User talk:Jack Sebastian/Archive 8

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)

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)

Okay, thank you. DarkKnight2149 01:04, 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)

Talkback

Hello, Jack Sebastian. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
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)

Jack and I are pretty much saying the same thing Bolter. I think we all know the score, and the solution. Irondome (talk) 01:06, 22 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)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• 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 Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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)

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Luke Cage (TV series). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Natalie Portman

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)

(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)

WP:BLANKING

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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)

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)

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. -- Alex^TW 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)

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)

Not where you choose to edit: who you choose to interact with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Jack, I would urge you to accept this - it won't stop you editing any particular article you want to. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

So, essentially, I'll be just editing the stuff I was editing, but with 100% less AlextheWhovian? If that's the case, I'm all in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(and done). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Two way IBAN

Per the ANI thread, you are now subject to a two-way interaction ban with User:AlexTheWhovian. Please be sure to read WP:IBAN to familiarize yourself with what you may and may not do under the terms of this measure. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

GOt it. Thanks, BK. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Biting the newcomers and assuming bad faith

Your post here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi&diff=817065463&oldid=817065195 was condescending and hostile to a newcomer, even if their post was misguided. Calling them names like "my fine little SPA" and "Trumpeteer". How would you feel if you posted at a new website for the first time and this is the response you got? AfD hero (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to read the SPA's post again, because if you want condescending, its right there. The person comes to Wikipedia, jumps in on the article talk page (not the actual article, mind you) and starts up the condescending political bullshit. Their post wasn't "misguided", AFD; it was someone trolling. maybe I didn't need to feed the troll, but since my country lost its collective mond last November, these sorts of posts have been showing up all over places where they don't belong. If you honestly think this person was a newbie, then we must disagree. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No excuses, Jack. You were in the wrong and need to dial it down. WP:NPA is still policy, whether the other individual is a newbie or not. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So, if I am to understand correctly, my comment about how we weren't going to play an SPA's political name-calling game was inappropriate? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You already know the (truthful) answer. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Come chat with me when the account hits 1000 edits. Heck, come see me when they make even 100. Lets talk then. SPAs are scum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lets suppose you're right, and the poster was a right wing troll using a fake account (which, I don't think is the case but for the sake of discussion lets say it is). Calling them names pushes them further to the right, they get a kick out of succesfully trolling you, and it makes your side look childish to everyone else watching. It is totally counterproductive. AfD hero (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is counter-productive, but note in my comment that I presumed the DFT fallout. I feel that SPAs are scum with good reason. They take up bandwidth, waste time and distract otherwise good editors into rabbit-hole discussions like this one occurring here. Did I need to point out the bitey behavior of the "newbie"? Probably not (even though someone else did), but I am not in the habit of allowing creeps a free pass. And there is very little you are going to be able to say to me here that is going to convince me that the SPA was there for any other reason than to spout a political viewpoint completely non-germane to the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much every new account is an SPA. It's only after the newcomer has a positive editing experience and isn't bitten by established editors that they usually branch out into editing other and other types of articles. Of course, I don't have any stats to support this, but it just seems like common sense to arrive at this conclusion. Just like it doesn't take much more than common sense to realize that being a jerk to new account holders is going to irritate and possibly dissuade them from continuing to edit.

Your turn. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Pretty much every new account is an SPA" You are wrong. While a lot of users start out in one article, they branch out with that that freedom that comes from editing, and making something better. The contributor was an SPA - they were here for a single purpose, and it wasn't to improve the article. Just so we're clear here, let's take a look at the one of two posts that the SPA has made in over 4 days:

"Has the left gotten so bad that they now use the "racist/sexist" card against anyone who dislikes their favorite movies? Perhaps the dislike towards Holdo in the film comes from the fact that Holdo decided not to tell the Rebels the plans even after they held a mutiny over her not having a plan, or the fact that the women are only made to look good by degrading the characters of the men (classic approach from writers who don't understand how to write strong female leads). Dislike for Rey comes from the fact that she never struggles with anything. Everyone naturally likes her, and she wins every fight. Instead of Luke teaching her, she spent the whole movie teaching him stuff he already should have known. The film also had a throw-away plot with Fin that took up over an hour of time, and the movie threw away everything built up from the last movie. This may not be the same opinion of everyone else, but the point remains the same. You can't just silence dislike towards movies you liked by throwing around claims of racism and sexism. DevionM (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)"

Now, it might be jerky to point out the obvious, but it isn't like I pimp-slapped someone who was innocently asking a question or whatever. The Assumption of Good Faith is not mean tto overlook bad acts; there is nothing in that post that suggests anything other than a troll at work. Could I have ignored it? Sure. Berating me repeatedly for not ignoring it is stupid, as I have already stated my reasons for making the edit, and yet you both seem unwilling to accept that reasoning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Assumption of Good Faith is not mean tto overlook bad acts"

And yet, you want everyone who is on the receiving end of your personal attacks - as well as any administrators reviewing those personal attacks and bad attitude - to "overlook [your] bad acts" either by assuming good faith or just getting over it. Interesting tack. Frankly, I don't see any reasoning being used in your case other than your continued attempts to justify your bad behavior and poor choices in how you deal with others editors and edits you don't agree with. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? The statement that I want 'everyone on the receiving end of my personal attacks' suggests that you and I have interacted before, or that I am a big ol' meanie to everyone I encounter. I am just going to suggest that you don't know what you're talking about. And, with a block log as long as yours, I'm not entirely sure that you are in the position to be coming to my usertalk page fresh (out of nowhere) off a three-month block to argue the finer points of politeness with me. Maybe, before addressing the perceived splinter in my eye, you go ahead and remove the log from your own.

I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The Dead South

Hi - you didn't add it to the nomination section of Template talk:Did you know - I've done it for you, see my edit to that page. I've also added the talkpage notice (which is optional). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks so much Black Kite! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Dead South

Hello! Your submission of The Dead South at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! paul2520 (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Dead South, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Dead South

On 26 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Dead South, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Canadian bluegrass band The Dead South often refer to themselves as "Mumford and Sons' Evil Twins"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Dead South. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Dead South), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Err, that wasn't the hook (or even the alternate) that I used in the nomination. How did that happen, Gatoclass? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. But apparently I still have your talkpage watchlisted... and now I'm going to have In Hell I'll Be in Good Company stuck in my head for the rest of the night. GMG^talk 22:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a catchy tune. Their other stuff is pretty dang good, too. Their banjoist is worthy of worship. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where that hook came from Jack. Yoninah promoted it to prep,[7] so perhaps she can assist. Gatoclass (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see that somebody proposed that as an alt hook at the nominations page, and Yoninah chose that one to promote. Gatoclass (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how its supposed to work. I pointed out why it wasn't a better hook, and it was after all, my nomination. Some back and forth with me seemed to be in order. I personally dislike the one used because it pegs the article's subject - a band - to be subject to comparison to another band. To say it was a bad choice is an understatement. All someone had to do was talk to me. That didn't happen. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Resilient Barnstar
		You worked hard to make all the suggested changes to The Dead South for the DYK. I really appreciate your patience through the process. Feel free to reach out if you ever want my help with anything. = paul2520 (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dead South 2016 album cover, Illusion and Doubt.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dead South 2016 album cover, Illusion and Doubt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(temporarily de-orphaned it, subjec to discussion either on remover's talk page or article discussion page) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

re: The Dead South

The burden is on the editor to prove whether an image passes all non-free content criteria.

The cover art of a band's album is being used to identify the band itself. NFCC #8 requires non-free media to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". General consensus indicates that the covers of works can only be used under NFCC #8 on an article for the work (as primary means of identification), unless the non-free item itself is the subject of critical commentary in the article text. Hence, in this case, the album cover can only be used on an article about that album (to identify the article subject), or alongside commentary of the album cover itself (not the album, but the actual cover); here, it is instead being used to primarily identify the band. Typically, a freely-licensed image of the act itself is used on the infobox for musicians.

Due to this, your fair use rationale is also invalid, because it states that it us "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question". WP:NFC#UUI mentions discographies but this is a similar case. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

ViperSnake151, how about you put that into layman's English? Is it your argument that using a picture of one of their albums is insufficient, when a free image is not only unavailable, but likely heavily preotected as well?

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "heavily protected"? If a free image can be made at all, you cannot use a non-free image of the subject to depict it (i.e. a publicity photo of the band). If a band is active, touring, etc., it is always considered possible to find or create a free image. You also cannot use an album cover, as they can only be used to primarily identify said album, and not the bamd. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we try emailing them and see if they will WP:CONSENT to releasing one of their many images for public use? Looks like the correct contact for media inquiries is samantha -at- strutentertainment.com. Presumably they have a vested interest in helping to improve their own article. GMG^talk 15:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jack, yeah you can't use a non-free image of an album cover to illustrate the article on the band, especially when the band are current and touring; all someone would have to do to get a free image is turn up to a show with a camera. Using the album cover for an article on the album is fine, though. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo: I emailed their media contact with that very question; I haven't heard back yet. I'm open to ideas while I am waiting, though... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite: Thanks for breaking down the issue for me; I appreciate it. So, the reason I chose the album cover image (and yes, I will probably make an article regarding the album now, as there seems ample review heat about it) is because I couldn't find any free imagery of the band performing. Additionally, ViperSnake151 might have handled the situation better: deleting and nomming the image for deletion seems...impolite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry man. I poked around for something that might be appropriately licensed and didn't find anything. These folks are correct regarding NFCC and active band/public people though. So... other than buying a concert ticket and hitting the road, we've pretty much just gotta wait for them to respond, or for someone to upload something appropriately licensed on Flickr or Commons. GMG^talk 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess as an absolute last resort (hell, I've done basically the same thing in the past), you might be able to drop a note at a particularly active WikiProject for a city they're going to tour in, and see if any editors are willing to go snap a photo. Probably not Whichita, but you might get lucky with something like LA, London, or Chicago. GMG^talk 21:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed they're playing in the UK in April and have a show at one of my local venues ... so if we haven't got anything by then, I might be able to help... Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Dead South 2016 album cover, Illusion and Doubt.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dead South 2016 album cover, Illusion and Doubt.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Bruno Mars

Regarding the lead, it is cited above on the Unorthodox Jukebox section, both songs topped the Hot 100. I don't understand why you removed it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

MarioSoulTruthFan So, what you are saying is that the song achieved the number one spot on the "Hot 100" radio charts? If it isn't at #1, then we cannot call it "chart-topping". And if it is #1, why not just say what I just did, instead of some fanboi/fangrrl slango? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100 there is only one, the main parade. The way you wrote it "The album spawned the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 singles "Locked Out of Heaven" and "When I Was Your Man", means they charted there didn't say they reached the top spot. That's Billboard Radio Songs, quite different from the Hot 100. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

MarioSoulTruthFan Precisely my point. To say something "topped" the charts when it did not achieve the number one spot is factually inaccurate. Why not be more concise? It comes across as Marketing Speak or internet slango to make the truth blurry. And the only thing I removed was the term chart-topping. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not your point. The Hot 100 and Radio Songs are different charts it claimed it top the Hot 100, so they are chart-topping on the Hot 100. What don't you understand from this? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I wrote it in a different way, it probably fits your style better. Take a look there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

FMA film

Actually, the cast info came from the Japanese wiki page after the movie's release.70.126.15.181 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to source that to a reliable source; you seeing it isn't reliable, and I am guessing that the wiki (as it can be edited by any ol' Tom, Dick or Harry) isn't all that reliable a source. Did a reviewer talk about it? If not, then it is - as the anon said - unimportant. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the film being accessible on Netflix, this page updated the cast list in relation to the movie having just came out. I have assumed that the movie credits alone would be enough of a reliable source in on itself. 70.126.15.181 (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

We cannot use another Wikipedia to support any info - let's get that out of the way right off the bat; Imdb is usually avoided as well for most things.

Secondly, the movie credits would be enough to support the edit...unless anyone challenges them. It is best to have a rock-solid, reliably-sourced reference. Can we find one of those? - !!!!

Only headshots of said actors and their appearance in the final trailer would be the closest to a rock-solid, reliably-sourced reference. Plus, I am under the assumption that both wikis follow the same rules and guidelines. Especially since both are on Wikipedia.org and I have assumed are both like branches rather than independent from each other like wikias tend to be. 70.126.15.181 (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

We cannot cite other wikis, as they are user-generated content ()and are thusly unreliable sources of info. Wikipedia usually adopts a more 'wait-and-see' attitude. We aren't in a hurry to get the information out there. We are determined, however, to make sure its reliably sourced information. Note that I didn't say "accurate", since that is of secondary concern. It has to be reliably sourced. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

essjay

Gad, another user who remembers Essjay!--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

As much as the community would like to forget him, he blackened the eye of Wikipedia somewhat more that the Misadventures of Jimbo. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have put up with your abuse for far too long. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI advice

Your hapless arguments have been helpful in filling out the new ANI section on my user page. I do suggest you stop attacking me. If that's your best defense, you're almost certainly going to get blocked. I genuinely don't know why yet, but you or Adamsohn will explain it soon enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a good start would be to not characterize my observations of your behavior as "hapless." Also, getting involved when you apper to be specifically pointing out what you think I'm doing wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly involved now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rump_state

Hi you may have missed that there was concensus to merge the 2 articles. If you wish to reinstate the "list of" please open a new discussion on the Rump state talk page to present your arguments and it would be nice to notify the original participants. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, @Domdeparis:. That message I got. Strangely enough, no mentionof the original merge discussion occurred at List of Rump States. Which I might point out is pretty damned annoying. It sort of reminds me of a particular passage from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

...the Captain points out that the plans have been on display at the Alpha Centauri planning office for the last fifty years, and it is not his fault that they have not got around to inventing space travel yet. Disgusted at mankind’s apathy, the Captain orders the destruction of the Earth.

You can see why I might feel just a tad annoyed, yes? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it better to take this to the discussion that you started on the Rump state page for clarity. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's why I took this discussion to your page; you posted to my page first. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken in the timeline you then posted here after taking it to my talk page and then posted to the article talk page...3 discussions on the same subject seems a bit too much also I don't understand why you replied on my talk page when at the top of yours you noted "If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Jack Sebastian}} on your talk." Anyhoo lets continue on the article talk page if you will. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I wasn't necessarily confident that you were checking for my responses. After all, to my reckoning, you'd merged an article without any notice on the page most affected by the merge. My expectations of communication were pretty low. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Assertions I'm a "creepy stalker" on Beyond My Ken's talk page are over the top harassment. Stop now please Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It's harrassment if it is untrue. You have repeatedly shown up where I am and whine and complain about how I am a Bad Man. Please - go the fuck away. Find something shiny to occupy your time. I do not want t interact with you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac posted about this on my talk page, and while I do have a generally positive view of his work, I wouldn't consider myself involved with him, and also am aware that he can be a controversial editor. That being said, I will give you the same advice I gave him (and have given him before with other editors): give him a wide berth. Ignore him. Don't keep talking about him if you don't want him to respond (we can't exactly expect someone to not defend themselves when they see they are being called out for harassment.)

If you have diffs that Legacypac has harassed you, you need to provide them and make a report at ANI. If you do not, you are casting aspersions without evidence. Regardless, making accusations against people on their and others user talk pages needs to stop. We have a venue for reports about harassment: WP:ANI. If there is private information (i.e. off-wiki harassment) that cannot be shown via diffs, you can email the arbitration committee. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. If he shows up again at a page where he was previously non-existent, or simply shows up trying to break my balls, ANI and you will hear about it immediately. I have given the guy a "wide berth". I've ample reason to think he's following me around, and if he pops up again, whackamole it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hello. I got unblocked and wanted to thank you for leaving your thoughts on my talk page during my ANI. Thank you for taking the time to do that! Huggums537 (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Jack Sebastian, here's a reminder for you not to exceed 3RR. From the following edits, you've exceeded 3RR at least three times, I'm ignoring 1, but there's also 2-5, 4-7, 5-8.

• 04:09, 29 May 2019 [8] - you were actually wrong, that was a legitimate edit by 37.26.146.184, this season started in 2019, not 2011, though I might excuse that you thought that was vandalism.
• 03:36, 29 May 2019 [9] - you did a full revert (of the undead army) of PNW instead of a partial revert of a spelling error
• 01:27-01:29, 29 May 2019 [10] - your two edits reverted 108.49.222.62, me, and PNW.
• 18:19-18:29, 29 May 2019 [11] - your three edits, in changing the wording, surely reverted some number of people.
• 03:44, 28 May 2019‎ [12] - your edit reverted my additions
• 00:58-01:18, 28 May 2019‎ [13] - your 5 edits reverted some of my additions and surely others' additions as well.
• 21:34, 27 May 2019‎ [14] - reverted Yoerivanesseveld
• 19:19, 27 May 2019 [15] - reverted Wikibenboy94

I'm not going to look further, I think my point is made. I guess we both need to take a breath, I think I did also exceeded 3RR on late 26 May to early 27 May, although I only realized it now. starship.paint (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Holy shite, you're probably right. I've got to be more careful. Thanks for the heads up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:TERF

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:TERF. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Vickery cite on Khmer Rouge page

You stated in your recent edit on the Khmer Rouge page that the fact that the constitution of Democratic Kampuchea allowed, in theory, freedom of religion, that this 'went against cited sources'.

As you'll note, Vickery (a specialist in Cambodian history) confirms that this was the case. You'll find plenty of sources claiming that DK was 'officially atheist' but they are generally works not specifically about Cambodia. The fact is that the attitude to religion, especially during the first two years of the regime, varied widely depending on the attitudes of local cadres, which is one of Vickery's points - not something there is much space for in a high level article, but something that is certainly worth pointing out.Svejk74 (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Svejk74:, I am not an expert on the Khmer Rouge, or Cambodian/Kampuchean politics. I look for OR, and specifically OR that is going to trigger a nationalist revert and flame war in the article. I appreciate and respect that you took the time to write me about this, but it is a subject best introduced to the article talk page and discussed there by folk with the requisite interest, don't you think? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

OK - I've tried to make a few further edits to clarify things a little. This reminded me the article generally needs a lot of work still.

Unfortunately there seem to be relatively few editors interested in Cold War-era Cambodia articles; most of the edits to this one in the past few years seem to be drive-by tinkering by IPs (changing the 'ideology' bits of the infobox seems to be a favourite). I'm not sure that any large scale nationalist flamewar is likely to break out here but am always happy to discuss on the talkpage any of the additions I made (some months back now).Svejk74 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Dore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Dore. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andy Ngo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Ngo. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2019 (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. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

00 Agent

Perhaps I was a bit rash. I just wanted to correct an error as soon as possible. I posted to the talk page noting that there is no source for those various 00 agent names. I don't know how to do many of the in-article tags. Emperor001 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk page posts

If you modify one of my talk page posts again, as you did in this edit, I will report you to ANI without further warning. - TransporterMan (TALK) 01:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: While I get that you might be miffed at the (mistaken) refactoring, you could probably have handled point it out a whole lot better. I apologize for my mistaken refactoring - which is precisely what it was (for some bizarre reason, I thought you were editing the policy page, not appending your post). Is there some bizarro world wherein you think that coming to my page and threatening me is going to end well? Don't be a fucking douchebag, unless you are really interested in me tracking your edits for the next several days and pointing out every single error you make - spelling, failure to format your refs, errors in reasoning - all of it.

See, these are the sorts of responses you can expect when you come to someone's page all full of righteous anger. Sit down and have a cup of tea. Your blood pressure will thank you for it.

(talk page stalker) user:TransporterMan is right there was no justifiable reason to edit his comments on a talk page and his coming to your page and warning you (not threatening you) is justified in itself. As it was a mistake you could have just said "sorry my bad" rather than calling him a fucking douchebag. Maybe you could have had a sip of that tea yourself before replying as IMHO there is no perceptable anger in his comment...--Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Umm, thanks for your opinion? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Reflist-talk

I see you reformatted the page but why not do the easy thing and use Reflist-talk? That's what it's there for. -- 109.76.147.161 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the IP; {{reflist talk}} is fine, as long as it's included in the same section that contains the actual <ref>s. General Ization ^Talk 19:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind but I was hoping there wasn't some detail I was missing or some better strategy I might not have learned yet. It is difficult enough to learn the rules around here and they change too.

As we can see from other comments on this page some people get upset when you reformat a page so I avoid doing so unless absolutely necessary. -- 109.76.147.161 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to be clear. I reformatted your reference so as to make it easier to read within the flow of discussion. Reflists are for articles, period. When they show up in article discussions, they break up the flow of article discussion unnecessarily. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I was merely wondering about your reasons against using Reflist-talk, you're the first person I've seen raise any objection to it. You didn't reformat any of my comments yet. I think Reflist-talk is easier and more convenient, and putting it at the end of a section works well enough for me. Whatever works for you, no worries. -- 109.79.190.222 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming to my talk page to ask about it. It may seem easier and more convenient, until you get into longer article discussion pages with multiple, long sections. Then, scrolling down to the bottom of the page to see a reference becomes a royal pain. It's just easier to add the link within the discussion itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please try again

As you're a stickler for having sources for everything I'm fairly sure you know how to add proper references. Not sure what happened here, so many errors. I suppose it happens to all of us now and again. Please try again. -- 109.79.170.194 (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't added the link. I just reverted it back in from where another user had removed it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wikipedia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sebastian James

Please consider this a friendly warning. Do not provoke Sebastian James. I am trying to rationally discuss his (and only his) behavior, and having you parachute into the conversation only makes it easier for him to point fingers at other editors. I would advise avoiding any interaction with him while I have these discussions with him. Also, please make sure that you adhere to WP:CIVIL. Both of you have crossed the line in your previous discussions, but as they were several weeks ago, I didn't feel it necessary to warn you at that time. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Caknuck: Look, this user attacks me three different times after getting blocked, complaining 'why me and not this other guy' (the other guy being me)...and this is long after he and I were interacting. His block comes from behavior exhibited elsewhere with other people. Singling me out was a flat-out personal attack. He blames everyone else and not himself, and until he can learn to take responsibility for his own behavior, he is useless to the Project. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

And I am handling it now. So leave him alone. Thank you, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Caknuck: Work some magic, Caknuck. I wish you every bit of luck with the user. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)#Shaun Benson as Ezekiel

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)#Shaun Benson as Ezekiel. It's not a personal preference! See WP:GAY. Gay is the more appropriate term to use. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, responded there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

They will just sockpuppet until they get what they want, then

Oh you're giving me a "warning"? ROFL! Blow it out your ass, man. The information is accurate and there is no goddamn reason why it shouldn't be there. Go ahead and file a complaint. If I get banned I'll just change the info once I come back and/or use my other accounts. Ciao. - ProudCitizen (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Stoya

Stoya's name can be viewed here [16] which unfortunately falls under WP:BLPPRIMARY . Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: - No, that just points out that she decided to trademark the name she took. It doesn't replace her name. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Look at the trademark owner's name which is hers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. As well, this is a conversation that needs to be taking place on the article discussion page, not mine. -Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Morbidthoughts. If you want to it to be formal. [17] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, templating the regulars about acting in good faith while you offer up a grand fuck you by edit-warring is a pretty stupid thing to do. Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Apparently you are arguing that nickiswift.com is a reliable source for a biography of a living person. That is a gossip site and is unacceptable for use anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone a BLP. Please consider this a formal warning from an administrator: If you use this gossip website or any other gossip website again, you will be blocked. Is that clear? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Read ZergNet before you say anything foolish. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: First of all, you are probably going to find that not being a dick is going to go much further in your discussions with me. Coming to my page to threaten me in your capacity as an administrator is pretty abusive. So you should probably stop doing that.

Secondly, I didn't add nickiswift.com without checking to make sure that the source had not been questioned before at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. As it had not, I noted that the source has an editorial staff, is verifiable, and not overly biased in its coverage (therefore not FRINGE, either). Tell me how it is - by Wikipedia standards - unacceptable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I am here for one purpose only: to enforce Wikipedia's policy, specifically Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. That policy says: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." That is why I am being firm with you. That policy says Avoid repeating gossip. Nickiswift.com is without a doubt a gossip site. They call themselves a gossip site. They are widely called a gossip site online. It is absolutely unacceptable to use gossip sites on Wikipedia. If you disagree with my assessment of this website, then you must gain approval at WP:RSN. If you believe that I am being a "dick" then report me to WP:ANI. If you do not take those steps and I see you using a gossip site again, you will be blocked indefinitely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Again, you are going to find the carrot to be a lot more effective than the stick with me, Cullen328. I have been here over 10 years, and you can afford to be less of a douchebag and just talk to me, okay?

I will ask you - also again - to point out where RSN has evaluated NickiSwift to be a "gossip" site, or where the site itself refers to itself as a 'gossip site'. And yeah, I am going to ask for references, please. Your opinion that it is a gossip site is not enough.

And we don't do this ass-backwards. Sources are considered reliable unless evidence is brought forward that suggests otherwise. I don't have to bring it to RSN. If you think its unreliable, you get to be the special princess who files the request at RSN for evaluation.

As an aside, what (or who) brought this matter to your attention? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)On their pinterest page they state "Nicki Swift is the top source for all the best dirt and juiciest gossip on the celebs you love…or love to hate." [18]. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The carrot is that you don't get blocked and can continue editing if you stop using gossip sites forever. Nickiswift.com describes itself this way online: "The Dirt - Nicki Swift. Breakups, makeups, scandals, and more. Sort through celeb gossip dirt with your source for style and smarts." There's the evidence. Just Google that phrase. That is the exact opposite of the type of site that should be used as a reference on Wikipedia. Policy says quite clearly that we cannot add gossip to the encylopedia. Policy also says "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Therefore, the onus is on you to convince other editors at WP:RSN that this self-admitted gossip site is not actually a gossip site. Good luck with that. I found out about this matter at WP:BLPN. As for me being a dick and a douchebag, take it to WP:ANI and we will see what the editing community thinks of this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Now we are seeing what other editors and administrators think about your behavior. That is good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack, this is not going well. I suggest you start with the apologising part now. MPS1992 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Sandstein 19:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jack Sebastian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had added sourced information to an article, information that was repeatedly removed by another user who Ireported for violating 3RR. In another article, I used a source that was later determined to not be reliable, a consensus that I accept, and furthermore sought to make sure that other users didn't make the same mistake. If unblocked, I would withdraw from both articles and seek to use the article discussion pages more. Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is the second time you've used bad sourcing and edit-warred to include it in a BLP, and you were doing this while you were at AN, being advised that your approach to BLP sources was seriously deficient. Acroterion (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jack Sebastian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to point out that this is my first block in over 5 years; a week seems pretty excessive.
Additionally, I would also like to point out that my sourcing for the Stoya article was in no way deficient; it utilized reliable sources provides by another user - in fact the user who stalked my edits and later had to be reported for 3RR.
It was the use of a weak source for the Morena Baccarin article that was found to be problematic. I would note that I did search for any precedent noting the source's inadequacy at RSN. When a determination that the source was unsat at BLPN, I accepted the consensus, and indeed, posted the results in RSN, so a record would exist for any other editor searching for discussion of the source.
Being one-week blocked for the use of a weak source that was found to be non-reliable *after the fact* seems excessive.
Blocks are meant to interrupt a pattern of behavior or disruptive edits...unless the block was meant to be punitive. I have apologized for the use of the source, stated my intention to not revisit either the articles in question or use the source (which I never intended to do anyway). I am a useful editor; this was a hiccup.` Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for "using a weak source". You're blocked for edit warring. Your first such block was in 2011, your second was a bit longer in 2014, your third was 48 hours in 2016. Edit warring blocks aren't punitive -- they're to stop the edit warring -- and successive edit warring blocks are always longer than the previous. You need to commit to not edit warring, no matter how correct you think you are. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DS

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Current AN discussion

Hi, Jack. Since the discussion is still going on at AN and you're blocked, if there's anything you'd like to say in response I can copy it over. Clovermoss (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Clovermoss:. I find that I do have something further to offer to the discussion:

Regarding BBb23's comments, it appears that he was upset that I asked him not to refactor (ie. remove my post). I didn't suggest that he was a "dreadful administrator". He asked me to remove my post and, after discussion, I did as he asked. I disagreed with him threatening me with a block right off the bat - I tend to get pissed at anyone who starts off a conversation with a threat. That, Bbb23 and Cullen had in common.

I will also reiterate that I did check with RSN to see if the source had been noted as unreliable or unsuitable for use. After the discussion continued in BLPN, I accepted the consensus that emerged. I even posted the findings at RSN, so that any other editor - checking as I had - would now find that the source was unsuitable. I thought it was the responsible thing to do.

With regards to the Stoya article, I would ask if someone could point out where any source I used there was not reliable. At issue in the article is the deliberate effort by a single editor (User: Morbidthoughts) to keep the subject's birth name from the article. This is decidedly unusual, as most of our mononymous-named articles at least note the person's birth name: Cheryl, Shakira, Zendaya, Elvis, Usher, Cher, Madonna and Beyoncé, Rihanna, Drake, Liberace, Morrissey. While those are permutation of her their name - as supposedly Stoya is. Some mononym stage names are invented (e.g. Eminem, P!nk, Lorde), adopted words or nicknames (e.g., Sting, Bono, Fergie). Stoya doesn't get special treatment. The wrinkle here is that entirely reliable sources exist listing two different birth names. After Morbidthoughts reverted (several times) the inclusion of one, I decided to use instead the one that they themselves had sourced and apparently prefered. Morbidthoughts violated 3RR in reverting even that choice out. In short, it wasn't going to matter what I added; it was just going to be wrong. When I reported them for violating 3RR, it was with consideration that this viewpoint doesn't better the article.

So, I used a bad source once - the first time in over five years. I completely acknowledge that I fucked up by using it. It doesn't matter that I checked it against RSN records; I should have erred on the side of caution, and I did not. I did follow consensus once it was determined and even took steps to make sure that someone else didn't try to use the same source. I think characterizing me as someone running around destroying BLPs willy-nilly is factually incorrect. I've worked on several BLPs over the years, and my edits and sources were - until now - never problematic.

I don't like being threatened by anyone. An admin threatening me with a block as a conversation-opener is just plain unhelpful, especially when that same admin can just point out a problem and ask for input instead of assuming the worst. I am not a new user; just talking to me works so much better than a threat. I suspect that's true with just about anyone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've copied it over. I feel like I should mention that the reason I offered in the first place was because Cullen328 mentioned that an editor could copy over your talk page comments. If you have anything else you with to add in the future, I can copy that as well. Clovermoss (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer to do so, Clovermoss. It is appreciated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Two different posts, @Clevermoss:

When police arrest someone, they tend to over-charge them with every single offense they can think of, with the idea being that when they propose charging them with a crime that would be a hard-sell to a jury, they offer lots of other charges as well. This is to make it seem like they are doing the suspect a 'solid' by not charging them with the entire raft of charges, encouraging a pleas deal or to make the prosecutor look accommodating.

Bbb23 is proposing that I be banned from BLP articles or, in the alternative, be blocked indefinitely - demonstrating the tactic described above. For using a bad reference once. :In almost 10 years of editing. I've admitted my error. I've refactored some of my snarkier posts. It feels like Bbb23 is out for blood here (their comments seem to suggest such), and that is really disappointing. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. They are meant to be preventative, as per our blocking policy. I am not trying to harm the project or any article, and never have. I have made the mistake of presuming bad faith of two users who threatened me and of a user who edit-warred in two different articles - instead of disengaging immediately and reporting the problem to others. I additionally used a crappy source, even though it was not my intent to do so.

I believe that a one week block is excessive, as it was preceded by over 6 years of no blockable issues.

Therefore, I offer the following proposals:

• Proposal C - Jack be unblocked with a warning regarding the use of sources in BLPs, and to avoid the articles in question here.
• Proposal D - Jack be blocked for a period of 48 hours, in consideration that blocks are not meant to be punitive and that the user apologizes for the use of a non-reliable source and presuming the worst with other editors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(The second post, in response to Cullen's post:)

I deeply disagree with the characterization that I am discriminating against Morbidthoughts because they work primarily in porn articles. I frankly couldn't care less. I pointed it out because - after a disagreement with me, the user came over to an article that they had never been before and their first action was to revert me. No one else, just me. That seems a bit like stalking to me.

I'd also point out that Morbidthoughts has spent almost the entirety of the 10 years reverting out any mention of her name. This despite the presence of good sources that name her explicitly (1, 2). I'd even point out that the aforementioned sources were proposed by Morbidthoughts his/herself. Therefore, there shouldn;t have been any opposition to its inclusion, unless the user simply doesn't want any mention of the birth name. I mean, they have spent 10 years doing exactly that.

Because of this, there is no necessity of privacy, even if the subject wanted it. As well, there is no indication that she is trying to hide her name. So, good sources in an article about a BLP.

As far as the Baccarin article, I have admitted that I used a source found to be unusable. Did I fight it after a consensus emerged on BLPN? No (1, 2). In fact, I immediately went to RSN to notify them of the reliability of the source, as per the BLPN discussion (3). Once a consensus regarding the Baccain source emerged, I did everything I could to implement it immediately across the Project. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I can't post to the Admin discussion. Could I trouble you to post my response there?

Jpgordon suggested in my unblock request that I need to commit to not edit-war, which I am prepared to do. If I disagree with an edit, I will use the article discussion page to do so (reverting only in cases of blatant vandalism - not wikilawyering, just pointing out that visitors will ovgten vandalize articles; and I know the difference between a normal edit and a vandal).

If agreement cannot be found there, I will widen the circle to follow the normal paths of DR. That's the way it is supposed to be anyway.

I am committed to not edit-warring within articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, I have posted the message for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Barkeep. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss - here's another statement for the AN discussion:

Speaking to Levich's comments regarding my edits to The Boys, I'd point out that I 9/10ths of my edits there were to remove unsourced information or rephrase grammar. As everyone here knows, there is a shit-ton of OR that ends up in our articles, tagged as uncited and left for years.

To me, it doesn't matter whether the article is about Quantum physics, Ferris Bueller's Day Off or Danny Elfman - we can't just toss in information without referencing the statements to a source. And it can't remain unsourced.

Fully 75% of my edits in Wikipedia have been about either tagging a need for, removing or seeking out references for statements made within articles. In the Boys series of articles, they were drawing uncited comparisons between, say, the Deep and Aquaman - total OR.

I don't care if a character is gay, MSM or whatever; I just want it cited so it is not us as editors making any sort of evaluation, but instead a reliable source. If the term 'homosexual' is cited, then fine. Its the evaluative assumption on the part of an editor who assumes that gay, homosexual and bi are interchangeable that gets us into trouble.

In the instance where a comparison was drawn between the characters and DC characters, I didn't oppose the connection because they were a "competing brand"; that's inconsequential. I opposed it because there wasn't a verifiable reference connecting them to one another, and a source behind a paywall is pretty hard to verify. Once any statement is verified, any problem I had to the statement evaporates. Almost every single time.

Bluntly, I don't really focus on what statement is being made (apart from clearly FRINGEy statements); I just care that it is referenced, so it is a source making the comment, and not us the editors. I admit that I lose a lot of politeness when others insist on re-adding the unsourced info. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, you might be better off getting someone who is a sysop, or at least a bigger name than me, to do this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(EC) It doesn't look like anyone has posted your statement yet, I could cross post it for you but I'll reply here and let you decide if you want to reword it. I'll be blunt, I don't see how "I don't care if a character is gay, MSM or whatever; I just want it cited so it is not us as editors making any sort of evaluation" equates to you changing an unsourced description from gay to homosexual" with the edit summary "yeah, just leave it be and leave your personal preferences at the door" [19]. First as you later seemed to acknowledge your edit likely goes against WP:GAY?.

More importantly, despite not wanting us to take a side without sources, you seem to be taking a side based on your own personal preference without sources. If you had found a source and were going by that then fine maybe what you said would stand. But AFAICT this wasn't what happened.

Second, and editor with your experience should know that paywalled sources are fully accepted, the only thing that matters is whether the source meets our WP:RS requirements. Frankly the modern internet being what it is, paywalled sources are often far easier to get copies of or verification than many books. If you are unable to verify something, there are plenty of ways you can get help like WP:REX. For an actively edited article where there's a good chance the person who added the source is still editing, simply asking on the talk page for a quotation often works too. In rare instances like with high questionable BLP info it may be acceptable to remove the sourced info while awaiting verification. For stuff like comparisons between DC and Marvell or whatever, not so much.

Further AFAICT it wasn't even like you removed it while waiting verification. Other than that edit summary, you left you no notice you removed it pending verification. You did not open a talk page discussion or anything like that. You simply removed it point blank because you did not have access to the paywalled source. If every editor did that, some of our articles especially those on the more nitty gritty of science and other areas where paywalled sources are the norm, will be destroyed. Not to mention if we take what I said about books to heart, many articles including FAs.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne That's an entirely fair assessment of how I should have approached paywalled sources. I could argue that more than once I was bamboozled by a user adding a paywalled source that didn't say what the editor using it wanted it to say. But really, that isn't a good excuse.

As for the 'gay versus homosexual' comment from The Boys, the pre-existing comment was homosexual. A user changed it to gay without a supporting citation where a source called him gay. As in a lot of editing situations, you don't replace info with unsourced info; the point is to make the article better, not obfuscate the problem. Adding 'gay' didn't fix the problem and a source wasn't being found, so the most neutral (and accurate) term was a MSM - as that was what was being depicted. Not the person's sexual outlook or history, but their actions in a 2-second view of the character tentacling and kissing another guy that only served as background for blackmail later.

As far as the BLP article with Morena Baccarin, that was all my mistake. I thought I had covered my bases by checking to see if RSN had noted a problem with it before, but in retrospect, I should have opted on waiting on multiple sources saying the same thing. I accept my responsibility for my utter stupidity there.

The Stoya thing was a different, more sinister scene I walked in on, but even then, I should have widened the circle on the matter, and not reverted so much. I shouldn't have argued with the editor as much as I did, even though I felt they were acting poorly. I should have let a wider set of eyes see what I was seeing.

Yeah, I made some mistakes, and I have not been as tolerant as I should have been, even if I thought they were bad actors. I should have involved others, so it wouldn't just be my assessment of wrongdoing, but others' as well.

I'm kind of at the point where I am reading a couple editors who I have reacted negatively to ask for topic cans and indef blocks, and the way they are spinning it, people who have never met me are eager to throw me off a cliff. It's disheartening, Nil Einne. Its disappointing. I've given 10 years of my life here, and I'm a second-generation Wikpedian. Maybe retiring is the best thing for me now. It sucks mightily to have people I have never edited next to call for my head based on the egging on by a couple of editors who cherry-pick my recent edits to point out the worst. While it is true that I gave them those cherries to use, that isn't all I have done. I think I've also done a lot of fine editing, as well.

What do you think, Nil Einne? Should I retire? I feel like I have more to offer, but no one else seems to think so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

barkeep49, [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]]

I've learned that you need to be able to walk away from situations that are toxic, and listening to people I have never met who want to throw me off a cliff because I made a single mistake with a source and don't deal with rude people gladly has brought me to a decision.

I am retiring as of this post. This makes me very sad, as I feel I have given a lot, but relieved as well; I don't need to get paid to have people presume the worst of me and spin everything I have done in the worst possible light. I don't even get paid to have people treat me like this badly. I don't care who posts this in the AN discussion. I am done.

Jack Sebastian: I'm not sure if this will help in any way so I'll try to keep things brief by my standards. I've seen your name around but don't have much of an impression of you as an editor other than what I saw recently. And I have not looked that carefully and only seen some bits and pieces at AN and elsewhere, one reason I did not comment in that thread which largely evolved in to a discussion surrounding your behaviour.

I have to admit, what I did see was often concern, it did seem to me your editing was not the standards I think we need to hold for editing BLPs with regards to sourcing expectations, waiting for discussion and taking on board other editors concerns or simply the language we should use. Frankly that description of the sexuality of a (if I understand correctly) not very nice fictional character is of minor concern although I would have far greater concern if you did the same in a BLP, but I saw no sign of that. The sourcing thing was also a concern since as I said, it would be a disaster if info is regularly deleted simply because someone didn't have access to the source. But again I only had one example.

Not sure if I made this clear enough, but the main reason I approached you on your talk page was because I did not feel your response would help convince anyone against taking action to restrict you. We all make mistakes, but while a good explanation of why you made a mistake can help, a bad one doesn't. Although of course the most important think is we get some confidence the mistake is unlikely to be repeated. For me, your initial response did not provide a good explanation of why you made the mistake, nor did it convince me that you were unlikely to repeat it.

OTOH, I understand that having your editing under the microscope at one of the ANs (well anywhere really) is rarely a pleasant experience, it tends to be hell and so it's not something easy to deal with. And I think many of us will have stuff we've done that won't be viewed kindly, I definitely do, heck one example arises from yesterday from ANI itself. In fact I do wonder if you may in part have the same problem I do namely the tendency to anger easily when I feel unfairly maligned or attack and to respond in that anger which even if I was unfairly maligned means my response tends to be subpar.

I don't feel comfortable commenting on whether you should retire other than to say you should do what is best for you (provided it's not against what the community allows). Be that leave forever, leave for a while and come back when you're feeling refreshed or not leave other than required by any block. I'm not sure what the community is going to impose if anything, but I would suggest you limit your involvement in BLPs for the next few months whatever they do.

If you do wish to stick around, given the way things are going at the moment, I would suggest you consider carefully what people have said at AN and try to write a response addressing their concerns. It may be better if you write it and than leave it for a few hours check it again before posting. This is actually the sort of thing where I think the normal suggestion would be to take days. Unfortunately by that time it may be too late. Of course you may not need to do this, things can turn at AN for other reasons. While you can address further issues that arise, from what I've seen I would say a very high number of replies doesn't tend to help so would suggest you consider carefully any replies.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne

I appreciate what people here at AN are saying about my behavior. I recognize that I used a bad source, and should have erred on the side of caution. I recognize that my interaction with other editors is sometimes too combative. Acknowledging this, how would you suggest that I improve this behavior and your impression of my edits? I am open to suggestions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi I am not going to wade into the AN discussion because I doubt if my contribution would help but as you seem to want a bit of feedback I honestly think that this discussion was a bit of a waste of time and showed some unnecessary combativeness Talk:Rump_state#Regarding_that_proposed_merge.... Despite the reverting of a redirect and merge that had been decided by consensus that was close to edit-warring you stated during the discussion Any defense of the merge seems absurd to me. Clearly, someone screwed the pooch hugely on this. It would have cost you nothing to post comment about the propsed merge discussion in the List article discussion. And yet, it wasn't done. and then 31 minutes later you wrote I am fine with the articles being merged, though I am not sure that you will feel the same way. This exchange followed this discussion on your Talk page [20] where you made an unwarranted comment on me My expectations of communication were pretty low. To ensure I was notified of your replies as you weren't pinging me or posting talkback messages as you say you do at the top of your talk page I put your page on my watchlist. As a result I saw an edit summary a couple of months later from you saying "slow your roll, chuckles" that made me curious and came across and participated in this exchange [21] where you called another editor a fucking douchebag because he warned you about editing his talkpage comment. My aim in participating was to deescalate the discussion and your reply and edit summary was very sarcastic.

I honestly think you take editing here way too personally and this is the main problem. As it happens I agree with you about the addition of the reported real name of the pornstar, the sources you added are RS, but to be honest was it worth getting into an edit war about it? Who really cares if her name is included or not, it isn't obligatory as far as I know and unless it is a topic you are particularly interested in I would have just walked away. Anyway I hope it works out for you and that you decide to stay and are able to take on board any constructive criticism. If you feel like replying and have any comment to make that might help reply to Drmies' comment I want to hear if Jack Sebastian now realizes that shitposting about other users isn't done with impunity. If they do, then maybe such a realization can help forestall an indefinite block. please feel free to ping me and I can copy it over to the AN discussion. cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: Thanks, Dom. I appreciate the input. If you could cross-post the following, I would appreciate it:

After reading what others have written, I realize that I do indeed take my interactions with others far too seriously (and personally, if their opinions don't align with mine). Its feels like I have advised millions of other users to at more civilly when I have failed to follow that very same advice. I am fully committed to being more polite. I can disagree with someone in RL without making them feel like crap; I need to be able to do the same here, esp. because of the medium.

Additionally, While I think I have done a lot of pretty fine work on BLPs (admittedly, most of it is removing the term "best known for" or removing peacock language), I clearly went off the rails with the Baccarin edits. As far as the Stoya edits, I should have assumed better faith regarding Morbidthoughts' resistance at adding RS-sourced material regarding her birth name. I should have talked to them more, and widened the loop on the discussion if headway wasn't found. As I've said before, if its cited, it belongs in there. If not, it shouldn't be in the article. What I did wrong there was not to poison the well with the other editor working that article, and I should have asked for more eyes on the article, instead of asking the other editor to do so.

But those are just symptoms of the problem. I have been really uncivil to others. I admit that I give as good as I receive, and that needs to change. After all, most of us are here for the same reason. I need to remember that and practice what I preach.

What can I do to make this better? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi JS. I copied the above post to AN. (I'm sure Domdeparis would have, too, but as people are still posting in that AN thread, I thought the sooner your post got there, the better.) – Levivich 16:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Levivich. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it. I'm sorry I wasn't able to reply earlier busier IRL than I had expected. I'll try and get a word in on the AN thread as I am convinced that you are sincere. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich

I agree to a 1RR on BLPs (as I noted previously, my typical edits in them is to remove OR descriptors such as "best known for"); I hope to revisit that self-imposed limitation after 6 months. Additionally, I absolutely agree to use article discussions far more effectively than I have of late. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and being rude or dismissive makes collaborative editing a lot more difficult. I fully commit to being more a part of the solution than the problem. If I have a problem in discussion I cannot resolve, I will widen the circle to involve other users, as more collaboration is better and keeps things from getting too heated. I absolutely commit to not edit-war on any article content at any time (excepting of course blatant vandalism where I will still request assistance).

In short, I recognize that I need to stop acting like the Lone Guardian at the Gates. Its a bad way to approach editing, and corrosive to collaborative editing. I don't want to be a part of the Drahmaz.

I am open to suggestions that others may offer here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not only am I satisfied with this, I'm downright content about this. I've unblocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I promise that you won't regret your decision. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply to jpgordon

@Jpgordon: - Fine. I can agree to not edit-warring. If I have a disagreement, I'll either use the talk page to widen the loop on an edit I find problematic. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User:TyMega

Please do not leave messages on another editor's user page. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about, Chris. Could you go into more detail, please? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

For some reason, you posted a Welcome! message on the user's userpage. To add to the weirdness, the user is hardly new. I've deleted the userpage per G6. Maybe the recent stress caused what I assume to be an inadvertent edit. I wouldn't worry about it too much.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 I actually meant to post a welcome message, as the userpage - indicated by its redlink - hadn't been started yet; I typically do that because a lot of users just start editing and don't know what resources are available to them. I am presuming (from your post) that TyMega and Chris Troutman might be related. I haven't really talked to anyone since AN except for initiating discussion at Talk: Nathan Fillion where I pinged the user reverting in OR, and then at Scazjmd's talk page. I don't think I've interacted with Chris Troutman at all over the years. I can't make heads nor tails of his message - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Christ has nothing to do with any of this. They were just informing you of what you'd one as a matter of courtesy. First, one never posts Welcome! messages on userpages; one does on user Talk pages. Second, as I've already said, TyMega is not a new user, so a Welcome! message would make no sense. The user has over 10K edits and has been on Wikipedia since April 24, 2018. As to why you did it, I have no idea, but unless you can figure that out on your own, I would just let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Can you point me to the bit of policy/guideline that talk about how we never post welcome! message on userpages? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Although there may be some guideline specifically regarding Welcome! messages, we always communicate with other users through their Talk pages, never through their userpages. You can research the matter yourself if you wish, but I must confess I'm surprised that you didn't know this (no offense meant).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

As I noted above, when I first started editing, I think it would have been super-helpful to have a page of links that taught me how to edit and such - this is exactly what the welcome! page template does.

It isn't an insult nor meant as conversation; the overwhelming majority of users here have created a userpage. Therefore, it isn't presumptuous to add a template to an empty userpage - esp. when I am told that they user doesn't ever respond to requests for discussion; we both know that discussion is a major part of collaborative editing. They may not know this.

Of course I know not to template the regulars; TyMega wasn't acting like a regular. If anything, he was acting like a neophyte or worse, constantly reverting without discussion. On looking at number of problems cropping up on the user's talk page, maybe they could use the assistance that a welcome page might offer. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've tried very hard to be cordial in this discussion, but it's not working, so I'll be blunt: do not edit other user's userpages. Creating them is even worse. When you edit them, the user can simply revert you, but when you create them, the user is compelled to tag the page for deletion to go back to a non-existent userpage, which is what some users prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a policy/guideline, but isn't "usage" at Template:Welcome enough? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to dick with people's pages, Bbb23; I was trying to help them with the welcome template (the template you linked, Gråbergs Gråa Sång). If you suggest it isn't helping, then I'll stop. It wasn't a matter of me "IDHT", it was your viewpoint that I'm just here to fuck with everyone, which I am most certainly not. I did not understand you getting upset at me for using the template. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Despite your recent promise, you continue to take everything personally.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, you essentially called me a thick-headed idjit who doesn't want to hear advice. How is that not a little offensive? I understand that you have a problem with me using the template, and I was trying to balance the reason the template exists with why you didn't want me to use it. While there is still some cognitive dissonance between the two, I will do as you request. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I see now. Don't use WELCOME as a page template, but instead a section in talkpages. It took a bit, but I understand now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond all the other reasons given above, another reason to never post a message to someone's userpage is they may never receive it in a timely manner. Definitely in the past when someone has accidentally posted to my user page it's often been months later when I noticed this happened.

This get back to what people said before namely that user talk pages are intended for communicating with users, not their user pages. It's just the way everything is designed, a basic part of wikipedia (or all wikimedia wiki's AFAIK) such that I too am surprised someone with your experience wouldn't know that. While their are ways people can receive notifications when their user pages are modified, AFAIK they are not enabled by default in part surely for the earlier mentioned factor namely that user pages aren't intended to be a way for someone else to communicate with the user.

BTW, you should also remember that expecting to see a specific policy or guideline or previous discussion for everything is not generally a helpful attitude, especially for stuff which is so basic it's just not something anyone thought we need to write down. Although of course Wikipedia:User pages#Terminology and page locations does give a basic description of the purpose of user pages and user talk pages and while it does not specifically say "don't post messages to user pages" it does describe a user page as something for a user to give basic information and themselves and user talk pages as the place for others to leave message. Also when you created the TyMega page you should have seen "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:TyMega".

As to the DTTR issue, from where I stand, you may have a point if there had been no real attempt to communicate with the editor before regardless of how many edits they had made. But since there are quite a few messages on their talk page, including non templates direct attempts to talk to them, I think the likelihood of a welcome message doing anything is questionable. The general perception is the most template messages, even our welcome ones despite our best attempts, are more likely to be ignored than personal message. Especially when "never" means they have absolutely zero contributions to anywhere outside of main space after 10k edits [22].

That said, for a case like this if you had simply posted a welcome message to their user talk page and not their user page, I don't think anyone would care that much, provided you weren't insisting it means we need to give the editor time to get the message before blocking. Realistically in a case like this, blocking has probably the best albeit considering none of the previous blocks worked, very slight chance of convincing the editor they need to communicate. Remembering that indef does not have to mean forever. It probably has a far greater chance than a welcome message.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

All excellent points, as usual. thanks for the great advice. As I noted elsewhere, I understand where to use welcome templates and where not to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)