User talk:Darkfrog24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Invitation[edit]

Faravahar-Gold.svg

WikiProject Zoroastrianism

We invite you to join WikiProject Zoroastrianism. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Zoroastrianism related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the other participants or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. 22:55, 26 March 2013‎ User:Amadscientist

Mail call[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Darkfrog24. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I sincerely regret my clumsiness, which triggered needless acrimony. I value your contributions to the encyclopedia and admire your tenacity in the face of opposition. Please accept this barnstar as a gesture of apology and token of my appreciation. —David Levy 21:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. These things can get heated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

DR/N[edit]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! DonQuixote (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

4RR[edit]

You have violated 3RR: (1, 2, 3, 4). If you self-revert immediately, I will not report you to WP:AN/EW. I am doing this as a courtesy; I could have simply reported you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you because you deleted content for being unsourced without bothering to check the source: Click on the link to the 538 article. Hit CTRL-F "chapter." Then kindly stop complaining. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, then. Just so you know, that isn't a defense where 3RR is concerned. I gave you the opportunity to self-revert. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You didn't give anyone anything, Jack, not even the time it took to read the source that you claimed didn't contain the content you reverted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I gave you the opportunity to self-revert and thus not be in violation of 3RR. You chose instead to keep trying to make the same points you keep making. After posting my reply ("Okay then…"), I filed the report. Check the timestamps. You should probably read (or re-read) WP:3RR; your argument that you are defending your revert with isn't considered an exception to the rule. I think you still have time to self-revert before an admin gets to it. I gave you ample warning. You just chose not to heed it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
As for "making the same points you keep making," kindly look in a mirror, Jack. And please stop acting like you're deigning to be civil. That's required of you. As for my choices, you are neither privy to them nor entitled to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't understand any of that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
"You chose instead to keep trying to make the same points you keep making" -- so do you. If you're going to act like it's wrong for me to do it, you might want to stop doing it yourself. Or don't, but then own up that you don't really think it's wrong.
"stop acting like you're deigning to be civil." -- You have been completely arrogant. You act insulted that I won't take your interpretation of WP:OR over a verbatim read of WP:Primary, as if you had any kind of rank to pull. You act like it's some great favor for you to hear me out, as if I weren't doing the exact same for you. You say "get a secondary source" and then don't bother to read it. You reject all attempts to address your concerns out of hand instead of building on them or suggesting any compromises of your own. You've twice scolded me for being too lazy to find sources but then you don't do any of the work, not finding sources, not developing text, not any finger-lifting that isn't the revert button. You scold people for making changes to the disputed section in the edit summary of the changes you are making to the disputed section. You scold people for acting like the rules don't apply to them while acting like the rules don't apply to you.
And then you have the gall to say you're acting with "courtesy."
As they say, Jack, don't do me any favors. You can't seem to distinguish them from baseline anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Do you feel better now?
Look, once the DRN gets some feedback, you will learn whose "interpretation" is the correct one. It is true that i have been arrogant, but that is because i know with a certainty that i am right, and I'm being big enough to try and help you catch up to the rest of us. That you actively choose not to is equal parts bewildering and frustrating. I've already apologized for accidentally removing the only two good sources you managed to add; in my defense, they were mixed in with all the craptastic Westeros.org and the novel primary source chapter and page nonsense and were easy to miss. I did add them back in, so you can finally cross that great injustice I've done you off your list.
And lastly, I have little in the way of time to seek out sources, so I pretty much wiki-gnome most of the time and add content (when the kid isn't trying to stick their fingers into light sockets or whatever) when I can. My lack of content should not distract you from the message: I know what I am talking about, and am the first to ask/speak up and/or apologize when I don't know something about Wikipedia (which is a lot of the more technical stuff). But OR, SYN and sourcing? Man, I am a whiz at that. More's the pity that you cannot separate the message from the messenger. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Guess what? Policy states that I'm right and you don't see me acting like the lord of the manor. It's a safe guess that Diego and DQ both think they're right too.
Oh so you have an excuse for not doing the work? Still not a reason to call other people lazy. It's not your lack of content; it's your multi-level hypocrisy.
As for separating the message from the messenger, for the umpteenth time, it's not that I haven't read your opinions on WP:OR. It is that I don't agree with them. Don't keep asking me to take your word for it; at no point have I insisted that you take mine. Cite policy. Find a precedent somewhere. Spend less time huffing that other people aren't kowtowing to you so that you have a spare minute to find a real reason why they should do what you think is right. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

Please remove the citation to the book tha tyou have improperly (and repeatedly) reverted into in the article, despite requests to desist from such and a consensus to keep them out. I am offering you this short opportunity to do so before I report you for edit-warring. Please do not confuse this notice with a hesitation to file the complaint. Your disruptive editing will stop, or there will be consequences. I will wait approximately two hours and then file the report. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing the citation to the book. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT requires me to say where I found the information and this is where I found the information. The objection to including the book tag was the establishment of significance. Now that that has been dealt with using other sources, there is no further legitimate reason to omit the actual source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. Saywhere… is an essayguideline. It is not policy, and policy says, when challenged, you bring a secondary source, or it is out. Period. You have a secondary source (tho' of dubious quality and authorship - more on that in a bit). You cannot use the book citation in that way. Ask an administrator. ANY ADMINISTRATOR. The clock is running, and if you do not remove it, I will file the complaint. There will be no further warnings, miss. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I did bring secondary sources. Repeatedly. I have addressed all legitimate objections. Now knock it off.
You should refrain from calling people "miss" unless you 1. know their gender, marital status and age and 2. any of the three could be construed as your business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Jack Sebastian, since Darkfrog24 has not mentioned it, I'll go ahead and mention it: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is a guideline, not an essay; it is a part of the WP:Citing sources guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Flyer - that was my mistake. Fortunately, the point remains a valid one: you can't use a primary source in that way. SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT refers to a source that you've seen yourself. It does not cover using that source in a way that it cannot - especially when secondary sources are required. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Darkfrog24 - are you stating that you are not a female? Not that it matters in terms of editing, but its certainly helpful when addressing people. Indications are that you are female, so if you are a male, please feel free to say so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, WP:PRIMARY says that yes I may use a primary source in this way. You know perfectly well that you and I don't agree on what this policy means, so stop wasting my time and my patience by treating your opinions as a foregone conclusion. You probably also know perfectly well that calling someone "miss," "missy," "boy" or "laddie" is diminutive, patronizing and condescending. Doing so is extremely rude. Knock it off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course, you are still wrong, and the consensus disagrees with you. As for calling you Miss, it was certainly not meant as a diminutive, patronizing or condescending. I examined my options for addressing you: 'madam' is out, as it implies either age or a pimping. 'Ms.' is likewise out, as is 'Mrs', because I don't know (or care) what your married status is. As 'Miss' is equal to 'Mr' or 'Sir' where I come from, I figured it was far better than some of the terms I was sorely tempted to use. If you chose to take everything I say wrong, I can't really do anything but pity you, ma'am. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No, Jack, the equivalent of "sir" is "ma'am." If my gender is ever relevant, I'll tell you about it. It should occur to you that I wouldn't be able to take anything you say wrong if you quit making personal attacks, kept your talk page comments on topic and stayed the eff off my userpage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding ongoing edit-warring and a possible misuse of sources. The thread is Darkfrog24 - ongoing edit-warring, etc.. Thank you. —Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon with clock
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. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll happily unblock you if two things happen: (1) you commit to making no edits to this specific article for the next 24 hours, and also either to discuss the article or to drop the matter entirely, and (2) Jack makes the same commitment. See my comment at the WP:ANI discussion, meanwhile. If you agree to the first condition, let me know by linking my username in your comment. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I've unblocked Jack after he agreed to what I requested; if you agree, you should be unblocked. Feel free either to let me know by linking my username or to use the {{unblock}} tool. Meanwhile, a week-long block was too long; I've changed it to 24 hours from the original time, or a little more than 17 hours from now. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkfrog24 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Agreeing to (another) twenty-four hour break. Not sure further discussion will help, but that's nothing new. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Reason below Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I'm cool with the twenty-four hour thing. I've taken multi-day breaks before to absolutely no effect. It is now 7:37 p.m.
As to further discussion, I'll do it if you think it might help, but I'm pretty sure Jack and I have already talked this to death. He refuses to work with me, to compromise or to accept that his opinions are not themselves policy. He has repeatedly insinuated that I must be lazy and stupid because I don't agree with him. He has referred to me by gender-specific diminutives and continued to do so after being told to stop. He rejects all of my efforts to address his concerns, sometimes without even looking at them first. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the existing participants alone. I've cited WP:policy, shown him other articles that use sources the way I've used them [1] and repeatedly offered compromise phrasing [2]. He's done nothing but repeat that he is right and that "everyone" agrees with him. (This is contradicted by the results of an RfC and request for third opinion.) It's pretty clear that he's not going to listen to me.
In fine, Jack says, "We need a secondary source," I say "I don't agree, but here's a secondary source," and he deletes the content. Rinse and repeat. We have a problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The block was purely because of the edit war (I wasn't even aware of the WP:ANI discussion), and since you agree, I've unblocked you. Note that I said "discuss the article or drop the matter entirely"; far be it from me to try to force you to discuss it if you think further discussion pointless. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
If dropping it means that Jack gets to delete whatever sourced content he wants on whatever excuse he wants, then yes I have a problem with dropping it. Why don't you put your $0.02 into the discussion page? We've both already listened to you once. If you don't want to get sucked in, then just put in one comment and leave. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that you were just blocked for your edits with relation to Oathkeeper, I would strongly recommend that you discuss first, then make the edits when you have consensus to do so. If you continue to revert myself and others to force your edits into the article (and your reasons aren't pertinent, at least to me) then I will be forced to assume you are intentionally edit-warring and will take appropriate action. I would like to not feel forced to escalate this matter. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't feel the need to discuss changes first, Don. Follow your own advice or don't expect me to.
You wanted me to find more sources, even though I don't think it's necessary. I did. That's not forcing my will on the article. That's my willingness to take your opinions seriously even though I do not share them.
If you don't want to do something then don't do it. Or do it, but admit that it was your own decision.
I don't want you to feel uncomfortable, Doniago, but look at this from my perspective: I have jumped through every hoop that you guys have put in front of me. Then someone pulls a new hoop out of the hat. The way I see it, I'm doing all the work, suggesting all the compromises, finding all the sources, working out all the wordings. If you want to smooth things out, then work with me. Instead of bulldozing everything that I add to the article, change the wording so that it addresses your concerns. Dig up a source. Then we can triangulate our way to something that we'll all find reasonably acceptable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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.

Blocked for edit warring[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for long-term edit warring at Oathkeeper against consensus and after previous unblock for the same issue. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkfrog24 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I re-added the disputed text after addressing every objection to it that had been raised on the talk page, and no new objections have been listed. There are no new objections to the content itself on the talk page now.

Specifically, other editors demanded that I find more sources and that these sources be secondary, reliable and specific. I did. Then I re-added the content, rewording it to reflect what those sources said very closely--which, again, is what the other editors said they wanted me to do. Then one of them reported me for edit warring.

When I added the re-sourced, re-worded material, I explained what I was doing and why on the talk page [3]. No one objected to the addition. No one responded in any way, and the article stayed stable for a couple of days. I actually thought we'd found a version of the article that everyone could live with. When an editor reverted, he did so without listing any specific reason for doing so other than that I hadn't gotten his permission first (to my knowledge, there is no rule requiring me to do so). Again, there was nothing about the disputed content itself on the talk page. I thought it was a misunderstanding--that this person had gotten the current source confused with another one from the same news organization. I clarified on the talk page and re-added the material.[4] Again, the material was deleted without the editor saying why he was objecting to it. DonIago's only statement was, "I'm objecting to this." I answered, "Okay, what specifically do you think is wrong with it?" There's been no answer [5]. Don and Jack have made it clear that they don't like that I added the text, but that's pretty much all they have to say. They won't tell me why they are disputing it. Do they not like the new source? Do they not like the wording? We can't do bold-revert-discuss if no one's going to discuss. I have repeatedly tried to work through discussion. I have repeatedly suggested compromise wordings. I have repeatedly found additional sources. I am having trouble understanding what these people want from me.

As for the block request, [6], JACK IS LYING. No I did not say that a block wouldn't affect me. My statement "I've taken multi-day breaks before to no effect" was in response to a suggestion that we take a one-day break. I've taken breaks and it hasn't helped. (As a matter of fact, I took a break today and completely missed the chance to respond to Jack's accusations before this ban went into place. So in this case, a break was detrimental.) No I have not refused to discuss things. No I do not "just revert to my preferred version." I come back with more sources, with policies to cite, with precedents to cite, with further discussion, which is exactly what Jack says that he wants.

Notice where he says I was blocked for edit warring? He should have said, "JackSebastian and Darkfrog24 were blocked for edit warring." [7] Jack has not been honest with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per the discussion and further clarification and discussion I'm unblocking you per the following conditions:

You are subject to WP:1RR per week on Oathkeeper and you must propose any changes which are not covered by these exceptions on the talk page and wait at least 48 hours before implementing them (notwithstanding the 1RR restriction). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I am only responding here, as Darkfrog24 has made it seem as if she is blameless in the matter that resulted in her block, and that we have failed to answer her questions with regards to her problematic sourcing efforts. We had stated our objections to her sources on so many occasions that to link them here would look like the archival box for AN3R; yes, that many times. We even bullet-pointed them for her on several occasions. Her response was to say that we were inflicting upon her our personal interpretations of policy and guidelines.
..She would argue that fake sources still counted and could be used (as dead links) to support primary sources.
..She would argue that blog posts on fansites were reliable sources.
..Or that sources that themselves cited Wikipedia for their material could be used as sources.
..Or that books could be used to note similarities in plot between book and tv episode without secondary sourcing at all. She admits that she still believes this, and that the rest of us are wrong.
Did she find some sources that weren't absolute crap? Sure, but none of those sources went as far as Darkfrog24 wanted - listing all of the chapters that she felt the episode in question drew from. In every single incarnation of her edits, this list remained unchanged. When we kept removing it, she switched tactics and began moving the unproven bits in the the plot summary itself.
It was like someone continually offering a plate of steaming dog crap as a side dish to dinner, and when found inedible by others, instead offering that same crap as seasoning and garnish alongside the meal.
In each of these instances, she re-added the material either before or immediately after posting in discussion that - in essence - we were all wrong, and she was right. And this went on, day after day, week after week and - lastly - month after month.
She has argued that we did not tell her our concerns. I would submit that it wasn't a matter of her not knowing our viewpoints, but rather a matter of her not caring what our viewpoints were, wrong as they were. She said as much on several occasions. There is no possibility of collaborative editing in such an environment. It sheds editors from the article and from the Project.
Lastly, the sole reason why I did not mention that I was also blocked previously for edit-warring was that I stopped edit-warring after the block was lifted. She never did. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just because a source supports material that you don't like doesn't mean that it is fake. As per Wikipedia's policy on dead links, just because the link went dead doesn't mean the Prince Albert page is no longer usable.
  • Wikipedia's policy on blogs says that they are allowed if the article is written by a named member of the staff whose credentials are provided. That is the case with the Ana Carol blog article that I brought up on the talk page.[8]
  • Yes, I find that WP:Primary supports the use of novels to cite information about their own plots. Yes, I still believe this. Yes I think that I'm right and you're wrong. You forgot the part where I've been abiding by the results of the RfC even though I don't agree with them and have been doing so even before the official word was handed down. I've located over half a dozen secondary sources to use alongside the primary source, as stipulated.
  • As for sources citing Wikipedia, the GEOS article doesn't cite Wikipedia. On two occasions, I've told you, "I've checked, and I don't see where this says that it's based on Wikipedia, but I'm human and I might have missed it. Show me." You have never pointed out where you think this source says that it cites Wikipedia.
  • No, you didn't tell me your concerns about the new material. For the past few months, you've been saying, "get more sources; I don't like the ones that are already here," and now I'm saying, "okay, try this one with this phrasing." Yes, you have to say what you think of it if you're going to delete it. If you want me to guess at what you're thinking based on previous posts, then here you go: I'm guessing that your real reason for deleting this content is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you don't want to have to admit it. It looks like you thought you were sending me on a wild goose chase with your requests for further sourcing and you don't know what to do now that I've come back with the poultry in hand.
This would go a lot better if you would stop referring to other people's contributions as feces and start working with me. Suggest a wording that would address your concerns. Suggest a compromise as I have suggested compromises. Suggest something that I haven't thought of.
And I did stop edit warring. Addressing other people's concerns is not edit warring. Making changes that have been raised on the talk page to zero objection is not edit warring.
As for why the list of chapters remained unchanged, it's because it's based on 1. both primary sources and 2. several different secondary sources, and they agree with each other. In other words, this list has stayed the same because it's accurate. Nowhere in our discussions has anyone contested that the content was accurate.
At the absolute least, you should go to the talk page and state why you are disputing the content so we can work this out. The i09 source in my last set of revisions specifically lists chapter information, which is what you asked for. The phrasing holds tightly to the wording of the i09 source, which is also what you asked for. You should be saying, "Ah yes! Finally! Thank you." Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The paNow.com source is not simply a dead link. After I became suspicious of the odd wording of the source, I contacted their News desk for that media outlet, and asked them who the contributor of the review was. I was told that the article was created in their free classifieds space by an anonymous source - not a staff writer or paid freelancer. They were kind enough to provide an IP address that geolocates to New York. This information, and the fact that it was created shortly before you used it and disappeared almost immediately after I asked about it seemed more than a little suspicious. Thus, the accusation. Setting aside the authorship of the fake link, the reason we cannot use it is because it was not written by a reliable source. Yes, paNOW is a source itself, but not the free classifieds section of paNOW, where anyone, anonymously, can create content. If my objections to this source wasn't clear to you before, it should be now.
  • As has been pointed out to you by more than one other editor, Gameofthronesbr.com is a Brazilian fansite for the series. Those seldom instances where we reference a fansite include when a listed member of the staff interview a recognized member of the series' cast or crew (as per WP:FANSITE). Ana Carol is a harpist music student and a blogger; she is not a member of the cast or crew of GoT or a recognied staff member of the fansite. For numerous reasons, her contributions as an independent one-off blogger to a fansite cannot be cited as a source. It is not just me saying this, but you have been told this by several others.
  • Re-adding the same material and arguing the same reasoning that was rejected by the closing RfC comments suggests that you either did not read the comments carefully, or parsed their meaning in such a way that you felt you could get around its intent. You might want to use some of your time to re-read that closing argument. It pointedly rejects your use of primary sources in the way you wish to use them. You are interpreting which sources from the book are being used int he series, which is synthesis. Others have said the same thing. This isn't about me; the sooner you realize this, the easier the process of adjusting your approach is going to be.
  • You will have to speak to Doniago (who spoke out on the GEOS link regarding its practice of mirroring Wikipedia), but for myself, as the website is - by their own admission - "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run", it renders itself unusable. Wikipedia doesn't use fansites as sources.
  • This is all material which you have been told time and again, Darkfrog24. Anyone looking at the article discussion, or edit summary for the article could see that, as well as your rejection of that. If we had not voiced our objections, you couldn't very well object to them, now could you?
  • After several months of you trying to add precisely the same material to the article without success, you then move the material from the Production section to the Plot summary. It doesn't become more palatable just because you move it elsewhere, Darkfrog24. When told by more than one editor that this is unacceptable, you could have chosen to stop reverting the same version in and respected your fellow editors' concerns. You instead chose ignore our disallowance and continued to edit-war it back in while engaging in tendentious editing. For weeks. That is why you are where you are now.
You should use this time to consider accepting the consensus that has already been formed about source use within the article, and this time, actually do that. If you still find that you cannot accept the consensus, then it might be time to follow your bliss to non-GoT related articles, where you seemed to find some level of contentment. You cannot be happy with your views being rejected in Oathkeeper. Tke some time to think about that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In case this wasn't 100% clear before, I want you to stop referring to my or anyone's contributions with swear words or references to feces. It just occurred to me that there was an outside chance that you didn't understand what I meant.

  • PaNOW: I've told you this before, but here it is again. I found the PaNOW page by plugging "Oathkeeper" and "Jaime IX" and other phrases from the disputed text into a search engine. That is why its wording was so similar to the disputed text—because that was the search query.
  • No one argued that the Ana Carol article wasn't from a blog. But Wikipedia's policy on blogs says that they can be used if the content is made by a staff writer whose credentials are provided and sufficient (WP:NOBLOGS). Considering that Ana Carol is being asked to state "This episode contained the same content as chapters X, Y, and Z," and not provide advanced literary analysis her status as a tertiary student is sufficient (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). You can argue this one, but you don't get to claim, "Darkfrog thinks blogs should be allowed!" as if I meant all blogs at all times and under all circumstances or that I'm offering you "crap."
  • I don't know what you're talking about on your third point. I re-added the material, yes, but I provided a fresh secondary source to go with the primary source. That is what the RfC concluded: Don't use the primary source alone. Am I misunderstanding something about your third point?
  • Being fan-owned and fan-run doesn't preclude GEOS's use. GEOS has a history of use on Wikipedia for material far more controversial than straight facts supported by primary and other secondary sources. Yes it collects survey responses from anonymous contributors, but none of them were cited for the article; the core episode description was. (In fact, no survey responses had even been submitted for Oathkeeper at the time GEOS was accessed.)
  • I don't understand what you're talking about with this point.
  • Yes, I moved the material from the Writing section to the Plot Summary section with an additional source that explicitly states "this event happened in chapter X and that event happened in chapter Y. This is a new solution to our problem. YES you have to look at it and acknowledge it and, if you want to delete it, say why it does or does not meet your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules.

If your reason for deleting the material is "This isn't sufficiently sourced" then you don't get to claim tendentious editing about the person who keeps providing more sources. Given your history with the Prince Albert and 538 articles, I have to ask: You did read the i09 source, right? I am not mocking you. I just want you to confirm that you saw that it was there. Hit CTRL-F "Jaime IX" and "Sansa V," etc. and you will see the exact lines that support the disputed text. The only consensus on that page is, if we assume that everyone's acting in good faith and take everything that's been said at face value, is that one reliable secondary source must be provided. Then the material is 100% acceptable. Which part of my actions make you think I disagree with that? Was it all the time I put in digging up secondary sources even though I don't think they're necessary? Six of them, in fact (eight if you count the other i09 article and Slate article). Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Further to your email, let me just clarify something. You weren't blocked for violating 3RR, you were blocked for edit warring which you very obviously did. Also as far as I can tell your ability to edit this talk page hasn't been revoked so you should be able to edit. I'd be happy with an unblock on the following conditions:

You are subject to WP:1RR per week on Oathkeeper and you must propose any changes which are not covered by these exceptions on the talk page and wait at least 48 hours before implementing them (notwithstanding the 1RR restriction).

If you agree to those restrictions I'll unblock you. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the it-can-still-be-edit-warring-even-if-3RR-isn't-violated rule. I just wanted to make sure that there was no confusion on that point.
As for 1RR, which I understand to mean one revert per day instead of three, that's what I've already been doing for a while now. So while I of course I don't object to keeping it up until Saturday, I'm a bit confused about the that's-still-edit-warring part. What is it that you want me to do that's different from what I've already been doing with respect to 1RR? This question is not rhetorical. I actually want to know what it is that you're asking me to do. Are you saying, "The timing part is good; just change this other stuff"?
48 hours seems too long.
My ability to edit this talk page is still in place. My ability to edit all other talk pages has been blocked. Otherwise I'd have posted to your talk page instead of sending you that email.
Your "notwithstanding" makes your statement confusing. Please clarify. I want no confusion about what you are and are not asking me to do.
I have a question, and I could really use some commentary from a neutral party: What if, say, I propose a change, and people respond on the talk page, but their responses don't include "Here is why I am objecting to the content"? That's what's been happening. When you say "wait 48 hours," what is it that I'm waiting for?
This might not be 100% relevant, but it's good to hear a voice that's not screaming and cursing at me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If I am not misunderstanding the context, They sare saying that if you propose a change, and no one comments or objects to that change, you should feel free to add that change to the article. I can promise you that if you propose a change in article discussion, no one will ignore that proposal. The problem would arise if you were to propose a change, find resistance to that change, and then edit in the change anyway. That has been one of the larger problems in this matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Jack, you're not exactly unbiased in this case. If you are actually trying to help, this is one of those times when you help by staying out of the way. It's become quite clear that you and I don't interpret things the same way. I would like Callanec to tell me what Callanec means so that there is no misunderstanding.
As for "I promise no one will ignore the proposal," yes I'd be glad if you stopped ignoring my request that you tell me what you think is wrong with the text so that it can be addressed. "I don't like this" is not enough of a reason. That's what I've been asking you and DonIago to do for days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Answers to your clarification points:
  • It's one revert per week, which is the big change and slows it down considerably.
  • That's the idea, it makes you stop and discuss.
  • When blocked there are two things you're allowed to do, you your own talk page and use the Email function, that's the only two things admins can turn off and on.
  • For example say you reverted an explained removal of content and were reverted. Even if you've proposed adding back the content on the talk page, waited 48 hours and 20 editors agree with your revert you can't do it until 7 days after your initial revert.
  • You would need to ask them why they object and not make the change until you have consensus.
I think that's all of the points you raised. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, now it makes sense.
  • I can hold to that until Saturday. Okay, I thought it was "leave proposals on the page for 48 hours before taking action," but your fourth point suggests that this is not the case. Please clarify.
  • That's odd. Last time, when Jack and I were both blocked, the only thing I couldn't edit was the Oathkeeper page itself. I was still posting on the talk page.
  • Let's see if I have this. 1. Removal of content has to have been explained. 2. Then say I revert the removal. 3. Then I go to the talk page and explain why I put the content back in. What is the 48 hours for if I'm not supposed to perform another action for seven days?
  • I have been asking them why they object. They haven't been answering. Their reverts have not been accompanied by explanation.
Thanks for answering my questions. I want to make sure that we're on the same page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • They have to be on the talk page for a minimum of 48 hours and you can't make more than 1 revert to the article within a week.
  • With a bit more detail: If you see an editor remove a bit of content with an explanation that you don't agree with, you propose on the talk page that it be added back. After 48 hours there is a consensus to add it back, which you then do (your one revert). 30 minutes later that editor comes back an back and removes it again. You already have the 48 hour rule ticked off because you've done that, however 1RR/week prevents you from reverting again so you have to go back to the talk page.
The 48 hour rule is mainly there for content you want to add, but it works for both additions and removals. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's clearer, but it's starting to sound like I should just refrain from editing the article in question until Saturday.
  • This looks like it applies to reverts but not to other edits.
  • What about reverts for which no explanation is given? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If it meets the conditions at WP:3RRNO (or WP:BANEX) then you can revert it without regard to 1RR. You could do that and only edit the talk page, up to you. I've unblocked you per the above. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It is my understanding that these restrictions are in force until one week from the time of blocking, Saturday. If you mean one week from the time of unblocking, just let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
From the original expiry date is all I can enforce, though I'd suggest that a voluntary/unofficial 1RR/week or proposing potentially controversial things on the talk page first would be good practice for you given others were calling for a TBAN. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as an involved and potentially biased editor, I certainly hope the editing at Oathkeeper will proceed in a more collaborative spirit on behalf of all parties going forward. DonIago (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I was already doing something similar, Callanecc. I don't expect a problem.
Me too, Don, but no one can collaborate alone. At the absolute least, you have to say why you keep deleting the content so that I or one of us can fix it. Don't expect me to read your mind. I can't take your statements on good faith if you don't make any. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason why I kept deleting it was because you knew the information you were editing was highly controversial and you knew that all editors adding material regarding the subject at hand had been asked to get consensus for their changes before adding material and you persisted in trying to force your material through. There was and is no deadline; it would have shown good faith, eased tensions and likely have kept you from being blocked if you'd shown more active interest in working with your fellow editors instead of editing first and hoping nobody objected when editors had been expressing concerns regarding your additions for months. I go to great lengths to AGF, but when an editor's working on a highly controversial part of an article and has been an active participant in discussions, I consider it eminently reasonable to expect them to get a consensus first. And lastly, what would have been the harm in running the gauntlet of asking editors whether they would approve of your changes before implementing them? None that I can think of.
If you want my support, show me that you want to work with the other involved editors to ensure that further changes to the article have their support instead of striking out unilaterally. I'm willing to give you some leeway at this point, but I sincerely hope I won't see any further instances of you trying to push through controversial edits despite others' concerns and/or opposition. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No, Don, the material is not controversial. The material is a list of which chapters contain the same content as an episode of a TV series. That might be something that you don't happen to like, but that doesn't make it highly controversial.
Don YOU made changes to the writing section without getting consensus first. Do not expect me to go above and beyond Wikipedia's ordinary rules if you aren't willing to do the same.
As for the rules, yes you are required to state your reasons if you want to keep deleting something. No you don't get to say, "Well I don't like this and you ought to know why already." If you leave me to guess at your motives, then the conclusions that I draw may not be favorable to you.
The harm in asking you guys first? Aside from the fact that the readers wouldn't have access to their information in the interim, I've been trying to assume good faith, but 1. you guys asked for secondary sources but 2. providing them—about eight of them now, nine—only seems to make those same people angry. 3. On several separate occasions, Jack deleted material without bothering to read the source first. From this, I conclude that "This just needs more secondary sources" is not the real reason or at least not the only reason why this material is getting deleted, that Jack or you or both are going to delete the content no matter what I do or how many weeks and months I spend finding source after source after source. I don't trust you guys to address the material fairly.
This thing has been sourced in everything from a newspaper to respected news sites to less respected news sites to the actual book itself, way beyond Wikipedia's usual standards for information of this kind. What. Gives? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how you can claim that material that resulted in months of discussion is not controversial. Maybe it shouldn't be, but when there's been discussions at DRN, ANI and an RFC? Congratulations, it's now controversial. Treat it accordingly.
The only changes I recall making are reverting your changes which had stirred up dissent on the Talk page. If you believe I did otherwise, provide me with a diff and I'll discuss it.
From what I've seen at the Talk page, the sources you keep trying to insert into the article are not reliable sources and shouldn't be being used. Even now multiple editors are telling you that the sources you're defending aren't appropriate. If you disagree, an endorsement from WP:RSN might go a long way toward helping your case.
Frankly I don't give a damn how much you trust us, because for my money I don't feel you've given us much reason at all to trust you. You keep trying to include sources that other editors don't believe are reliable, you're evidently not doing the legwork to disprove their claims, you've already shown a willingness to edit war rather than make a serious effort to achieve consensus, and even after being blocked you're still being defensive and trying to blame others for your edits being rejected instead of showing even a hint of modesty and a genuine interest in working with your fellow editors.
But in the end, I'm not even the one you have to convince. I don't give a damn about GoT and wouldn't even be aware of this whole situation if the DRN case hadn't been brought to my attention. I have no interest in editing the article, but I will do so if I see an editor trying to force edits through regarding controversial material for which they do not have consensus to include.
I'm this close to simply not speaking with you about this anymore, so if you want to continue this dialog, I might recommend that you take a step back and look at how you're coming across first. Good day. DonIago (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, making a deletion counts as making a change, especially considering that the content had already had four different sources, the only objection to it that had been raised was insufficient sourcing, and that it had been re-added with a new source. Don't tell me "don't touch" unless you're willing to refrain from doing the same.
Remember your context. Is the source reliable for the information being cited? Product information from a newspaper? Yes. The book itself? Yes. A blog post from a named author whose credentials are given? Yes. A fansite on that specific topic for whose use there is great precedent on Wikipedia? Yes.
Again, Don, take your own advice. In this case, if you want to delete something, give a reason. When you don't, it makes it look like you don't think you need to discuss things or that you don't have a good reason for your deletion and prefer to hide it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Riiiiiight. Think I'm done here. DonIago (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper | Script assisted WS removal/wikification[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24,

I'm a random administrator who saw a post by Jack Sebastian on WP:AN and offered to assist him. He informed me to explain the dispute you were having on Talk:Oathkeeper, and I have independently reviewed the situation. I do not believe I have interacted with Jack, DonQuixote, or yourself before, and I am not a viewer/reader of the Game of Thrones television/book series. With that said, I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, and I hope you take the advice in the constructive spirit it is offered in:

Jack has asserted that a news website you have cited to support your position was actually a classifieds section authored by yourself. His rationale seems plausible to me, but at this point, largely unprovable. With that said though, you have repeatedly insisted that it and similar types of self-published or non-established sources (unclearly credentialed sites, fan websites, etc.) as appropriate sources for Wikipedia. These websites may be useful in establishing the Truth of content on our site, but there is a reason that the Identifying Reliable Sources guideline is so stringent on matters like these—it helps us determine which details are important to add to an article and which are ephemeral. Respectfully, your proposed additions are beginning to veer to the latter end. I suggest that you take a step back and re-evaluate what you're adding, why, and whether it truly meets the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies.

If you have any questions, please feel to reply back (just please use WP:ECHO notify me!). Best, NW (Talk) 20:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: Jack's lying If we give Jack absolutely every benefit of the doubt, then his claim that I paid a newspaper to publish a source that supports content that he doesn't like is best described as wishful thinking. I plugged "Oathkeeper" and "Jaime IX" into a search engine and the page in the Prince Albert newspaper came up.
If you need another secondary source to confirm that this content isn't trivial, this ought to do it: [9]. There's also a similar article in Slate (two similar articles if you also count the one by Chris Kirk) and another in i09. I've also repeatedly asked if the other participants in this debate had any reasons other than sourcing to object to this material. I keep getting "no."
Jack does not like the content in question and has come up with some excuse for every source I've found. He claims that all he wants are secondary sources, but providing them—about eight or nine at last count, including news sources such as 538, Slate and AV Club [10]—only seems to make him angry—to the point of profanity (scroll up or hit CTRL-F "steaming dog crap" or even just "crap"; he uses that one a lot). He has repeatedly deleted content as unsourced without reading the source [11] [12]. This guy has issues.
Please be advised that these are not "my proposed additions," and as the information has not changed since this dispute started back in April (excepting that a source citing the fifth book in addition to the third was found), they cannot have veered anywhere. The text in question was already in both the Breaker of Chains and Oathkeeper articles. [13] Another author had deleted them as unsourced. I found sources and then restored the text.
As to why I restored the text, "chapters X, Y, and Z," it's because I had come to the Breaker of Chains article looking for that exact information. I've read every page of the books and seen every frame of the show, but I didn't know that sites like Westeros.org existed. I didn't go there; I came here. It seems plausible that others would too.
EDIT: I just reread WP:TRIVIA and it doesn't seem to apply here. It concerns full lists of facts. The disputed text is a single line telling the reader what parts of the book the episode was based on. The content in question is a single sentence, Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX), incorporated in prose into the "Writing/Production" section of the article.
One more thing: It's good to hear a level voice from a neutral party. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, what are you doing?[edit]

I am noticing a lot (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least a dozen others) of canvassing going on, and I was wondering if you are aware with how it could be perceived? Posting at the wikiproject should have been enough. I think that - at this point, you have received more than enough responses at "Oathkeeper" from other users to confirm what you have been told for several months. You need to stop before this is escalated back to an admin for action. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What am I doing? Publicizing the RfC. You will note that "talk pages of closely related articles" is specifically listed. If you're going to keep pontificating about Wikipedia policy, you should spend more time reading it.
You should also ask this: From what I posted alone, can a previously uninvolved person tell which side of the issue I'm on? No. From where I posted it, is it more likely to be read by people who agree with me than by people who don't? Again no. (After all, you and DQ both spend time on GoT talk pages.) It's hard to see why you'd consider this canvassing.
You might want to remember that this source was up for review on the RS noticeboard twice without a single comment from anyone not previously involved. What we need is not only people who are interested in WP:RS and WP:USERG but also people who think that a Game of Thrones article is worth their time. J, Scooby and Inedible didn't show up until after I started publicizing. I haven't asked them how they found out about the RfC, but you're certainly free to.
And no, I don't think that three new voices are more than enough, especially since there's only a one-person difference. Your post here smacks of, "Wait! Now that there's a preponderance in my favor, I want the RfC to stop! Nobody else come in!" If I pulled that, you'd be crying foul. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, at what point are you going to accept a consensus? I would like to know, because you've been at this for several months, and over the very same sentence. You have had almost a dozen contributors and visitors say no, and only one other saying yes. I think its a fair question to know when you plan to finally accept a result, because I am seeing nothing but you forum-shopping. Didn't get the answer you wanted? Start another RfC. Didn't get the input you wanted at RSN? Pretend it never happened. Have a half-dozen editors tell you in no uncertain terms that your pet phrasing cannot be in? Ignore it, or ask for re-clarification. This is what we are seeing here.
And you might want to check out that link for canvassing again. I think that sending more than a dozen posts seeking input - and where you are sending them - seems a lot like mass posting and votestacking. But why am I at all surprised? This is your game. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Jack, read the policy on forum shopping. That's about taking the same question to different places hoping for a different result. At the beginning of this issue, DQ requested a third opinion. Diego showed up and said the primary source was enough to support the proposed text. Now if DQ had been the one to start that RfC about using the novel, then that would have been forum shopping (but it wasn't DQ). The previous RfC established that a secondary source was necessary, so I've been bringing in secondary sources. You posted various complaints about those secondary sources, so now we've got another RfC dealing with those questions. As for the RS noticeboard, no one gave us any input at all, not in the postings I wrote, not in the ones you wrote, no approval or disapproval. What is it that I'm supposed to pretend didn't happen? The thing to take away from that is that not all other editors consider Game of Thrones to merit their comments.
"At this"? Right now "this" is an RfC about the Ana Carol source. It's got an official limit of thirty days from the time of posting, but people only started contributing to it after I started promoting it. Let it run its course as our last RfC ran its course, and yes I've seen RfCs change after the first few contributors show up.
The consensus is that a minimum of exactly one secondary source must be found to support this content. I personally think that the primary source is enough, but if by "accept," you mean "agreed to abide by," then I accepted consensus months ago. That's why I keep going out and finding secondary sources. Frankly, considering that we've got eight or nine at this point, the content really should be in the article right now.
"Votestacking" only applies if I'm posting in places where I'm more likely to find people who agree with me than people who disagree with me. I repeat: I ran into you on a Game of Thrones talk page, and you clearly don't agree with me.
It would help if you'd refrain from insulting me, Jack. This is no more "mine" or a "game" than it is "yours." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: Wait a second, are you under the impression that I only promoted this RfC on GoT talk pages? I haven't. If that's not enough for you, then go ask Scooby and J how they found out about the RfC. I'd prefer it if you did that before you post here again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry lady, I've already made up my mind onI'm having some trouble giving you the Assumption of Good Faith here; you've said nothing over the course of almost three months that convinces me that you aren't gaming the system to get precisely the edit you have wanted from the beginning. I'm done trying to help you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Tendentious editing unfortunately covers this whole situation rather well. And unless I perceive a genuine interest in changing the course of this discussion I'm pretty sure that's all I'll have to say here, because I have no desire to involve myself further at this point. DonIago (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Going out and finding more sources for material that's been deleted as unsourced is not gaming the system. It is the system. And you'd have to start trying to help before you could stop. The only thing you've done here is foist your own opinion and complain when I don't automatically prefer it to my own assessment of the situation.
Also, quit with the assumptions about my gender. You can call me "sir" if you feel a crushing need, but I really don't see how anyone's XX or XY is relevant here.
Don, I can see why you'd be frustrated, but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm breaking any of Wikipedia's rules. You guys insisted on more sources. I went out and got them. You're still not happy. I don't know what you want from me there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally I'd like you to consider the possibility that you're never going to get the consensus you're evidently hoping for, that maybe you should have reached that conclusion weeks ago, that perhaps it isn't worth continuing to drag this out regardless of whether you're behaving within the rules, and drop the stick and back away from the poor dead horse. DonIago (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Don, the sources support this material. Policy supports this material. There's precedent for content like this in other articles. Have you considered that you might be the one being obstructionist here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Why should I? I'm not the one who can't find any other editors willing to support my take on the matter. Editing Wikipedia is about working with the community, not just pushing for your preferred version of an article because policy in and of itself supports your changes. DonIago (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
"Can't find any other editors"? Did you forget about Diego, InedibleHulk, Mjolnir or any of the others? There's more to the community than you, Jack and DQ. Should I forget about DQ because he's not here right now? This dispute has five longstanding participants and others who've chimed in, and both groups have been split. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Asked and answered. I'm neither obligated nor inclined to talk about this with you any further. But you might ask yourself why, if these editors would support you, none of them have been saying anything lately. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly the same reason DQ took off. See you later, Don. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

I would appreciate it is you would leave my posts as is. If you ever refactor a post of mine again, I will seek your immediate block. Consider this your sole warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't change your post. I changed the header. The whiny "Again" is not neutral. And let me remind you: You were the one who filed this both times. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am the one who submitted it once before, therefore, using the designator 'again' is both accurate and illuminating. Thank you for acknowledging my warning - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, Jack, it is a complaint. It biases the viewer and poisons the well. If you want this RSN to count you have to commit to conducting it properly. If you don't like "Fan site or expert source" then just delete the "again" and just say "Westeros.org." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into this beyond to say that barring exceptional circumstances refactoring others' posts for almost any reason is a serious no-no and very much a blockable offense if it's persistent. The posts people make are a record of what they said, and it's incredibly inappropriate to change that. If you have objections to what they've said then note them in a follow-up, but do not change the original text. DonIago (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That's why I didn't touch Jack's post Don. Not one character of the text with his name on it was changed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

If I am not mistaken, you are restricted to 1RR. Your actions on several articles (1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7, and 8, 9 and 10) suggest that you do not feel that your editing restrictions do not apply. Additionally, you appear to be reverting my edits wholsesale, without actually looking at what I am editing. Please stop edit-warring. Consider that RSN can see edit histories quite clearly. It is our responsibility to edit articles to remove unfit sources. It is not about positioning or tactics to make your preferred edit look pretty. You should know this. Stop, or suffer the consequences. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are indeed mistaken. The 1RR agreement timed out a long time ago and only concerned Oathkeeper.
Westeros.org is not an unfit source. Its use in these GA-rated articles has gone without comment for years and it's practically textbook expert under WP:SPS. If you don't like it, take your concerns to the discussion on talk:Oathkeeper and the RSN noticeboard.
Stop trying to bias the RSN discussion by deleting precedent. You're already up for this on AN/I. At least wait to see what the admins have to say about your edits. I am not the only one reverting you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. You left me no choice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

When the date shows up but not your name[edit]

I have encountered that practice when creating certain types of pages, like AfD pages, but it didn't occur to me that that's what I did. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I love being meddlesome and informative. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with the rationale. I've been around here since 2005. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Heh. I rephrased my response after I checked your user page. It was more along the lines of, "Good God you don't have to tell this person what the eff an RfC is; get it out of there!!" Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown[edit]

Hi, good idea on "no known criminal record" If you want to change your "vote" at the RfC to that wording, I will change mine as well and see if we can get others to compromise to your excellent suggestion. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)