User talk:Jack Sebastian/Archive 2

IP talkpages

Your question at ANI was a good one. If an IP is stable then you will get the message. If your IP switches about then you will not. As this user made edits from the same IP on two different days [1] it looks likely that it does not change. As a test I just tried leaving a message for myself on my own IP talkpage and when I logged out I was informed I had a new message on that page (don't worry my IP and personal identitiy are well known to certain members of the community including arbcom :)). 194.66.0.122 (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments regarding me

Jack, I'm going to request that you please not carry out any more conversations like User talk:Polargeo 2/Archives/2010/November#Re: IP talkpages, wherein you make statements about me such as " "I don't think the user is a puppetmaster or anything; I just think he should have owned up to the IP usage" and "I thought that denying an IP that you did use is pretty dishonest". You appear to be presenting me to others as someone who has socked, when I have not done any such thing. I'm not asking you to stop discussing checkuser policy or anything; that's all perfectly fine. I would simply like for you to not continue to make statements insinuating that I have committed any wrongdoing (or giving your opinion on the good- or bad-faith quality of my doings). Thank you. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I did not present you as a sock. Read the post again, Fluffy - I was seeking input on how to pursue RfCU in the future, as I had apparently handled the one regarding you so poorly that your claim that you weren't the IP in question was even challenged. More to the point, I did not name you when I asked for guidance; unfortunately, you have chosen to identify yourself. I did not call you - and am fairly certain that you are not - a sockmaster. I took special pains to keep your name from the discussion so as to make the question about how I should have pursued the action better, and nothing else. You should feel free to point out where I named you. Frankly, I think you just forgot to log in and were less than candid about that when asked twice. If it is bad faith to file an investigation I suspect socking, then there's a lot of bad faith occurring every time someone files a RfCU.

Moreover, it begs the question: why - after at least a month or two since we've had any contact whatsoever - are you stalking my edits? Shortly after the RfCU was declined, I removed you from my watchlist, and promptly forgot about you (though not the unusual action at CU). Please stop stalking my edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Uhh... because she is super hot and I wasn't thinking because i was pissed off because my brother broke my Call of Duty. A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 21:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastly21 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I would like to discuss it - The Cultural Phenomena of Santa Tracking !!!

Yes, I would like to discuss it - The Cultural Phenomena of Santa Tracking !!! (better off in the SC talk page)

{{{2}}}

Read

Thanks for replying to santa discussion, my read my reply. thanksTheFutureGood (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please dont touch my recent edit to santa claus again

If you were that worried about avoiding mentioning specifics in numbers you would have removed the bit that said 'and eight or nine'. But as you left that it is wrong for you to say that you removed my edit inorder to avoid specific numbers, as specific numbers were still there, they just weren't explained. Don't undo it again if you have a problem you're welcome to discuss it in the discussion section of santa claus. Or here if you want. Merry Christmas :)TheFutureGood (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way it works here in Wikipedia. If you don;t want people touching your edits, don;t make them. That's the point of collaborative editing. If we don't have specific numbers (or cannot cite them), we do not use them. Period. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

YOu cannot say 'If we don't have specific numbers', as WE ARE USING SPECIFIC NUMBERS WHEN THE ARTICLR SAYS '8 OR 9'. If this is your excuse for removing my edit, I will not accept it until you take out '8 or 9'. Now as you keep on changing the article I suggest, while you think I may be edit warring, you realise that SO ARE YOU. You are continously undoing peoples edits without good reason. I have clearly proved in my above sentence that your excuse does not add up!TheFutureGood (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits in Batman in film

I'm sorry my edits didn't follow guidelines. However, I believed it was a completely true statement, considering I used Wikipedia itself as my source. The only female villains for Batman, unless Nolan invents a new one, are in fact: Poison Ivy, Catwoman, Lady Clay, and, now doing a little more research, possibly The Question (by plot variation). Now I know... I cannot make inferences on Wikipedia using Wikipedia as a source. I apologize. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Young Justice (TV series)

Can you explain why you removed this paragraph from the article? All of the information in it is referenced.-5- (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.-5- (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Lara-El?

Uh, Jack, am I missing something? As far as I can tell, there's no "back-n-forth" as you call it. There's barely anything on the talk page, and the only recent edits in the history are non-controversial fixes, updates, and additions. No war. Not much activity at all, really. Anyway, I was just removing names that clearly are not "alternate identities" per the WikiProject Comics guidelines.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether "Lara Lor-Van" or "Lara-El" are accepted names for the character. (Though, properly, the latter isn't.) They're not alternate identities (like Batman's "Matches Malone" or Superman's "Nova" and "Nightwing".) Thus, they don't belong in that spot.

And, for the record, I fully accept that Lara Lor-Van was the character's maiden name (similar to Martha Clark being the birth name of Ma Kent). As such, it has a place in the article's introductory paragraphs, but not the infobox. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Response

It may be that we need to adjust our perspective of, and our standards for, WP:Civility. Perhaps, for our own social well-being and sanity, we should work to communicate to our "toxic neighbors" that we accept that they have different standards of civility, but that we expect and hope they will take some personal responsibility and accountability for demonstating more empathy and caring for their fellow editors. They can be more self-policing, showing a capacity toward tolerance, and we can support their efforts to co-exist. They need to willingly follow the norms and customs of Wikipedia. But, if they continue to distract more than they contribute, they need to go. If they cannot follow a simple direction like respecting another editor, they need to go. In balance to the level of attack, your compassion toward the offending editor is commendable. I hope he is worthy of it and begins to respect his fellow editors. But, if he doesn't, he needs to go! Buster Seven Talk 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He's gone. I appreciate your kind words, Buster. I know that some people don't mix well, and there's nothing to be done for it except for them to dtay away from one another. Fortunately, the wiki is big enough that such is accomplished easily enough. However, some people take forgiveness and a willingness to overlook drastic flaws as either weakness or an inability to address it. I think such was the case of Yinzland. They came here likely with the best of intentions and got sidetracked by an argument. The first time (s)he was blocked for taking it too far, they should have realized all that you were pointing out. When they returned to the same behavior less than two months later, it became clear that the block was seen as punitive, and not corrective. I thought that maybe there was still a chance for someone else (as I was clearly not going to get through to the user) to step in and mentor the user, bringing them back onto the path that brought them here in the first place. For whatever rreason, the user couldn't adjust their behavior. More's the pity, but Wikipedia has a right to protect its editors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard

First off I should point WP:3RR out to you. I'm sure you're already aware of it but as I can't see any mention of it on this page or it's archive it won't do any harm to make sure. Secondly WP:TALK strongly suggests you should not move other users comments. Part of the reason we use indentation is to make it clear who you're replying too and so allow out of sequence comments like this. Dpmuk (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I am aware of 3RR, which is why I was about to report the other user for violating it, but they reverted. For the record, i was only preserving my own comments in talk, whose meaning was being altered by the insertion of a comment out of chronological order. Apparently the user thinks their comments are more important than mine or something.

And I would point out that I've advised the user on at least one occasion since this matter began on how to better identify the target of their talk page posts without breaking chronological and conversational flow. They chose to ignore and delete those comments on their talk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of where you made that point to the user in question. My personal feeling is that neither of you have got this quite right. In my opinion they should have replied below your post but at the same level of indent to make it clear that they were replying to Hobit's post not yours. Moving their post to below yours and indent it more is clearly wrong as it implies they are replying to you something they make clear they're clearly not and this is directly against WP:TPO where it quotes "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" and by changing who it looks like they're replying too it clearly changes the meaning. For this reason I won't self revert (I was writing this when you posted on my talk page) - if you're reply is to them I suggest you move it to after their reply to Hobbit (as the person who wrote it this is your right). Would you be happy if they agreed to their post being below yours but at the same level of indentation and your reply to them below that but at one more level of indentation - if so I'll suggest this to them. Dpmuk (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are wrong, Dpmuk. Had you taken into account ScottyBerg's usertalk page history, you would see where this advice was offered repeatedly, before being immediately removed by the user without comment.

Bluntly, in shoe-horning my comment to after theirs, SvottyBerg interrupted the reply I had made to a specific useer well after the fact, and therefore made it appear as if I was replying to SB instead. I simply preserved chrono and conversational flow. If anything, ScottyBerg violated WP:TALK; I was simply fixing their mistake. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree - by making sure their reply was indented enough they made it clear that your reply wasn't to them but rather to Hobbit. As such I don't think they violated WP:TALK as it was still clear who you replied to and so it didn't change the meaning of what you wrote. Your change changed who it appear they replied to and so did change the meaning of what they wrote which is in violation of WP:TALK. I've proposed above an idea that I'd hope suit both of you. Do you have any comments on it? Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume by your post on my talk page you see my point why your solution wasn't idea either (as I explain above - it makes them look like they're replying to someone else). I'll go and ask them whether they're happy with the proposed solution although I really should be off to bed! Dpmuk (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've replied on your talk page re: your proposal. "An idea that would suit both of us" implies that you've broached the topic with DcottyBerg, but I see no comment from you in that user's talkpage history.

As for your comment regarding indentation being enough to not interrupt a conversation going on around it, I think you are wrong. That was clearly not the user's intent - this by their own admission of such at AN/I: they did it to avoid talking to me. That suggests a dislike for me (backed up by their talk page behavior and comments elsewhere) and a willingness to interrupt my conversations with others. I am willing to bet that they aren't going to agree to move their post after mine; their ego won't allow it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Have now asked them - I always wanted to make sure you were happy first as it seemed pointless suggesting it to one if the other wasn't interested and as I've mainly been discussing it with you you got asked first - have now asked them. I've very much been focussing on the issue at hand here so have deliberately avoided looking at past interactions - with hindsight possibly a mistake in this particular case but in general I find it the easiest way to remain neutral and be able to deal with the problem at issue without pre-conceptions. Regardless of their reasoning why they still replied to Hobbit rather than you so I still think moving the comment in the way you did was wrong and I'm going to assume good faith and take their reason at face value and assume the fact they were replying to Hobbit was the reason they replied where they did. Hopefully their respond well to my suggestion, otherwise I may change my mind about assuming good faith. I notice they've not been active since 22:00 so I'll remain around for another 15 minutes and if they've not replied I'll head off to bed. If they do agree after that I doubt anyone would consider it a violation of WP:3RR if it's a change the two warring parties both agree to. With respect to the wider issues if you've tried talking to them then WP:WQA may be the way to go. Dpmuk (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm wiling to wait until you awaken, Dpmuk. I appreciate your efforts to remain neutral (though looking that the prior behavior might have better illuminated the underlying issues with the other user), and the solution pretty much does what I had sought to accomplish. You making the edit would not be part of 3RR, as you'd be the one making the change. As for WQA, I'm going to let this issue go after its resolved, and will reserve that DR route for the next time the user does something tendentious. I haven't seen WQA work in the past, except to serve as background material in subsequent AN complaints or escalatory measures. We shall see what we see. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I know if I made the changes I wouldn't be breaking WP:3RR I was just suggesting that if you changed it I don't think it would be a violation either if you had agreement. I've never tried WP:WQA as thankfully I've never had the sort of disagreement with anyone that's needed it (although I have been involved in at least one RfC). I will say I've learnt something from this - that looking at the past history may be helpful - although as I say I think not delving too deeply helps you deal with the current issue without pre-conceptions so I'm unsure as to the answer. Dpmuk (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you handled it pretty well, Dpmuk. Your approach just presumes AGF where in some cases it isn't really warranted. Let's see how ScottyBerg replies to your suggestion. As noted before, i know where the smart money is on how he reacts (or fails to react). Have a good night, and thanks for making the effort. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

He said,she said

Perhaps you two should take it to ANI now, rather then wait.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier over this - I was quite ill yesterday and I must have missed the discussion on their talkpage on my watchlist. You do appear to have been correct about their response and I'm now struggling to assume good faith with them. However as things have calmed down I'd suggest you both leave it alone for a while - I know the situation isn't ideal for you as you're left with something that you're unhappy with but it seems the easiest way of not blowing this out of all proportion as they seem unlikely to compromise. I do think you could have used slightly better language on their talk page but I also have some sympathy over the alternate account accusations so can understand if you were a bit annoyed. Whereas the talk page comments were effectively a weird sort of content dispute and I think any uninvolved editor could have tried mediating (which is what I did) I think if the outing issue goes further that is likely to require admin intervention so I'd be unable to help. I'm sorry this didn't get resolved better. Dpmuk (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dpmuk, I know you made the best effort, and it was a reasoned one as well. I'm glad you got my point about the user; being right isn't always helpful, as it seems they are now working a little too hard to try and go after me. Not sure what Viriditas's problem is, but unless he gets back to me with info on what admin supposedly knows about my old, retired account, I am not sure how to proceed.

One thing is for sure, though. I am guessing that Viriditas has emailed more details about his suspicions to the user, who I am almost certain isn't going to be able to avoid trying to out me. Since I've never met Viriditas, I am not sure who they are planning in linking me too, but it will be an Outing attempt, which will get the both of them blocked, likely indefinitely. I hope they are smart enough to realize this, but being smart would have meant that this would have never come up; they will likely try to game the system to avoid the appearance of malice. Avoiding them seems a good option, but the users have both now followed me to different articles, which at first seems like stalking, but I'm going to AGF until something untoward happens again.

Again, thanks for trying; I know your heart was in the right place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

canvasing

If you have evidacen that I have canvased any other users for support I sugest that you produce it. If not I ask you to withdra the accusation and appoligise.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

One of two situations exist: either Scotty is stalking my pages or you asked him to intercede via private email. As he has not commented in that particular forum recently, I am inclined to believe that you contacted the other fellow via a largely untraceable method. Of course, if Scotty admits to stalking my edits, I am more than willing to withdraw the suggestion and act appropriately on that info. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So you in fact have no evidacen, just an assumption and are fishing for fishing for confesions. Does it occour to you that he may watch the boards? Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because he doesn't watch that particular board - until after I submitted the complaint. There is no mention of ScottyBerg in the 'what links here' section of the EW noticeboard. I imagine that has changed now, though, since he has replied. Since Scotty hasn't admitted to stalking my edits, it only leaves one conclusion. Try to stay on target, please. Scotty isn't part of this matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:HD

Just to let you know that I moved your question from WP:AN to the help desk since you're more likely to get useful responses there, and the thread isn't relevant to admins in general so it doesn't belong at AN. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Giftiger wunsch. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You Seem a Fair and Even Handed Editor !!! - A Wikipedia Rarity !!

Jack Sebastian - I hear you are a fair and even handed editor, especially for the Santa Claus article !!!

Are you the article reviewer for Santa Claus ?? Are you also the article reviewer for the Father Frost (Ded Moroz), NORAD Tracks Santa, Yes - Virgina, There is Santa Claus, and other related articles.

Myself and some other associates would like to contribute more, but I hear from other bosrds of some Wikipedia bullies that get you banned for disagreeing with their narrow-mined views.

Thanks - Zedcannon (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This talk page

Hello! Regarding this edit, please note that while you may remove whatever messages you please (including this one), you aren't entitled to unilaterally ban editors from this page or have them blocked for failing to abide by your instructions.
Talk pages are provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to enable communication among editors. If someone uses this page to harass you or otherwise abuses it, you certainly should seek to remedy the situation. But in the absence of a community/ArbCom-imposed editing restriction, no user in good standing may be preemptively prohibited from utilizing this page for its intended purpose. —David Levy 19:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless they repeatedly use the user talk pages to stalk someone, which is the case here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, harassment and other abuse is unacceptable, and you certainly should report it when it occurs. But only the community or ArbCom may determine that a pattern of misconduct warrants an editing restriction of the sort that you wish to enact. Until such time, the mere act of posting here is not grounds for a block (though specific abuse might be). —David Levy 20:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree but note that he is receiving conflicting info concerning talk page usage which may have attributed to this. And there does seem to be a little wikihounding as this is being done to aggravate.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Previous account

I have now asked for admin assistance over this [[2]]. I may re-word it to also include Vir in it as well.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Contact

I would like to discuss matters with you privately. I have a hotmail account. ddbanddtt call yourself jack sebastion so I know you from spam, please. DDB (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis

Your comments on my talk page are unwelcome, and I will report you for harassing me if you make any more. Erase this comment once you've read it, if you like. I will not engage you any further. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was trying to keep you out of another flame war by offering you some much-needed advice, but if you want to keep on being prickly and thin-skinned, you're in for a pretty bumpy ride. I tried to help. Your loss. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope I haven't walked into this little mine field now... Halda (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not on account of me, Halda. Most of the drama arose because a fairly new user (who, while obvious, shall remained unidentified) didn't/doesn't understand how our policies and guidelines are implemented and was more than a little unpleasant about being advised to learn them better. You are actually seeking to improve the article, and therefore awesome in my book. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. I've been goofing off here long enough to recognize the well-meaning, but often tiresome and unproductive, exuberance of new editors. I was one myself. :) Such persons usually grow bored with constantly battling editors; they either leave after alienating most others, or decide to become editors. Halda (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well-said, Halda. I'm no Perfect Bunny, myself. - 18:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Vanessa Hudgens

I expect that your future edits involving this subject will be much more civil than calling her "a train wreck of a celebrity". That is not appropriate wording at all, even in an edit summary, and the only purpose of adding the dates seems to be something else rather than informing a reader. If you have problems with this article, please disengage and take it to the talk page or different venue rather than putting it in the editing history itself. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 05:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, so long as my personal opinion regarding Ms. Hudgens' (supported by numerous external opinions: 1, 2, 3) doesn't interfere with my ability to edit the article about her, I am unsure what the problem is here. That's like suggesting that unless you can be all supportive of a subject, say, like animal cruelty, you shouldn't edit the article - a position we can both agree is poppycock. Indeed, I'd argue that it makes me a better editor, as I am not going to fawn all over the subject, and strive to maintain objective neutrality as far as the article's content goes.

And I am unsure why you oppose the usage of dates; it is our purpose as editors to inform the reader. However, we can continue that particular topic in the article discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment removal

Actually, I am an admin. Take my actions as an admin "weighing in".—Kww(talk) 05:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okey-doke. You might want to get some back-up on that removal, though. I've seen admins taking hits for taking admin action in articles/discussions they are involved with. Note that I do not think you are wrong to take the action, but instead want you to CYA in case accusations start flying. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Superman

I read that in the early comics, he had flame breath because that would make sense since he has ice breath. In Superman III, his hand was flashing when he made the diamond which means that he could of raised the heat temperature in his hand. What do you think? 96.250.22.48 (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC) AnthonyTheGamer

I think we are talking about a movie that was dreck to begin with, but my take on the instance in the film - and take it as the speculative presumption that it is - was that, as he squeezed the coal it emitted light and heat under those tremendous pressures. I don't think diamonds can actually be made by squeezing the crap out of them, but then, I am not Supes. As I noted before, if you have a referenced (by that, I mean, someone reliably and notable that we can source) of the flame breath, it just doesn't become your word against everyone else's. Reliable references almost always trumps editorial opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Jason Todd

To whom it may concern: You repeatly said that in Teen Titans there was no mention of Jason Todd,I checked and took a photo and there it was I was right as I said when Beast Boy was figuring out the identity of Red X he pulls a chart there are many robins and even Nightwing and if you look closely there it is the name of JASON TODD. So the question remains how can I send the photo proving in what was saying?

Please contact me as soon as you can.

Thank you

Fvcbcs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvcbcs (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Characters in A Song of Ice and Fire

Please explain this? Yoenit (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you read chapter 61 and 73 of A Storm of Swords. If you don't have it on hand, you could also try this summary. Yoenit (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jack Sebastian. You have new messages at Talk:Characters_in_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire#Entirely_too_much_information.2Fspeculation.2Fcruft.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied Yoenit (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your revert on Doctor Who

Hi there. First of all, please notice that you reverted my revert. Per WP:BRD, you should have taken in to the talk page instead. Then: Sources do not have to be accessible for anyone, it's sufficient that people can access them. Whether it's hard to do so or not is irrelevant (otherwise, we couldn't use specialty books or old magazines or similar sources). See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources. The work of fiction itself is a primary source to verify its plot but per WP:PRIMARY, such sources are fine for details that anyone with access to the work can easily verify for themselves, such as the Cushing Doctor being human. As such, a "citation needed" tag is not required on this detail. Please undo your edit and, if you think there is reason to ignore the policies and guidelines I just mentioned, make your case on the talk page first. Regards SoWhy 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You are dancing around the main issue, SoWhy, which is unfortunate, because the problem contains the solution. If any information is challenged in an article, it must be cited or removed. There is no source for it, and trusting some person who claims it is in there is like playing Keno - this statement about Dr. Who being described as a human requires citation, not just primary observation by a contributor.

Secondly, note that before you suggest I improperly followed, BRD, you could just as easily have followed it as well, going to the talk page to hash it out before reverting it. I completely understand that anions are often like drive-by Alzheimers patients, making an edit and forgetting about it immediately after having made it, but I think that in this case, the call for citation was a good one.

Lastly, I apologize if you misunderstood my edit summary, which in retrospect was written poorly. It is my feeling that challenged information must be cited, as the regular user might read it and take it as either gospel truth or as ultimate proof that we at Wikipedia are opining fascists, pushing our personal views. With citation, it isn't us saying it, it is the cited reference. And yes, I know it is a plot point in another article. We do not cite other wiki articles, and playing the plot allowance card is the slipperiest of slopes into uncited articles making their into being. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

James Bond (character)

Hi, Just so we can avoid an edit war on the James Bond (character) page regarding the Lee Tamahori thoughts on Bond, I've started a section on the discussion page for you and Gokarosama to talk it over. I've added the relevant part of the niterview, which may help. Thanks - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that; I meant to do so after suggesting such in my edit summary but was distracted. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis

I will highlight this for both of you: edit-warring is not permitted, and even a single edit can be construed as an edit-war - you don't need to meet the magic WP:3RR to be blocked. Multiple reversions are not appropriate, even if you think you're 100% right in the matter. We work on WP:CONSENSUS, period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Agreed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Season vs. series

Hello, Jack Sebastian. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

L-2 response

If you are talking about L-2 of The Light (Project Cadmus' Board of Directors, we don't have official proof of the identities of it's members yet. When they do show up in person, we'll know for sure. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI comment removal

Any particluar reason why you removed my linking in of the DRN archive of the previous go-around in realtion to the Haven TV series? Hasteur (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:WW MsMag.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:WW MsMag.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it, 'bot. Done and done. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Look in a mirror

I would like you to take a moment and look at your posts to me. Try to do so without blaming me for how you have been acting. You need to take a step back and relax, as all of your posts have been snarky and littered with personal attacks. This doesn't promote collaborative editing; instead it creates unnecessary personality conflict. I deserve to be treated in the same way you would wish to. Please be more civil. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put any more of this crap on my talk page. Barsoomian (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It was that or template you prior to reporting you for civility violations. I guess some people only learn with the stick. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Signal-to-noise ratio redux

"Respond here on your actions or I will find another venue". Barsoomian (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't come to my page, revert my own edits and threaten me. Because I am of the opinion that you Simply Don't Get It™, I will point out (for posterity) that refactoring the posts of others includes moving them around. Instead of shuffling material over two years old around, you should have done what I ended up doing: archiving the lot of it. I had to undo your edit to properly archive the material as the multiple contributors' posted it. I get that you think you were helping, but you weren't. You don't have to take my word for it, Barsoomian - go ask an administrator to confirm that for you.

Up to now, I've simply weighed the time and effort I'd have to put in to report your behavior versus the time I'd prefer to spend improving the encyclopedia. You should know that your increasingly erratic behavior is are tipping the scale in favor of me devoting sufficient time to address your tendentious behavior.

I'd suggest you go off and edit something. Now.

Alternatively, if you truly feel the need to vent, please go ahead and find another venue. Were I you, I'd carefully look at your posts - you might not fare all that well at that other venue. I've been reasonable and polite in our dealings. You've been considerably less so. Admins aren't lemmings; they are going to look at both of our behavior, and I am pretty sure I haven't done anything wrong.

I am requesting that you do not post to my user talk page again, unless it is to inform me of administrative action requiring my notice. Please consider this your only warning on the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you failed to address your patently false assertion that I had "deleted others' conversations" :
Hello, Jack Sebastian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#False accusations by User:Jack Sebastian. Thank you. --Barsoomian (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And we begin.

As I've asked User:Barsoomian to share with me their side of things, I'll ask you the same. Pretend that I haven't read anything previously - say, all I know is that, somewhere along the line, you two disagreed. What's the story? m.o.p 19:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just leaving a note here at the top so it's out of the way. I had to take an unexpected leave of absence earlier this month and wasn't in a position to continue mediating this issue satisfactorily. I'll be back to full capacity in few days and we'll get right back into things. My deepest apologies. Cheers, m.o.p 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

backstory: I've pulled myself back from editing a lot since my kid was born. I used to get all worked up about articles and let other people's incivility drive me up a wall, across the rood and down the other wall. I suppose I get that from my Dad, who also used to edit Wikipedia (he retired from WP almost two years ago). I have grown a thick enough skin to deal with people being impolite without taking it personally (for the most part), but because I don't have a lot of time to edit, I do not want to waste any of my time trying to work collaboratively with people who are more interested in winning than working together. That's the backstory for how I work here now. I know policy and guidelines, and I know how they are supposed to be utilized. If I don't know something I am smart enough to ask around until I get an answer.

Part of my new editing behavior is keep an eye on a few key articles, develop out some rewrites and new articles and generally wander around until I see a problem. Such was the case in New Amsterdam. I saw the timeline, thought it was full of connect-the-dots synthesis, and deleted it¹. When it was reverted back² (by MJBurrage), I read through the relevant talk page comments from over three years earlier. Some effort had been made then to cull the crufty bits, but clearly not enough (in point of fact, the article hasn't changed substantially in over three years, having only 9 references). I also looked at MJBurrage's contributions to the article as well as the user himself. He didn't seem to be a problematic sort of person, so I posted a note³ to his usertalk space asking him to evaluate for himself the table. I was sure he'd see the same issues I did. When he didn't respond to me after almost a week days, I removed it again⁴.

Enter Barsoomian. After reverting my edit⁵, (s)he starts a talk section about how "someone keeps deleting the timeline as OR [sic]", further noting other articles "derived in exactly the same way"⁶. I notice that not only are none of the articles Barsoomian uses to support their contention use tables, but none are GA or FA articles - usually a red flag that the person noting them isn't using the right criteria to support their view. I presumed the user was newer, and thought that if I took the time to ecplain my position carefully, everything would work out.

I reply and explain the basis for my deletion, noting four of the more egregious examples, to illustrate the problem⁷. I don't even detail into the in-universe writing that accompanies the use of tables to; I am seeing WP:OTHERSTUFF being offered as a defense for the material, and its a red flag that the material is even weaker than I felt it was. Presuming that I am dealing with a newer user, I take the time to walk through my reasoning.

Barsoomian immediately goes on the attack, thinking I am ignoring the prior discussions (from 3 years ago) and states:

"If you can't be bothered to work through the details, you don't have a licence to delete the whole thing because of a few niggles and you don't get an answer you like immediately"⁸

And that's just the beginning, Barsoomian peppers the rest of their second post (composed of no less than 7 incremental edits of over 5 hours) with choice little nuggets, calling my deletion "pedantry" and a "WP:POINT" edit and my concerns trivial8. In general, acting like someone who isn't interested in collaborating, but in stomping the shit out of me for daring to intrude in "their" article. I begin to suspect that the other user is not just new, but problematic as well. I decide to try and appeal to the user through reason:

"First of all, you might want to presume a little more good faith; attacking me isn't going to accomplish anything. The problem would still remain with the section, and you'd simply get trout-slapped for being prickly. Be nice, or begone. I am not your enemy; I am an editor just like you, seeking to get the article to GA and FA quality. We can find a middle ground without trying to tear out each others' throats."⁹

It's a request for civility that I make repeatedly in both article discussion^{10 11} as well as usertalk¹² (deleted by Barsoomian¹³), and its pointedly ignored every single time. Furthermore, Barsoomian bizarrely starts calling my posts "snarky", "denigrating" and "screeds"¹⁴. Accompanying the personal attacks is a clearly inaccurate understanding¹⁵ of what synthesis actually is. The following comment by myself reflects my mounting frustration with the editor (ie. pointing out that the behavior is trollish):

"Wow, that was a tremendous amount of bad faith you just imparted. I have suggested this before, and not I am going to have to emphasize my earlier request: if you wish to work collaboratively with me, then treat me the way you would wish to be treated yourself. I am sorry that you feel my tone was denigrating, sneering, etc. - it was not meant as such. I was explaining the underpinnings of our policies. I wasn't sure you were as clear on them as I know I am.

Upon seeing your grasp (or lack thereof) of our Civility policy and prohibition against personal attacks, I think its a fair assumption that you might need some help understanding how we choose to edit and act within Wikipedia. If you don't want help, that's fine. But if you are going to choose to act unpleasantly, you will be largely ignored or reported. I have a right to enjoy my editing time here as much as you, and your behavior has been unpleasantly trollish. I urge you to act more professionally or at least more civilly."¹⁶

I also make an effort in the same post to answer every one of Barsoomian's complaints. Unfortunately, Barsoomian isn't in a reflective mood, and so the personal attacks and incivility continue^{17 18 19 20 21}. I am trying to figure out if I am the real target of this anger, or if the user is just an angry sort of person. I look at their edit history, etc. and come across a few problematic edits here and there, behaviorally-speaking. The Ben Linus edit that triggered Barsoomian's outraged, f-bomb-laden post²² was a revert²³ of his refactoring of talk page posts²⁴. I kinda got the impression he was trying to organize them, but everyone knows that moving posts around the page is uncool and often triggers an immediate revert. I decided that the talk page conversations were old enough to archive, so I set up an archive²⁵, and noted, transparently, my process of archiving^{26 27}. I didn't want any appearance of sneakiness, giving Barsoomian any more reason to be more unpleasant. And of course, Barsoomian just sees the whole thing as ""pathetic", "stalking" and trying to end-run around him²². I am quickly growing tired of his/her antics. I file an initial complaint at DR, but it's closed early, as a behavior complaint belongs (I am told by User:Transporter Man) more correctly at AN/I. I am not yet to the point where I am willing to sacrifice the time necessary to report Barsoomian, when the best result I can hope for is for the user to get blocked and/or banned and come back as an IP to pester me. At worst, it would be a repeat of my one block, where the admin in question screwed up royally. In either case, I was hoping someone would show up in the RfC to make pretty much the same policy points I had been making (but that Barsoomian was no longer listening to).

As noted, I initiated an RfC on the question of the content issues to start an RfC²⁸, to get more input from others who have some experience in these sorts of situations. This is also wildly misinterpreted by Barsoomian as canvassing for support; Barsoomian sinister motives to anything I do. I warn the user on both the article talk and their usertalk that if this type of behavior continues, I'll be forced to report them. When the behavior continues unabated with a threat, I report them. Apparently, Barsoomian saw the writing on the wall, and reports me to Wikiquette first. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind tossing some diffs in there? While I'm doing my best to look at things objectively, it's nearly impossible for me to track down every instance of where you've spoken to Barsoomian - diffs of the discussions you cite above would be excellent. Not to imply that I don't believe you, but it's the best way for me to confirm that nothing's being withheld. m.o.p 01:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Some of them were presented in the AN/complaint submission, but I'll retag my post above with diffs. Give me a bit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

While I was putting together the diffs, I realized that I had forgotten to mention that Barsoomian is of the opinion that no amount of work will get the article to GA or FA quality, as the series only ran for 8 episodes^28b and that no sources existed beyond the 9 already listed in the article. After providing links to more than 2 dozen references²⁹, that tune changes with some back-pedaling, claiming that all the sources only refer to the first episode³⁰ (in incorrect observation) and contained "no analysis worth noting"³¹ (an incorrect evaluation).

I guess what I find more frustrating is that not only am I being subjected to unpleasant behavior, it is coming from someone who doesn't even believe in the point of editing the article in the first place. Why bothering editing unless you are going to try and make it the best it can possibly be? The answer seems clear (at least to me); improving the encyclopedia is the least of Barsoomian's interests. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Young Justice

Batman referred to the Light as the Secret Society of Super Villains in "Revelation". This is cited in the SSoSV article. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure he does, but who is to say that the off-hand characterization of the baddies as such is the same as has been characterized in Earth-16? Remember, the initial group of the Big Bad call themselves the "Injustice League", but they bear little resemblance to the group previously referred to as such. Indeed, a citable reference refers to it as "a secret society", not the secret society. While this may seem a small distinction, the gulf between the two requires more explicit citation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Krasinski the time traveler

I'm not sure what to do about this particular item. A discussion was had back in February on the talk page, based pretty much on the argument I was using (without having seen said discussion), and it seems that the major point of contention (no proof of it being a major item as claimed) was not addressed per BURDEN in that discussion. MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember hearing about this making the rounds at a couple of media outlets, and Krasinski's comment was pretty much priceless. Does it fail NOTE? I don't know. Maybe we should open it up to a wider discussion, like the notability noticeboard or something. I am loathe to remove anything from that particular article, One man's cruft/trivia/drivel is another man's interesting article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg Pak

The edit summary is self-explanatory, and is indeed helpful, as it explains the reason for the edit. As for whether it's "nice", the only comment was on the photo itself, and not the editor. Nightscream (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling the photo "awful" is most certainly not an "attack" upon the editor. I've called my own photos "awful" at times. Was I attacking myself?

Now if the editor in question, PermanentVacay, had expressed this sentiment, perhaps then I'd give more credence to this idea, but he/she made no indication to me or to anyone else (that I am aware of) that he/she took any umbrage with the editor summary. Moreover, my reaction was derived in part by the fact that this was not the first time that he/she engaged in (what appeared to me at the time to be) shoehorning a lower-quality photo into an article in lieu of a clearly superior one, simply because it was his/her photo, as well as a prior discussion on the Larry Hama infobox photo in which I felt that PV was being less than reasonable.

We do not know that the newer photo is "current". We only know that it's more recent than the prior one. For all we know, in the month and a half since it was taken, Greg Pak might've grown his beard out again. This is why arguments about a photo being "newer" or "more recent" are irrelevant, unless there has been substantial change in the subject's appearance, one that isn't likely to be dated, such as those that come with aging, significant weight change, etc.

As far as the RfC discussion, I did weigh in, by asking a question, and is often the case in these discussions, the other participants ignored it.

In any event, I think the point is largely moot. The edit summary was over two months ago, and a consensus seems to have developed in favor of PermanentVacay's photo. Nonetheless, I appreciate your concerns and your desire to help out with an objective eye. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to thank you publicly, Jack, for expressing concerns on my behalf. It's really appreciated. I did indeed perceive some hosility from this user, as you had rightly inferred when I referred to their edit summary as 'nasty' here [3]. I have also responded on Nightscream's talk page. PermanentVacay (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd point out that Nightscream is usually a very polite user; that is why I asked if there was something else going on. I am fairly certain he did not intend to slight you. As you read above, NS didn't believe you were slighted by his comments. Wikipedia works best when everyone talks to one another, not at one another. I think you and NS can hash this out, so long as you both keep cool heads. Good luck. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Terra Nova

I have this article on my watchlist, and saw this edit, which confused me. According to List of Terra Nova episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) there have been 13 episodes which all have already aired. Is the list article incorrect? I'm familiar with the show, but don't follow it closely enough to know myself which article is actually correct. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the source of my confusion ... the list article count each 2-hour episode as 2 episodes (which, in reruns, they will likely air as separate episodes - pt1/pt2). Not sure what is standard for counting episodes though, I don't work closely enough with television show articles to know how they're handled on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, the list article has been corrected to show 11 episodes again (I now see there was a lengthy talk page discussion on this over there), so now the two articles match in their counts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem

My Problem was Graviton4 and his Disruptive Editing, but that is over. he has been block for about 24 hours. If the Young Justice (TV series) Page is whack, let me know. Ok?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Fennoy75 (talk • contribs)