User talk:Jack Sebastian

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

Legends listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

AF Mark 1.png

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[edit]

Stop icon 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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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[edit]

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 (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)


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[edit]

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 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:
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)


Thank you for your comment at WP:ANI I had not checked it because I was standing off. As it happens we have a lot about mackerel and various other types of sea fish so the trout was inappropriate in the sense that it is a freshwater fish but it amused me. I liked it. Sorry not to put it better but trogging through the "Neelix redirects" is a pain so I sometimes lose where I am at. We get there together as a collaborative project. You gave me a laugh so thank you for brightening my day. Back to the list,,,, only another 9000 to do. Si Trew (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know precisely what it was that I said that you are referring to, but you are welcome, Simon. Have a good day. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


Information icon 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[edit]

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)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
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.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse logo
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[edit]

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"...

Justice League vs Teen Titans:

..."an animated facsimile of DC’s “New 52″ continuity"

DJMcNiff (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

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)

Stop icon

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)


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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Harmonic series (music)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harmonic series (music). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

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

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lists of Google Doodles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lists of Google Doodles. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Arrow episodes revert[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)