Insteed of "tempering my POV", I just became more indifferent to those topics after this huge discussion in the ANI and after the end of the heated week and a lovely vaccation in a nice place I just realised I don't care. Someone questioned the lead-section of the Palestinians article, that says they are an "ethnic group", something I personally disagree about, but I really didn't feel the need to argue about it or start a battleground on it. My temper went down and now I feel like saying "take it easy.. maaaan...". So.. why do I need a mentor? I am asking not as a matter of trying to avoid it, but as an honest question--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- A mentor acts like your better nature, telling you 'hey, do you really want to get worked up over this?' or as a knowledgeable friend or tutor: 'is this the best way to address this problem?' In short, the answer is yes, Bolter21, I think you do need a mentor. Your temper gets the best of you (as it does with everyone) and you have trouble de0escalating from the problem. You get upset at the comments of others and have trouble disengaging from the discussion pissing you off. The problem with your most recent issue was definitely the page but, at a deeper level, this is all about how you chose to walk through what you knew full well was going to be a minefield. A mentor can help you run through these problems before they become problems.
- I am glad your break gave you time to calm down. A mentor will help you learn how to calm down while still editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Searched for a mentor, found two options, but now I don't know. Do I really need a mentor? I still belive what I had on the talk:State of Palestine was just a huge overreaction to a dispute. I withdrew from the debate on the article, which generally ended immidiatly after and my question is, why do I need a mentor? I now return to the starting point of the discussion, saying I did nothing wrong and my position on the debate was not based on POV but on over 45 sources I cited, which were saying a different thing than a consensus, reached by a democratic vote and horribly presented, with no sources at all (although later one miserable and highly dubious source was given, but WP:WEIGHT). I changed my focus to other things for now, continued my work on the Musmus article and made a stub for Rashid Hussein who was born in that village. Less politics, more things that interest me, and much more AGF than a POV Push. I am on Wikipedia for almost a year (actually, tommorow will be my first anniversery) and the last time I violated a law was in September, some six months ago. Insteed of "tempering my POV", I just became more indifferent to those topics after this huge discussion in the ANI and after the end of the heated week and a lovely vaccation in a nice place I just realised I don't care. Someone questioned the lead-section of the Palestinians article, that says they are an "ethnic group", something I personally disagree about, but I really didn't feel the need to argue about it or start a battleground on it. My temper went down and now I feel like saying "take it easy.. maaaan...". So.. why do I need a mentor? I am asking not as a matter of trying to avoid it, but as an honest question--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Nolantron
The ever persistent nuisance, sock puppeteer Nolantron, now seems to be targeting you (in addition to the people he was already targeting, including myself). Nolantron now appears to be impersonating users as well. If you receive any strangely ominous messages or block notices, you may want to verify their authenticity before taking taking them seriously, especially if they appear to be from me or TJH2018 (who is a real user that was impersonated, not just a Nolantron alias). If you haven't already created doppelganger accounts or pages, that would be a wise decision. DarkKnight2149 23:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not too worried about it. Its just a kid with a self-inflated opinion of how powerful they are on the internet. And apparently, a preoccupation with male genitalia. Unless he's asking me to Homecoming Dance, I'm pretty much going to ignore the boy. - My time is better utilized elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Of Kings and Prophets
Here is the TVNZ on-demand page, as for including it as a ref, I have never seen any kind of ref in the airdate column. helmboy 00:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well Helmboy, it would appear to pass WP:V, but we need a cite for the episodes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Despite the fact that airdates don't need citations, I would suggest you save the current page on archive.org and added a blurb about how currently seven of the unaired ABC eps have aired on TVNZ on-demand. Also please show an article where eps have aired in another country that uses citations! Also I don't really care what you do with this as I prioritize updating other TV show sites that don't have ridiculously enforced citation requirements, which I believe I have already provided. helmboy 05:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- here are the only three saves on:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20160403043028/https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/of-kings-and-prophets
- https://web.archive.org/web/20160517055710/https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/of-kings-and-prophets
- https://web.archive.org/web/20160517060054/https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/of-kings-and-prophets/04-05-2016/series-1-episode-9
- Excellent work, Helmboy. You have removed any worry I would have had about their inclusion. Go ahead and add them as you will. Again, great work. :) -Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
hahahah
Thank you for your comment at WP:ANI I had not checked it because I was standing off. As it happens we have a lot about mackerel and various other types of sea fish so the trout was inappropriate in the sense that it is a freshwater fish but it amused me. I liked it. Sorry not to put it better but trogging through the "Neelix redirects" is a pain so I sometimes lose where I am at. We get there together as a collaborative project. You gave me a laugh so thank you for brightening my day. Back to the list,,,, only another 9000 to do. Si Trew (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know precisely what it was that I said that you are referring to, but you are welcome, Simon. Have a good day. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Axis: Bold as Love
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Axis: Bold as Love. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: A Blade of Grass (Penny Dreadful episode (June 21)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:A Blade of Grass (Penny Dreadful episode and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hello! Jack Sebastian,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
|
DC Animated Movie Universe continuity
I DID check the sources I added. Here are the relevent passages from the sources:
Batman: Bad Blood:
"Picking up where Son of Batman and Batman vs Robin left off"...
http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/dcuam/badblood/reviews/feature.php
Justice League vs Teen Titans:
..."an animated facsimile of DC’s “New 52″ continuity"
http://screenrant.com/justice-league-vs-teen-titans-blu-ray-release-date/
DJMcNiff (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
June 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sign language. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Battle of the Bastards shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Calibrador (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Self-Contemplation
You need to carefully review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and think long and hard about the fact that you are on very shaky ground with both, in addition to edit warring. TimothyJosephWood 20:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Timothyjosephwood, could you elaborate how I am violating CIVIL and NPA? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to dig through your comment history and debate with you about your behavior. I have provided the appropriate policies. Please abide by them. TimothyJosephWood 22:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I believe I have, which is why I asked you how I am supposed to have violated them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to dig through your comment history and debate with you about your behavior. I have provided the appropriate policies. Please abide by them. TimothyJosephWood 22:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring at Battle of the Bastards
You and the other party have both been warned for edit warring on this article, per this result of a complaint. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. If you revert again before getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Prometheus
I can understand where your logic here is coming from, but the thing about Prometheus in the comics is that it isn't just a single character, but rather a moniker shared by at least three characters. That's the reason I disagree with the Arrow character's exclusion from the article. DarkKnight2149 18:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Darkknight2149, that is very much the reason we shouldn't include it. We have no idea if any of the three versions is going to be used, or if - as often happens when tv writers cannot for some bizarre reason follow a comic book plot - an entirely new version is going to be used. Why not wait and see what future references say? On a personal note, if Arrow's actually up against Prometheus, he's toast. the bad guy essentially cooked the Justice League. All but Supes and Bats.
Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Phoenix Incident, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Black bear and Firefight. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Harmonic series (music)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harmonic series (music). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Christopher Riley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bajan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
September 2016
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Lists of Google Doodles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lists of Google Doodles. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
List of Arrow episodes revert
I think I need to clarify my position a bit. Like I said, I don't disagree with your argument. But, by that same token, I also don't mind that he's referred to as "Oliver". I just don't think it's that big a deal. It's been this way for years, as I said, and changing it that radically, at this point, is unnecessary and pointless. But, if you feel it's vital, and if others also sign on, then go for it.
Also, are you going to go after other shows in the Arrowverse: Flash, LOT, and now Supergirl? Really, what is the point? These are CW shows, which have a more soap-opery feel to them, so the use of first names doesn't feel out of place. And the usage is generally excepted, by me as well as practically all other readers and editors. Again: leave well enough alone here. I really don't believe it's worth your time, effort and energy over such an issue. But to coin a phrase, I could be wrong. Let others weigh in as well, and get a real consensus going. Ooznoz (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Ooznoz
- Respectfully, your flexibility would have seemed a lot more genuine had you not 6 minutes after posting here posted your intent to oppose any such changes, or even to self-revert. It's a shame; you made valid points, most of which I concede are good ideas, but your post to that other editor kinda deflated your cred. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please re-read what I wrote here. I was opposing your suggested changes, for the reasons I outlined. Here's what happened on my end: When I posted this, I posted it as well on the other Talk page. I saw that AlexTheWhovian was threatening you if you made any sweeping changes, and I told him that I was not going to self-revert just to let him know I was not going to compound the issue. Maybe I should have mentioned that I wasn't intending to self-revert (unless consensus won out) at the time, but mea culpa. I do try to show flexibility so I don't alienate anyone - I have no wish to get into a feud with other editors - and I appreciate your seeing that. But, I stand by my points, and everything else is what it is. Anyway, good luck with future edits. Ooznoz (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)OoznozOkay, a simple matter of misinterpretation, then. I have no intention of going against consensus. That said, if I think I'm getting more of a IDLI sort of reasoning, I'll create an RfC about it. Thus far, that seems to be an opinion offered only by Alex, but I expect that sort of obstructionism from him - he's jsut that way. Thanks again for writing to keep me appraised, and again for clearing up matters. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Mysterious disappearances
You may wish to beat sinebot and sign your latest contribution here. Britmax (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Britmax, I appreciate the heads up. Btw, excellent username! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
DTsma article
Hi Jack,
Did you mean to vote 1 content on the Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page? "1" means no content. Did you mean 2, 3, or 4 — "1 no content"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I self-reported at Consensus talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose an agreement
Except for the Portman article and talk page (which we seem to be hopelessly conflicted over), I propose that if we find a need to change each other's edits on any other article, or comment on any other talk page in a way that might be construed as a challenge to the other, we give each other a heads up first. That might avoid a misunderstanding. For example, Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously has been on my watchlist for a long time, and I considered making a comment there that would have been in agreement with some of your comments, but I didn't want to give even the appearance of seeking conflict with you. I realize the heads up may not completely avoid any conflict, but it may reduce the possibility. As for the Portman article, we are so far apart both in terms of article issues and bad blood that we'll just have to do the best we can there. I also don't want you to think that my suggestion in any way means that I won't pursue what I consider best for the Portman article, but if we can keep ourselves cool elsewhere on Wikipedia I hope that will make editing more enjoyable for both of us. There are no hard and fast rules to this suggestion, just an agreement to try to maintain peace at other articles. And of course either us could unwittingly violate this agreement (for example, if one of us changes an edit the other made months ago); but perhaps we could agree to discuss on our talk pages before jumping to that conclusion. I won't hold anything against you if you don't think this is a good idea, or even if you suspect an ulterior motive on my part; if that's the case we can just leave everything as it is now and hope for the best. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm willing to try this out. I think that, for the time being, we should ease into this editing at odds with the other one. We've both sufficiently explained out views in the Portman article. Unless a question is asked, or a gross mischaracterization is made, let's both let the RfC take its course without interruption. As for mysteriously, what were you thinking of contributing. Did you have a problem with my edits or discussion there? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- No problem with your discussion at mysteriously. I thought you were correct in response to another editor who wants to remove a number of items. If you make future comments there that I agree with, I'll make a comment if I feel the need. If I disagree, I'll discuss here first. Thanks for your willingness to try this agreement. As for Portman, I don't want to say or suggest much here because I don't want anything misconstrued one way or the other. I don't think it's any secret that I consider your latest RfC to be inappropriate, but I don't want to fan those flames here, so I prefer not to debate it. Regardless of whose right on that issue, I think we both feel so strongly about it that I'm not sure we could ever come to an agreement. Please don't consider this a threat, but I can't rule out any future RfCs there, but I think you already know that. Let's not argue about that at this point. Let's just see what happens. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
List of people who disappeared mysteriously
Hi Jack, the link I just added was to an edit I did not add, someone else did and if that person mysteriously disappeared then I believe it should be added to the list. Since I did not add the persons name, and just the link, please discuss that with them. As you stated your are polite, well so am I, and I am not mean to people or give them a hard time, unless they give me a reason to do so. I have been working hard to find citations then add to names. So thank you for not removing the names that are properly referenced and especially the Tiffany Sessions article since I was the one who created it. - :@Davidgoodheart: 23:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- No problem Davidgoodheart. The Sessions article is definitely worth including. In a way, its really creepy when you realize that each entry is a person who was interrupted while just doing their life, with a family that holds out hope that their missing child/spouse/parent will reappear someday, with an old bump on their head that made them forget everything. In all likelihood, all of them are dead, the victims of sinister deeds, and that's depressing. That's why I specifically nail the article down in accordance to its title, so it doesn't become a massive catch-all list. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Restored links
Hi, I have restored more name and added sources to them. About the user who remove Amelia, Why can his statement be used and what does " To sherlock something" mean? User:Davidgoodheart
- Davidgoodheart The term comes from Sherlock Holmes, and it means to deduce something that isn't explicit. In relation to this article, it would be like assuming a convicted drug dealer goes missing because, well, drug dealing is a dangerous business. It's always better to have a source that says that, so it isn't your deduction, but a reliable source's. And adding the source makes the entry in the article pretty rock solid. Let's hope that the next time the entry gets removed, it is because she has been found. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
My understanding and next question
I knew that the Sherlock in "what you Sherlock" came from Sherlock Homes, but I wan't exactly sure what it meant. So isn't what you mean it that he was make this claim with not definite proof? I notice some article on the List of people who disappeared mysteriously have List of people who disappeared mysteriously at the bottom of them, should they all have that in them? @Davidgoodheart: 03:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, its intended to remind editors not to use their own deductive reasoning when working on an article. In other words, we use references from reliable sources, not our own opinion. While logic would suggest that Amelia Earhart died when her plane went down in the Pacific, the great amount of references available don't know where she is, or if she even went down in the water. Therefore, because Wikipedia works on sources alone, we cannot guess what happened to Earhart. We use sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Amelia Earhart
In order to have her removed from the article you will have to have the phrase "as well as a few cases of people whose disappearances were notable and remained unexplained for a long time" removed from the introduction. Britmax (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I do not want Earhart removed from the article. Her disappearance is a mystery without resolution - unlike Lord Lucan, who is a fugitive from justice, and therefore, his disappearance is seen as an attempt to evade prosecution. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Just curious
I don't want to jump into the Lord Lucan issue, but I'm interested in your thoughts that might help me understand the rationale for excluding him. How is Lucan different from D. B. Cooper who is in the list? For both we have a good idea of why they disappeared (to escape justice). For both their eventual fates are a mystery. Do you think Cooper should remain on the list? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, good question, bc I had to ask around about he differences bwtween Lucan and Cooper's disappearance (I was of the opinion that Cooper should be removed as well). Both are fugitives from justice and both disappeared after committing their crime. I don't think there is a difference between the two. Both disappeared after committing a crime, and both had no desire to be found. They don't belong on the list because the operative litmus for inclusion is that they disappeared 'mysteriously' - ie. there was no reason for the vanished person to have done so. It was unexpected. Does that help? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's my thinking. I searched the archives for Cooper and only found a question about whether he should be included because that's not his real name. Cooper's story is more interesting in my opinion, so you may get even more resistance if you suggest removing him. Sundayclose (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Don't i know it! I came across this really interesting article that suggests that Cooper might have been a man named Richard Lepsy (as per this). There isn't an article for the guy, and I think it would be presumptive to add Lepsey to the article, as he is probably just a deadbeat dad or something. Thousands of people go missing all the time; this article seems to be cataloguing only the ones that develop sources. Lepsey has none. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's my thinking. I searched the archives for Cooper and only found a question about whether he should be included because that's not his real name. Cooper's story is more interesting in my opinion, so you may get even more resistance if you suggest removing him. Sundayclose (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Also curious
Hi Jack, I noticed that restored Amelia to the list as you claimed that it is not a "fact" that she fell in the ocean. Also you removed the 5 year old girl at the bottom of the 1989 list, but that might not be a fact either, since it isn't 100% for sure what happened, do you think we can re-add it? User:Davidgoodheart70.71.32.160 (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- David, you are going to have to offer the name of the 5-year old. And yes, we do not know the fate of Earhart; she could have landed somewhere on land. She could have been shot down by the Japanese Navy. She could have been abducted by aliens, and yes, she might have sunk to the bottom of the ocean. We do not know, which is why we can't Sherlock an ending. With most children, their disappearances are abductions. The fact that they are a child removes a lot of the mystery, as adults have more tools at their disposal (mental and physical) to defend against whatever forces array to make them disappear. Children have little in the way of such defenses. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Name of five year old
Hi, i was referring to Melissa Brannen, and I think she belongs on the list because Michael Dunahee is as well, and there is not mystery (Mostly likely, as there likely is no other explanation) that he was kidnapped, and it still is a mystery as it not "for sure" what happened. Can we re-add it? :@Davidgoodheart: (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'd argue against it, as there is a confession of murder. Just because we don't know what the confessed killer did to her remains doesn't constitute a mystery. You seem to be missing the primary working part of the qualification. Normally, people don't disappear. The fact that they went missing is the mystery. If someone is caught or confesses to having made them disappear, then the mystery is gone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Black Spider Edit
Hello! You removed my "DC Rebirth" section of the Black Spider page because I stated that the character was unidentified. I only meant that the character's real name is unidentified. We don't know if this is Needham, LaMonica, Coe, or a new man under the costume. However, the character is definitely identified as Black Spider in the comic (the words are overlaid on the character). Sorry if I did not get this across clearly, I am a rookie contributor! Thanks, Klayman55 (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Klayman55
- Klayman55, Hi. Don't worry about being new. The important thing is something you've already done. You've taken the time to talk about a point of possible contention, so good job thus far!
Okay, so I presume we're talking about this edit. I am behind on my comics, so the question is this: is he specifically identified as the Black Spider, or did you look at him and go, 'hey, that's the Black Spider'? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- He is specifically identifired as Black Spider. I thought I made that clear in my last post, but yes, he is labeled as Black Spider in the comic itself. 50.4.168.192 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Klayman55
- I am sorry - the text wasn't clear on that. I think you might want to consider rewriting it to not that the character is referred to in such and such comic. Btw, what comic and issue are you referring to? I'll look it up as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was referring to All-Star Batman issue #1, as I had cited in my edit before it was removed. I know my edit could have been worded better. For example, I had a grammar error and said that he "utilizes machine gun" instead of "utilizes a machine gun." So, please feel free to revise the paragraph for clarity or do whatever is necessary so that it meets Wikipedia's standards and may be included in the article. I was just trying to take note of his new appearance in DC Rebirth and point out that we don't know the real identity behind this iteration of the character. However, there is no question that this is Black Spider. 50.4.168.192 (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Thanks, Klayman55.
- I'm put of town currently and don't have access to the comic, but you are saying that he is identified by name by one of the characters in the comic (or by narration)? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, he is labeled with the name, the words "Black Spider" are printed under his character. The comic series does this for all of its villains, however, unlike the others, Black Spider's real name is not mentioned (just "Black Spider".) 50.4.168.192 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Klayman55
- They guy under the mask is unimportant. If the comic lists him, you're good to go. Sorry for misinterpreting your edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, he is labeled with the name, the words "Black Spider" are printed under his character. The comic series does this for all of its villains, however, unlike the others, Black Spider's real name is not mentioned (just "Black Spider".) 50.4.168.192 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Klayman55
- I'm put of town currently and don't have access to the comic, but you are saying that he is identified by name by one of the characters in the comic (or by narration)? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was referring to All-Star Batman issue #1, as I had cited in my edit before it was removed. I know my edit could have been worded better. For example, I had a grammar error and said that he "utilizes machine gun" instead of "utilizes a machine gun." So, please feel free to revise the paragraph for clarity or do whatever is necessary so that it meets Wikipedia's standards and may be included in the article. I was just trying to take note of his new appearance in DC Rebirth and point out that we don't know the real identity behind this iteration of the character. However, there is no question that this is Black Spider. 50.4.168.192 (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Thanks, Klayman55.
- I am sorry - the text wasn't clear on that. I think you might want to consider rewriting it to not that the character is referred to in such and such comic. Btw, what comic and issue are you referring to? I'll look it up as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- He is specifically identifired as Black Spider. I thought I made that clear in my last post, but yes, he is labeled as Black Spider in the comic itself. 50.4.168.192 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Klayman55
Your draft article, Draft:A Blade of Grass (Penny Dreadful episode
Hello, Jack Sebastian. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "A Blade of Grass (Penny Dreadful episode".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Chicago Meetup at Sulzer Regional Library!
Hey there! I'm hosting a meetup at the at the Sulzer Regional Library on Saturday March 25th from 12 PM to 4:30 PM. You're welcome to come and work together with other editors on articles or other contributions, get to know other editors around Chicago, and ask any questions you might about using or contributing to Wikipedia. Food will be available, and we'll likely go out for dinner afterwards as a group. If you're interested in joining us, please RSVP at the event page here! Thanks, I JethroBT drop me a line 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Articles for the List of people who disappeared mysteriously
Hi Jack, I have added a lot of people from the List of people who disappeared mysteriously to the Solved Cases part of the article, which is good to have on the list. Also when that wiki editor removed Amelia Earhart from the list I was upset, and I am glad you have re-added it, but he is a good editor as well because he has shown to me that he can change his mind. I have now created a 1984 section with three entries and added to the 1981 section as well plus articles that already existed, but weren't posted to the 1971, 1972, and 2002 list. Do you plan on writing any articles to add to the list? Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:RWBY
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RWBY. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thin Lizzy
Just checking what you're asking for on that article because you seem to be changing your mind as you go. You objected to "boasted" and placed a cn tag next to that word, so I changed the word and now you want a source to say that the likes of Gary Moore and Scott Gorham are critically acclaimed. There are far more contentious (but nonetheless accurate) claims in the lead but this is the one you're unhappy with? The fact that the songs mentioned were their most successful is detailed and sourced in the article (two of them were their highest-charting songs worldwide so it is really self-evident, although I accept that the case for "Jailbreak" being in the lead is less clear - happy to have that discussion with you and I did not choose those songs for the lead), but you are asking for more sources in the lead, is that correct? Quote from the MOS: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.". While you're at it, let's have everything listed here (or there) that you're going to want sources for so I can do it all at once, rather than drag this out indefinitely. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:U:Bretonbanquet There are a boatload of issues with that article and lede, which is sad bc I think the band was awesome sauce. I first drew attention to the 'boasted' usage, as it seemed like a cross between poetic license and an unsupported statement that the band claimed that their guitarists were the best. Then, when you substituted 'critically acclaimed' you clarified that it was not the band suggesting that their guitarists were aces, it was you (or another editor) doing so, which is pretty much a bozo no-no. There is no "universally evident" in Wikipedia terminology; all bold statements must be supported by a reliable reference making the claim. We can't be the ones making/assuming it.
- Following your note about using refs in the Lede when the same content is discussed further in the text of the article actually requires there to be references about those claims - or even those specific claims - to be made within the article. The Legacy section is a dumpster fire in dire need of reference work. Were I not dealing with a 7-month pregnant lady calling for celery every 15 minutes, or a lad needing homework assistance, I'd do it myself.
- The main gist is this: if it is a claim stating that something is anything other than ordinary, cite it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- It passed the Good Article assessment so suggesting there's a 'boatload' of issues is taking it too far. I did not substitute "critically acclaimed" if you look at that again – that has been there since February 2011 with no complaints until now (same as "boasted"); I just substituted "boasted" which appeared to be what you were complaining about. "Critically acclaimed" was not my phrase (I did not write the intro) but it simply means that they received acclaim from critics, which is really not a contentious thing to say. It's a slightly wet phrase but I don't think it's inaccurate or controversial in any way. If you want to suggest an alternative, please do, or it can be sourced. I just find it odd that you picked that particular phrase, while every other sentence in that paragraph is at least as contentious. I would like to avoid sourcing every sentence in the lead. The legacy section is something else I didn't write, but it mainly consists of namechecking bands that have recorded cover versions of Thin Lizzy songs. Again, not particularly contentious, but is your issue the content of the legacy section or just the fact that these covers are not sourced? With regard to your last point, I'd say that a band recording a cover of a song falls well outside "something other than ordinary", but I guess sources could be found. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- There might be a lot of contentious content elsewhere; the phrase I addressed is what jumped out at me. I am glad that you see others, and can address them. When someone says something is the best,or most famous, or a cult classic, i want to know if that is the editor's assessment, or an independent, reliable source saying that. With a source, i never have to ask that question, and we take a tiny little step away from all those nay-sayers who insist that Wikipedia is a vast collection of our crufty little opinions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- It passed the Good Article assessment so suggesting there's a 'boatload' of issues is taking it too far. I did not substitute "critically acclaimed" if you look at that again – that has been there since February 2011 with no complaints until now (same as "boasted"); I just substituted "boasted" which appeared to be what you were complaining about. "Critically acclaimed" was not my phrase (I did not write the intro) but it simply means that they received acclaim from critics, which is really not a contentious thing to say. It's a slightly wet phrase but I don't think it's inaccurate or controversial in any way. If you want to suggest an alternative, please do, or it can be sourced. I just find it odd that you picked that particular phrase, while every other sentence in that paragraph is at least as contentious. I would like to avoid sourcing every sentence in the lead. The legacy section is something else I didn't write, but it mainly consists of namechecking bands that have recorded cover versions of Thin Lizzy songs. Again, not particularly contentious, but is your issue the content of the legacy section or just the fact that these covers are not sourced? With regard to your last point, I'd say that a band recording a cover of a song falls well outside "something other than ordinary", but I guess sources could be found. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Unabomber
Not sure what you were trying to revert here, but it looks like the edit took a whole lot of other stuff with it, if you can reconcile the changes czar 03:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Westworld (TV series)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Westworld (TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your comment was moved up one section, to a discussion on how we should describe Bernard if we keep spoilers in the cast list (android or host). Wasn't it a response to the rfc on unexpected spoilers in general? If so, it should be moved up another section. PizzaMan (♨♨) 10:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Reply
That was unnecessary, you know exactly what I'm talking about MassiveYR ♠ 06:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Kaczynski's degrees
Jack, I noticed you added Ted K's degrees as a B.A. and M.A. Mathematics is in the sciences, and his degrees would accurately be a Bachelor's and Master's of Science. His undergraduate major was mathematical sciences, per the Atlantic article, not mathematics. I've made the appropriate changes, and checked Harvard and UMich to be sure they do in fact award BS and MS degrees in math, which they do. Just wanted to give you a heads up, given the minor kerfuffle about his title on the article talk page. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there. Thanks for the heads up; I appreciate it. Your changes are on fleek and I'm fine with it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- That makes things easier. BTW, did you read the Atlantic article on TJK? Fascinating. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I hadn't read it, and have to admit tha ti am not sure I want to. He wanted to make a political point, so he targeted innocent people who - to him - represented the things he hated. He didn't pursue titans of industry, not politicians. He targeted little guys just trying to make a living. He's scum. I don't want to grow to understand or accept his actions. He's like Ted Bundy or Ed Gein - they do what they want without regards as to the cost to others. My kids and the world they get deserve better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- That makes things easier. BTW, did you read the Atlantic article on TJK? Fascinating. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your edit summary. I have only changed that once. No one has reverted me multiple time. ~ GB fan 23:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Racism at The Gifted
What the hell are you talking about? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- You are way out of line with this racism thing. Throwing up unfounded racism accusations at every turn to try and win an argument is just disgusting. I could do the same to you based on the way you've misconstrued simple statements to be racist, have interestingly used the term "Asians", and are clearly an extremely aggressive person, but I have refrained from doing so because I actually do not know you or your background. And similarly, you don't really know or my background, so there have been some assumptions made there by you as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)`
Re: Your revert at United Federation of Planets
Sorry if I was too literal with my edit that changed the parameter from {{unreferenced section}} to {{refimprove}}. After being notified of your revert, I found out that the {{refimprove}} parameter is already used at the top of the article, rendering the replacement mistaken on my part. So if I'm guessing the point of your revert correctly, citing only three sources is essentially the same as citing no sources at all? -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Discussed on the editor's talk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I see you were harrassed by User:2605:8D...
I see you were harrassed by an anonymous IP contributor from the range starting at 2605:8D... [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].
Me too!
I started an SPI that lists 3 other 2605... IPs.
Do you remember whether you knew if that IP was associated with areal wiki-ID? My guy created CommotioCerebri not long after 2605 harrassed you.
I've contributed to some non-WMF wikis, including the Citizendium, when it was more active, that required all contributors to make their contributions from just one ID. The general level of civility was much higher there, and I think the prohibition against anonymous contributions was a strong contributing factor. Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't recall interacting with this user, but if I did, it was probably a fleeting incident with what I surmised was a KwK (Kid with Keyboard)a,d likely not deserving of anything more than a indef block. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The Gifted, again
What is this nonsense?!!!! You are deleting whole characters from the article now? You're not even trying to hide the fact that you are reverting me for no good reason now. I have reverted this ridiculous piece of disruptive behaviour, and I suggest you discuss any further actions before undoing my edit again. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97:The bold edit in adding it was removed because you can't add anything about a character, except that they're "mysterious"? Wtf? Why do you keep using the article as a dumping ground for fancruft and other useless, empty trivia? As per WP:BRD, I'll be removing it yet again. If you wish to argue for the statement's inclusion, you had best bring references beyond a marketing plot summary.
- And dude, it isn't about you. It isn't about me. Its about what is best for the article - as it always has been. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would be far more likely to believe that this isn't about you and me if I ever saw you make a sensible and justifiable edit, but unfortunately that is not the case. Adding a recurring character (with a reliable source) is not a bold edit. Not even close. It is also not fancruft or trivia. Again, not even close. You removed valid information from an article without a good reason. That is vandalism and disruptive editing if I ever saw it, and is exactly in line with your behaviour all over Wikipedia. I would revert you again, but I don't want to get into yet another edit war. I suggest you restore the information or give a valid reason for its removal, and be aware that I am very close to reporting you to administrators, because you are frankly out of control. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, a comment like the following: "if I ever saw you make a sensible and justifiable edit, but unfortunately that is not the case" is pretty sure to dismantle any chance you are ever going to have to resolve things nicely. I wish you could get that through what is clearly a very stubborn and thick head. I don't care about being nice to you, sinc eyou have repeatedly chosen to edit-war your fanboy crushes and your own-y attitude of what you think the article should look like. I have no such pretense. I am there to make the article better. You are so driven to throw every bit of shit at the wall to see what sticks that you fail to realize that almost none of it will, and it slows down the entire process of improving the article. We don't add our own, personal interpretation of sources. We don't add empty sources, hoping that no one will notice that they're empty. We don't edit-war instead of discussing. We recognize the value of BRD.
- I am sorry that you get pissed off that I revert some of your edits, but I have also applauded good edits that you have made. Publicly. When you fuck up, I call you on it, and I am not going to hold your hand or offer you a lollipop when I do so. Focus your attention on what about your edit I am taking issue with instead of the fact that I am taking issue with your edit.
- Lastly - and if you want to consider this, lets do it on the article discussion page, since this isn't about you or I - if you cannot see the problem of adding a one-off character, interpreting them as recurring and adding as a description that they are a "mysterious" person, perhaps you should edit other articles, where references are more complete, and less open to interpretation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- It is entirely reasonable to interpret this as a recurring role, because the source explicitly says so. You can dispute the character description, but she shouldn't have been removed entirely. Reach Out to the Truth 01:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Each Out to the Truth: As I stated, this conversation belongs largely on the article discussion page, simply because this isn't a personality issue (as Adamstom.97 incorrectly assumed); its an editing issue. In point of fact, neither source lists her as a recurring source, and indeed, seem to contradict each other on this point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would be far more likely to believe that this isn't about you and me if I ever saw you make a sensible and justifiable edit, but unfortunately that is not the case. Adding a recurring character (with a reliable source) is not a bold edit. Not even close. It is also not fancruft or trivia. Again, not even close. You removed valid information from an article without a good reason. That is vandalism and disruptive editing if I ever saw it, and is exactly in line with your behaviour all over Wikipedia. I would revert you again, but I don't want to get into yet another edit war. I suggest you restore the information or give a valid reason for its removal, and be aware that I am very close to reporting you to administrators, because you are frankly out of control. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think my biggest problem with you, other than the uncivil way that you approach the rest of the community, is that you just don't make sense. I have had many disagreements with other editors over the years, and I have always at least understood their position even if I disagreed with it, but with you that is just not the case. This is a prime example: a very reliable site released an article stating that an actress had been cast in a recurring role for the series. I obviously added that information. When I saw that the edit had been reverted, I assumed that I had done something wrong in my edit, perhaps managing to cite the wrong article or something, but no, it was because you don't think we should note recurring characters. Seriously, this is just laughable. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Adamstom.97: I - and I am going to be blunt here - do not give an airborne rodent's behind whether you dislike what you perceive as my uncivil approach to the community. I have no problem dispensing with good faith when I get reverted twice or more without discussion; when approached nicely, people get nice. When you act like a dick, you are going to get treated like a dick.
- You stated "you don't think we should note recurring characters", which crystallizes your issue. At no point have I ever said or intimated that we shouldn't have recurring characters. I don't think we should add characters without reason. AND I HAVE SAID THIS. That you run with an incorrect assertion and get all pissed and personally offended by it is more your mental malfunction than an observation of truth. The point is, we do not know the point of the character yet - the source doesn't tell us what that is, apart from being a telepath. Her appearance isn't noted by EITHER source as being mysterious in any way - that is YOUR interpretation of her value. We cannot use your interpretation, Adamstom. You need to learn this, or you are going to get trout-slapped at every fucking turn. I have tried beign reasonable with you, and that doesn't work so, until you can learn that you don't have every answer, you are not going to get the full measure of AGF you feel you might deserve. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reach is correct in noting that my "interpretation" is exactly what the source says, as I have laid out for you over at the other talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- He actually isn't, and you should focus on our conversation. Sinc eyou seem to have made up your mind about my contributions to the Wiki-En, I think we're done here. The content issues can be resolved at the article discussion. If you feel there are other personality conflict issues to resolve, then by all means let's discuss them again. I do hope they improve, but I don't see that happening until you learn to remove your interpretations from sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Salvator Mundi (Leonardo)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Salvator Mundi (Leonardo). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Re:
Yeah, you gotta watch out when working on articles related to the "Marvel Cinematic Universe". There are exactly three users who will auto-revert any edit they don't agree with, and refuse to engage in constructive discussion on the talk page (normally tag-teaming with each other to create an illusion of "consensus"). But in the last few days (it might be longer -- I came back to these articles after a break because following my pay-day this month I caught up on my Blu-Ray collection, and the Infinity War trailer premiered) things have apparently ramped up for some.
Any insinuation that the TV shows are not "sharing continuity" but rather "deriving continuity" as a result of Marvel Television having been exiled in 2014 will immediately be shot down, and any claim that an article contains OR will be rejected.
One of the worst is when they use the articles' GA status to justify reverting any edit, even those that have nothing to do with anything addressed in the original GA review.
Honestly, I have no idea why the editors responsible have manage to evade blocks for all the edit-warring and personal attacks, or TBANs for all the disruptive content edits. Something will have to change fairly soon, though, now that one of the big three has started hurling mud with absolutely no provocation and given up all pretense of focusing on content. (See also here, which was at least half related to article content.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Responded to this on the user's talk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:BRD
Have you never followed WP:BRD? You make an edit, and if it gets reverted, then you start a discussion? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Responded on the user's usertalk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Summation: The user in question is an experienced and usually very good editor, but got himself reported for edit-warring, and exacerbated the problem by canvassing for defenders in a Wikiproject. He dodged a block, which I didn't really want him to get anyway. He's put the matter behind him, so I will, too. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to say, editors can remove almost what they like from their own talk page; the few exceptions to that that exist do not cover your reversal.Just FYI. Not admin speak. Take care! Serial Number54129...speculates 22:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am aware of that. I was trying to reinforce the suggestion that the user adapt their behavior before it becomes problematic enough to warrant further action. I presumed the additional information would be reverted as well. If it became necessary to take further action, his reaction to the comment (ie, reverting with more snarky commentary) is just as useful as an indicator of probkematic behavior.
- Don't worry; I'm not planning on going back to his page unless necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's probably a very good idea. Take care! Serial Number54129...speculates 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Only Connect
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Only Connect. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
December 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Gifted (TV series). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Coffee:I guess the first thing is - we don't template the regulars. I know what Edit-warring is, and I am not engaging in it. Perhaps another user has made an interesting (and clearly one-sided) argument for such, and I'll address that. If you respond, we'll discuss that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Contrary to popular belief, WP:DTTR is not a policy. WP:EW is. You were clearly edit-warring, and denying it does not change clear evidence. Beyond that, you literally began to hound Alex. My actions are entirely founded in policy; your harassment of this user was unacceptable and simply unbecoming of someone with the experience you have here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Coffee:Again, a novel interpretation. Allow me to present you with another one. I myself had been wikistalked by Alex, who doesn't interact with me except to revert my edits. Time and time and time again, over and over. The User Interaction Tool indicates that, over the course of almost 7 years, Alex and I have edited - usually in opposition to one another - hundreds of times. And, as the tool indicates, Alex showed up after I did.
- Now, someone with AGF could suggest that we just have some of the same interests, and only someone who had given up on the Assumption of Good Faith would suggest that Alex was hounding my edits. After all, it could be simple coincidence that Alex has served to revet me is at least two discussions that would merit discussion, and yet not engage in any discussion whatsoever. He might be busy saving busloads of nuns from potential calamity. Maybe he is just so enthralled with my edits that he notices them - like a batsignal, shining out amongst the millions of edits made in Wikipedia.
- But probably not. Alex has been stalking my edits for years. I tolerate it because the level of dickishness involved doesn't get under my skin, or he's just so wrong that somene else trout slaps him and his revert sniping.
- So, after Alex stepped up his revert game, I decided that his edits needed a bit o oversight as well. What's good for the goose, and all that. And I found at least 6 mistakes through the most shallow of searches. Is that edit-warring? If so, perhaps you might want to also look into Alex' and Brojam's hounding of my edits as well. I mean, if you are interested in actually playing fair. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Contrary to popular belief, WP:DTTR is not a policy. WP:EW is. You were clearly edit-warring, and denying it does not change clear evidence. Beyond that, you literally began to hound Alex. My actions are entirely founded in policy; your harassment of this user was unacceptable and simply unbecoming of someone with the experience you have here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- This appears to show a pattern of such behavior. You're lucky I'm not blocking you currently... I cannot speak for the community's decision, however. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, what about that link did you think wasa a blockable offense? I think perhaps you are arriving at the wrong assumptions here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- "So, after Alex stepped up his revert game, I decided that his edits needed a bit o oversight as well. What's good for the goose, and all that." - You've literally made my point for me. I doubt many admins will find it hard to see the complete justification at this point. If you wish to regain rollback or pending-changes you may request at WP:PERM in 6 months time. If you wish to obtain an IBAN between yourself and Alex, I suggest you do so via ArbCom or the current thread at ANI. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- This appears to show a pattern of such behavior. You're lucky I'm not blocking you currently... I cannot speak for the community's decision, however. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Incidents noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- AlexTW 13:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
User rights revocation
Due to your recent actions, which I had noticed as being out of order before they were fully reported at ANI (I hadn't made the hounding connection), I have removed all of the rights associated with this account. That type of behavior towards other users is not acceptable here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Coffee: As has been pointed out by Rebbing (here), your action was - at the very least - hastily arrived at. As discussion is pretty much always better than administrative fiat, I'd ask you to restore my rights, as they have not been used in the matter in discussion, and have never - in almost a decade of possession - been abused. You should probably obtain a better picture of the situation than you appear to have at this time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- You may make new requests at WP:PERM in 6 months time, per standard procedure. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Coffee: Apparently, you are under the impression that you were in the right to remove them at all. You were not. At the very least, you should remove the rights of all parties involved, and not just mine. As you appear unwilling to do that, you can't do it for either user. This is especially true when you are removing tools that were not abused and have never been abused. I am asking for you to reconsider your action, as I think its fair to say that you over-stepped and imposed a one-sided punishment for one of three people involved in a discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- You may make new requests at WP:PERM in 6 months time, per standard procedure. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:More Life
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:More Life. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You should request a mutual IBAN
In case it isn't clear from the links I gave you, what I think you should do is request a two-way IBAN, and stop seeing it as a "sanction for something that I'm not guilty of". Voluntary two-way IBANs are not usually that, in my experience. I've been placed under four two-way IBANs in my time here, and in only one of those was it not voluntary on my part; when you find yourself being hounded, requesting a two-way IBAN is fairly standard procedure. If you think you are being hounded (and I don't doubt you), then what you should do is request a two-way ban. In the unlikely event that the hounding continues regardless, then it shouldn't be a problem getting enforcement, and even getting the ban (or maybe even just your side of it) lifted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am not prepared to accept a limitation on where I choose to edit; I anticipate that if I agree to this, Alex is going to make wholesale edits in articles where i edit, and I've no recourse but to accept them. I didn't start this problem. And I am not cool with having my freedom to edit dictated by the guy stalking me. With an IBAN, I won't be able to edit on those pages I usually edit on, bc Alex edits there as well. Tell me I am misinterpreting the way it works. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)