User talk:Jack Sebastian/Archive 7

Unbelievable...

You know, especially after their recent block, I desperately would like to believe that Darkfrog has come to better understand our concerns and is attempting to modify their approach to the situation accordingly...and to be fair, they haven't edited the article since their block (that I'm recalling). But their responses to me on their Talk page and the most recent comment on the article's Talk page, which seemed like they hadn't even read what I'd said about RSN, are making it damn hard for me to AGF. It's as though they'd rather simply go round and round debating the situation than do anything that would yield a definitive result.

I'll be the first to say that I think earlier neither one of you was handling the whole thing well, and I'm glad to be able to say that I think you've gotten a bit better about limiting your engagement to a less provocative level lately.

Sorry, just needed to vent for a moment. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries; Darkfrog's tendentious and problematic behavior has had me hitting the gym more often nowadays. I foresee an indef block in her future. She cannot help herself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would say we've essentially given her a path forward. She can present other sources, go to RSN, or just drop the stick and move on to something else. Her continued attempts to try turning the tables, especially when she's the one who got blocked, is just...ridiculous. DonIago (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with the underlying sentiments, you might want to ease back a bit on DF. Your points are good and valid, but in my estimation you may be laying it on a little thick. Just a suggestion. Personally I've gotten quiet because I'm waiting to see whether anything happens at RSN; I don't really feel the need to chime in at either discussion presently. DonIago (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check. I agree, so I've self-redacted. No spense calling a spade a WP:SPADE. My pops used to say that no one person was the smartest in the room. I agree; I cannot be the pnly one noting Darkfrog's problematic behavior. I don't need to hand her a shovel to bury herself, or need to join her in the hole she's digging. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny you say that; one of my signature lines is, "They dug their own hole; I just lent them the shovel." I think the reality is that the RSN filing is going to go nowhere (perhaps unfortunate, as ideally an actual opinion would be better), and DF will still have no consensus supporting their sources. At this time I think the most surprising outcome would be if the sources were ultimately supported by other editors, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. DonIago (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps DF failed in that she put them all together in a single RSN request; maybe she thought the crush of them would have served her purpose, or obfuscated the matter thoroughly. <shrugs> Maybe you and I should list them individually at RSN. Less to chew through. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with my current level of (non-)involvement honestly, and while you may have a valid point, I'd dread the potential for a bunch of dialogs versus one... Anyway, AFAIC the sources are all unreliable anyway, so while it may not be the most charitable of me, a lack of consensus for inclusion basically works in my favor... But if you want to be the better person, you could do that...but might want to tell DF you're planning to do it first, in case they'd actually have a problem with it. DonIago (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

She has her wall o' textual obfuscation™. I'm thinking that a clear signal would finally shut her up and move the conversation forward. However, I see your point. I'll submit a few and see where that gets us. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm done talking to her (at least for now). I told her where my concerns lie, and either she's not hearing what I'm saying, acting like she's not hearing what I'm saying, or simply doesn't understand me, and I have no idea how to communicate with her in a way that will change that at this point. In any case, as I said at OK Talk, until there's either a consensus to use the sources or a decision at RSN we have our path forward, and frankly I think either one of those just isn't going to be happening. DonIago (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh joy, another RfC. I'm not planning to get involved unless it's desperately needed. DonIago (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I'm seriously considering this or not, but if I proposed simply banning all comparison of the episode to the books that could not be explicitly and directly confirmed by a single reliable source (i.e. no using multiple sources to build a case), how would you feel about that? In other words, no complicated constructions of statements cited to multiple sources; if a specific source doesn't say it, we don't include it. DonIago (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am and have always been in favor of that idea. The whole point of us being editors and not authors is that we aren't citable. Our Sherlocking should not be in the article. Go for it. I'll back that play. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

1#Proposal  Done DonIago (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

DF is either amazingly dense or really desperate to game the system as much as possible. Either way I want to head-desk. DonIago (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So here's your puzzle for the day - does DF really not understand my proposal and the repercussions it would have for what they are trying to do, or are they merely acting the part? DonIago (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think she is gaming the system. I pray that those who have been here longer catch on, but frankly, I'm largely unimpressed with administrative follow-through. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've thought about an RFC/U, but I've never done one before and as my interaction with her is largely limited to the one article (and hopefully once my proposal is closed most of the discussion will be mooted anyway), I'm not sure there's enough for a strong case. If I were in your shoes I'd probably just stop posting. DF isn't going to get anywhere in terms of getting her material into the article at this point, and will get even less far once the proposal is closed (I think there's obvious consensus) and she can't come up with any way to say what she would like to say based on the strength of a single source. DonIago (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, your comment was very unprofessional. But very funny. :p DonIago (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN

I see that you are a regular discussant at WP:RSN. A question just got archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Alfonso Gomez-Rejon interview. Do you have any advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That happens - questions get archived if they grow stale. You have, imo, three choices. First, you can consider the lack of answer to the question an answer in and of itself. If someone disagreed with you, then they would have spoken up. Secondly, you can cut and paste the exact same, archived question back into the queue, refloating the question. Thirdly - and I have only heard of this - is to make incremental changes to the post in order to prevent the bot from detecting it as stale. Your mileage may vary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that they agreed with me, what did they agree about. I don't think I stated an opinion. Do you interpret that I did?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me check on it later on today and think out a response. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a little time. The kid is exploring everything that could possibly kill them, so vigilance is key (and WP comes in a very distant 27th).

I don't see any commentary about the noticeboard post you, well, posted. There is likewise, no discussion about the source - from you or anyone else. In the article edit history, it appears that you and Gothicfilm disagreed about the wording and placement of the celebrity assistant thing, but nothing actively connected to the reliability of the source. Christina Radish appears to be a staff member for Colider. The real question would seem to be, 'is Collider a notable news source?' IMO, it is, but if you are concerned with the source, re-list and get more input. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that there is some confusion. The Radish sourced content is not something that there has been warring about. It is content I am considering adding. I was just not sure if it was a valid source. If you think Colider is a RS, I will just add the content. Thanks for taking a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A Newcastle for you!

This might cheer you up. DonQuixote (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Meetup at the Hull House!

Hey Jack! The Jane Addams Hull-House Museum is doing an edit-a-thon later next week. It's kind of on a weird day of the week to accommodate students at UIC, but you're welcome to join us if you're free. It was great to have you at our last edit-a-thon at the Pritzker. :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of Westeros.org from GA-rated articles while the RSN conversation is ongoing may mislead new participants. Please revert.

Jack, stop deleting Westeros.org from GA-rated articles. Westeros.org is RS per WP:SPS. The RSN discussion is currently under way. Because "It's used in GA-rated articles" is cited there, participants may go to GA-rated articles to check. They may not ask us first. Deleting this content is misleading. If the RSN declares Westeros.org unreliable, delete it then. This content has been in these articles for years. It won't hurt for you to wait until this matter is resolved. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I recall a few weeks ago your strange reticence to note where else Westeros.org - a fansite - was being used in other GoT articles, but I didn't have the time then to investigate more closely. It is clear now that you were deliberately avoiding naming them. When you again noted that there were GA articles that used Westeros.org, this time I went looking. Not only were there writing section tags to Westeros.Org., but I saw refs that didn't match the sources as well as an instance where Garcia (one of Westeros.org's admins) being given equal footing with actual reliable sources - and then sourcing it to his own website!

The consensus is that Westeros.org is a fansite. If anyone doubts that, the RSN discussions, RfC discussions, etc. should probably resolve that matter. A side note, you might want to consider that reverting me over a half-dozen times violates the spirit of your unblock, not to mention smacks of wikistalking. If you are thinking it doesn't cover your behavior iin other, related articles, you would be wrong. You should stop doing that, and now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that is NOT the consensus.

You're concerned about stalking? I can set your mind at ease. The GA-rated articles are on my watchlist. I was watching them, not you.

WP policy does not require me to draw you a map to good content so that you can delete it. It's kind of like how it doesn't require you to help me find sources no matter how rudely you demand them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that I would remove good content is a failure to Assume Good Faith. In point of fact, I did look for sources, and rejected many that you have brought forth like the holy grail to allow you to use your preferred version of the text.

Hiding behind policy to pointedly obfuscate bad sources - and there is a consensus that it is a largely unusable source - is contrary to what we do here, on so many levels.

Since you clearly are not that good at reading my actions correctly, and since you appear to not "get" what Wikipedia is supposed to be, and since you have gamed the system for three months, I would like to ask that you to now stop posting to my page. We don't seem to have a common frame of reference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to ask you even once not to swear at me. Also, attempts to bias the RSN

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you are so offended by the word "crap." While I suggest you grow a thicker skin, I agree to refer to your less-than-usable sources as something else. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oathkeeper

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Oathkeeper. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm being punked, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish I'd gotten one of these... :p DonIago (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You can always pretend you did. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forever (U.S. TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immortal. 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) 09:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements

The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If this has dropped off your watchlist, see

Talk:Parahuman#Requested move. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Romulans

The way I learned it, "(at war with) OR (in truce with)" could be simplified to "(at war OR in truce) with". If there hadn't been a typo to fix as well, though, I probably would have just left it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I caught the typo and fixed it in the revert. By your handle, I concede your likely superior knowledge on all things Trek, but the grammar was unwieldy, which is what I addressed. I came to it after a friend forwarded on a link to the fan film trailer for Star Trek: Horizon, and I was wondering about the vaguely addressed Tomed Incident. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to look that up. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LLArrow (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Hello! I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There Has Clearly Been A Misunderstanding

You keep reverting my edit on Gotham because you think that I am claiming that Jerome is the Joker. That is simply NOT the case. While I did do that one time, I have since stopped adding that Jerome is the Joker. But while we may not know for certain that Jerome is the Joker, we know FOR A FACT that his full name is Jerome Valeska because the official viral website for the show confirmed this. Read the citation. The discussion in the Talk pages for Gotham and Joker in other media has to do with Jerome being the Joker, not his name. You have yet to explain why you keep deleting Jerome's full name. The citation used for Jerome Valeska's full name is from the OFFICIAL viral website for Gotham. Official meaning it was established by the network (Fox) themselves.Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Darkknight2149

@Darkknight2149:I keep removing it because you keeping linking Jerome to the Joker. When you stop doing that, I'll stop reverting it.

Additionally, the link you insist on using is a marketing link. We don't use those as reliable sources. As you have now broken 3RR, I could report your, but I will give you the opportunity to self-revert and use the discussion page. If you fail to do this within an hour, I will report you. I have provided you ample warning as to the outcome of edit-warring. Please do not misconstrue my advice as anything but politeness to a new user. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Two Chicago edit-a-thons this April!

Hey folks! We've got two exciting edit-a-thons happening in Chicago during the third week of April:

• Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago edit-a-thon on Wednesday, April 15th from 4 PM - 8 PM
• Pritzker Military Museum & Library edit-a-thon on Saturday, April 18th from 10 AM - 3:30 PM

If you're interested in meeting up and working together with other Wikipedians at these fantastic institutions, please RSVP at the event pages linked above. If you know someone else interested in learning about or editing Wikipedia, invite them! We will provide training and resources for new editors at both events. For questions about the events, please refer to the event pages or contact I JethroBT (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT through MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Vibe (comics)

Theredhulk46: Why was the 'live action' section deleted? It takes a lot of work to make it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredhulk46 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have answered your question on your page. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Gotham (TV series)

You reported this at WP:AN3. The complaint will likely close without a block unless you can establish that the other party really made four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @EdJohnston:. I responded to the issue there. I had miscounted the reverts, but not misapprehended the behavior. Has AN:3r changed so that the literal three edits and not the pattern of discussion via edit summary is addressed when considering edit-warring? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please thoroughly read citations before you remove them

You recently removed a bunch of citations on List of Gotham episodes here on the basis that none of them call the character "Amygdala" or list his name. What puzzles me is that every single one of them mentions Amygdala and Aaron Helzinger.

But instead of having you take my word for it, I am simply going to quote each citation and list the link.

Citation #33:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxXJ9lsKMYQ

Quote:

Promotional video from verified account that refers to him as Aaron Helzinger. Videos can be used as citations if they are posted by the copyright holder, per Wikipedia:Video links.

Citation #34:

Link: http://comicbook.com/2015/09/02/official-synopsis-for-the-first-episode-of-gotham-season-2/

Quote:

"Guest Cast: Drew Powell as Butch Gilzean, Peter Scolari as Commissioner Loeb, Anthony Carrigan as Victor Zsasz, James Andrew O’Connor as Tommy Bones, David Fierro as Zaardon, Cameron Monaghan as Jerome, Todd Stashwick as Richard Sionis, Will Brill as Arnold Dobkins, Stink Fisher as Aaron Helzinger, Dustin Ybarra as Robert Greenwood, Otto Sanchez as Odgen Barker, Philip Goodwin as Compere"

Citation #35:

Link: http://www.eonline.com/news/666878/spoiler-chat-scoop-on-the-walking-dead-teen-wolf-the-good-wife-homeland-arrow-and-more

Quote:

"As if Jim Gordon didn't have enough on his plate with the Penguin's rise to power, now he's going to have to deal with Amygdala! The Fox show is currently casting the Batman comics villain, an incredibly strong and aggressive dude with limited brain function, for season two. They're looking to cast a male in his 30s, described as a "hulking mountain of a man, with a bald or shaven head.""

Citation #36:

Link: http://www.fox.com/content/clone-of-gotham-091815-8pm-0

Quote:

"Guest Cast: Drew Powell as Butch Gilzean, Peter Scolari as Commissioner Loeb, Anthony Carrigan as Victor Zsasz, James Andrew O’Connor as Tommy Bones, David Fierro as Zaardon, Cameron Monaghan as Jerome, Todd Stashwick as Richard Sionis, Will Brill as Arnold Dobkins, Stink Fisher as Amygdala, Dustin Ybarra as Robert Greenwood, Otto Sanchez as Odgen Barker, Philip Goodwin as Compere"

I hope this cleared some things up. Have a nice day. Darkknight2149 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the only thing it cleared up is how you have misapprehended how our citaiton policy works here, and I've taken the very limited amount of time that I have to square you away on this on your talk page; please refer to that for my response.

I am going to remind you that if you keep edit-waring about this instead of using the discussion page, you are going to end up in AN:I. that isn't a threat; its simply the next step if you aren;t going to use the discussion page or see reason. Stop using edit summaries to make your point., Use the discussion page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The citations point out that it is specifically Stink Fisher's character that is Aaron Helzinger and Amygdala, unless there is some possibility that the actor is portraying two characters (but the episodes that have aired prove that to not be the case). I'm not quite sure what further proof you need.

As for the linkage of same name characters, I'm passed that at the moment but do expect a larger discussion to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. I'll begin that whenever I can.

The final thing I'll say on this matter for is that I have in fact read Wikipedia's guidelines and you misunderstand the point I was trying to get across when I mentioned the "proven wrong" thing. My position isn't that we can link the connections because it's "obvious," my position is that we should be able to link the characters because the connections are implied. There is a difference between making something up and saying "well, it wasn't proven wrong!" and this situation here. I could understand the need for a citation if the character has a generic name or if they are completely different from their apparent counterpart but the fact that characters in an adaptation have the same name, personality, ETC, as a character from the source material clearly imply a connection between the two and with many of these characters, there are far too many similarities to be a coincidence. Darkknight2149 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Amygdala (Gotham)

It's me again. You may remember that debate we had about the character Amygdala earlier this month. To quickly summarise, a character named Aaron Helzinger appeared in Gotham portrayed by actor Stink Fisher, you unlinked it demanding proof that Helzinger is Amygdala, I provided a few citations that named Stink Fisher as both Aaron Helzinger and Amygdala, and you didn't think it was solid enough (even though Fisher only plays one character in the series).
Well, I think this source here confirms that Aaron Helzinger is Amygdala rather definitively. It's from the Hollywood Reporter, one of the most reliable third party sources in the entertainment industry. Thoughts? Darkknight2149 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, DK. Look at the text of your reference a little more closely:

"He might not seem like anything beyond a big dumb galoot right now, but Aaron's (Stink Fisher) comic book alter-ego would go through experimental surgery to reduce his anger issues, only to end up becoming the rage-filled supervillain known as Amygdala. As Amygdala, he is super-strong, but also mentally impaired — so it might be a good idea for Aaron to avoid agreeing to any surgeries anytime soon, no matter how convincing new crime boss Theo Galavan might make it sound."

He is one person right now. He isn't the equivalent of the comic book character yet. You might also notice that this very same article posits Jerome as the Joker, when we have fairly clearly determined that Valeska isn't coming back from a rather severe case of death. Come on, this article is little more than bloggy fanboy wishlisting. We can do better. Wait for it. Definitiveness might be forthcoming, one way or the other, and it might turn out that Aaron isn't going to be Amygdala, just like Sionis wasn't Black Mask and Valeska wasn't the Joker. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the part about Jerome and Richard Sionis but if that's the case, then that certainly erases the article's credibility (even though it's from THR). Darkknight2149 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jessica Jones (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noir. 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) 09:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. - User:Davidgoodheart DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC) (talk) 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? User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 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 no mystery (mostly likely, as there likely is no other explanation) that he was kidnapped, and it still somewhat a mystery as not known "for sure" what happened to Melissa Brannen. Can we re-add it? User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, David. Melissa Brannen probably shouldn't be in the list because someone was already convicted of abducting her. Her disappearance is not mysterious, though her current whereabouts are in fact unknown. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Joker in other media

If you have definitive, non-speculative proof that Jerome is indeed not the Joker, then please list them in the article. That's all I'm asking. DarkKnight2149 19:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

recent edits to List of people who disappeared mysteriously

Hi, please check out edits made to the list of the List of people who disappeared mysteriously and let me know if you agree with them. The person who removed Amelia has removed another person, and the disappearance of Evelyn Hartley has been changed to just Evelyn Hartley. I myself don't agree with these edits and think the should be changed back, What do you think? User:Davidgoodheart70.71.32.160 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

David, these are questions you should up in the talk page of the article. I am not in charge of it or anything, and your views are just as important as mine or anyone else's, and deserve to be exposed in a wider forum. Ask them if they agree, because a wide consensus for inclusion will be a lot more durable an edit than just me liking it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

List of people who disappeared mysteriously

Hi there. I noticed you undid my brief description for Bison Dele. You stated in the edit summary that if someone confessed to murdering them, a person don't belong on that list. See your edit here. I didn't add his name there, I only added the brief desc + ref. Why did you remove my text and leave his name there without the description? Am I missing something here? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Junglecat: You didn't miss anything - I did. I should have grabbed the whole thing, not just what you added. I did want to point out that, had the disappeared person not be a confessed murder victim, your work would have been exemplary for the entrant. I apologize for any confusion that my incomplete edit might have caused you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, no probs! I appreciate the heads-up on that list about subjects known to be murdered. When I get some free time I’ll go check out the discussion. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it was a typo, but the article is for people who have disappeared mysteriously. Those who have disappeared aren't on the list anymore, unless they were on the list initially and later discovered to be dead. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

See also

Please don't launch that RfC Jack. It's most unlikely to do well. You may have noticed that editors, at least those most prone to pitch into debates, are very resistant to anything they can term as "instruction creep", and I'm honestly not seeing any evidence of a serious and widespread problem to convince them otherwise. They are just not going to support any citation requirement for See also entries.
Featured articles tend to have no or minimal See also sections: why? Because in a comprehensive article, all the other most relevant WP articles will have already been linked in the text embedded in statements showing how they are related. With citations as appropriate. This is what we should be aiming for: Noyster (talk), 11:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Noyster: I am aware that few FA have See Also sections - and I agree with your reasoning why. However, I've wiki-gnomed hundreds of articles wher ethe see also section was stuff that barely related. Like the noted article about the missing kid being connected to another missing kid. The editor who wants it in there argues that there is no policy about such a connection needing to be cited, and he's one of the smart editors. He isn't editing to be a dick, he's editing within the rules that are currently screwed up. It isn't instruction creep if there is a necessity for the change.

I'd urge you to consider talking to some of the other editors who are most vehement about changing even a word; its this direct flouting of policy and guidelines which will force an RfC. A willingness to work and find a solution is the best way to go. Other editors acting like I'm the anti-christ don't inclien me to soften my stance. This level of inflexibility is a bad one to have in a policy discussion.

So, its up to you. Want to have those conversations with others? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really Jack because as indicated, I'm not convinced of a pressing need for a general change; and if I were, my favoured remedy would not be yours. For any article, links in See also should be limited to a reasonable number and within that, should show a few of the 5 million other articles not already linked in the text that the editor judges (yes) to be of most use or interest to the reader of this one. So if we see an inordinate number of indirectly related links they should be reduced; if they are reasonable in number but could be replaced by more useful or interesting ones then that should be done, and if reverted or disputed the matter can be taken from there.

I appreciate the discussion, which has made me more aware of the See also section and more likely to attend to its content when looking over articles. Beyond that I think that's all I have to say on the matter for now: Noyster (talk), 09:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Closure on Portman

Hi Jack. I think our agreements far outweigh our disagreements. So I'm OK if we reduce the Portman issue to a friendly disagreement. The current discussion seems to favor a change (i.e., remove the word "major"). I'll make no further objections, and I'll leave it up to you to decide how to proceed with the RfC. I don't plan to comment further there unless you request that I do so. Thanks for the communication over the past few weeks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message @Sundayclose:. Of the available choices, which one can you live with? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films A, B and C."? General Ization ^Talk 04:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose:, you don't want to note the specific attention that she garnered? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with Alternative 3 at the RfC, but I'm open to other possibilities. If I need to make a selection at the RfC to shore up consensus let me know and I'll comment there. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)clean-up