User talk:Jack Sebastian

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

Please comment on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa. 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, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:La Roux[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Roux. 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) 00:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable...[edit]

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 Yes check.svg 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)

Please comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road. 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, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Of Human Feelings[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Of Human Feelings. 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, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN[edit]

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![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png This might cheer you up. DonQuixote (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Meetup at the Hull House![edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Please comment on Talk:Doctor[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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)[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Flag of Chicago, Illinois.svg

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

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)

Please comment on Talk:Modesto, California[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Modesto, California. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Vibe (comics)[edit]

Theredhulk46: Why was the 'live action' section deleted? It takes a lot of work to make it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredhulk46 (talkcontribs) 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)[edit]

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 comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:I'm Coming Out[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:I'm Coming Out. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)