User talk:Jack Sebastian/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (Jack Sebastian) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning) 05:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Madonna

Re your post to WP:AN. If you've found an error in the article, start a new section on the talk page, add the {{Editsemiprotected}} template as the first line and state what you think is wrong and why, with a link to a reliable source that references that fact. If what you claim is found to be correct and a constructive edit, it will then be incorporated into the article. Alternatively, create an account. After 4 days and 10 edits you will be able to edit the article yourself. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops. I shouldn't have to create an account, or ask others to make edits for me. Indef protection is contrary to the point of the Project. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what you said about IPs in general, yes, most IPs are here to damage the encyclopedia, not improve it (there was even a study done not long ago about this, backing it up). Of course there have been some notable prolific IPs that helped the encyclopedia a lot, but they are a minority. There's a good case to be made for semi-protection everywhere, but at the bare minimum, high risk BLPs like the one you referenced certainly require it. Enigma^msg 18:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Might you have a link to that study? I mean, that's a pretty bold statement - that most IPs editing in Wikipedia are here to damage the encyclopedia. If that is indeed the case, let's change the rules that, in order to edit, you have to register. In fact, let's up and change the sign over the door to reflect that we are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit...so long as you are registered.

Forgive me for the tongue in cheek humor, but perhaps as an administrator you'd had more than enough occasion to encounter those IP editors who are indeed vandals; being part of the CVU doesn't seem to help you be neutral about IP editors. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"If that is indeed the case, let's change the rules that, in order to edit, you have to register. In fact, let's up and change the sign over the door to reflect that we are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit...so long as you are registered."

That's simply not going to happen. The culture is too entrenched.

You are a proponent of high profile BLPs not being protected, apparently. If you want evidence of what I said, feel free to examine the recent history of this article, an article I just visited today. Or, even better, look at the history of Madonna's page before I semiprotected it. It was unprotected on July 5, 2009, and quickly vandalized by several different IPs. The article was protected seven different times, I believe, due to vandalism, including from November 2007 to July 2009, when someone decided to unprotect it. Enigma^msg 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, you chose to be an administrator. You likewise chose to participate in the Counter-Vandalism Unit. At no point was a gun held to your head, so please do not act as if you have no choice in the matter.

Again, I recall you mentioning a study that proves that most IPs come here to damage the encyclopedia. Again, I am asking for a link to that study, not your observation of the edit history of the Madonna article. True, it does get vandalized a lot. That doesn't translate into a blanket semi-protection of the article forever. That is not keeping with our principles, which are INDEED entrenched, as they should be. The reason they are entrenched is because its a good idea; more ideas are better than fewer ideas. You seem to want to change how the rules are implemented, but not to the point of actually changing the rules to reflect your reality of implementation. That isn;t how things are done here. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Job trimming Survivors

The U.K. TV series. It desperately needed it. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just discovered the program (or is it 'programme'? haha), and I actually like it. It's odd to be able to see the Brit take on things, like race and the like.

Thanks ever so much for the compliment. It's grand to receive. I feel all warm and fuzzy. :) - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a yank watching U.K. stuff too so I always pop into the talk page and ask people to spellcheck for me in case I let an Americanism slip. I still haven't watched series two (season? lol) yet. I've had that page in my watchlist for some time; but I kept putting it off. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ETA: I saw when you pulled that race bit out. I couldn't believe I hadn't noticed it before. White sheet indeed. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have noticed it had it not been the only overt piece of Ugly™ in there. :/ - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about it, but I can see a lot of Blake's 7 in this series, which shouldn't really be surprising, considering Terry Nation's love of ensemble casts. He must truly dig George RR Martin's Songs of Fire and Ice series - he keeps killing or almost killing all of the main protagonists. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello, I saw how you trimmed the plot summary at The Last Starfighter, and I wanted to thank you for your help! :) If you are interested in film articles, I hope you will check out WikiProject Films. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome work (again) dude and thanks for taking that one off my to-do list. If you ever log into a named a ccount, drop me a line so I know who you are. I second Erik's motion; us plot summary junkies at WP films could really use your help. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

|}

Welcome!

Hello, Jack, and welcome! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Creating Articals

Hi,

When you create a page there is no need to put your user name in first part of the name.

Codf1977 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jack Sebastian. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have moved them both to your user space Codf1977 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

When you create a page use - User:Jack Sebastian/ at the start other wise you are adding the pages to main space. Codf1977 (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User subpage

Hi there - I see you tried to create a user subpage, but it went into mainspace by mistake. I have moved it to User:Jack Sebastian/One - Life (TV series) for you. Hope this helps. Regards, Karenjc 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Karen and Cod - I misread what I was supposed to do. I've renamed them in my user page. Sorry for the little catastrophe. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jack Sebastian. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codf1977 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jack Sebastian. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codf1977 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Captain marvel.

I felt like it was less tacky to just have one tag asking for additional references versus having 6 or 7 individual tags all over the article. That, and to be honest I don't beleive anyone will bother to scare up those citations anytime soon, so the article should at least be readable to outside visitors in its current state. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Is there any guideline or policy that supports that viewpoint? It would be nice to have on hand if someone else brings up the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Template

Heya Jack. I don't know if you watch my talk page but in case you don't I thought you might be interested in the plot warning template Doniago just came up with. There's a thread on my talk page about it with a link to it. Might come in handy. Millahnna (mouse)talk 10:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

really good edit

That was a fine piece of editing, my friend. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:-D Thanks a lot. Two new editors turned the article into a joke lol, despite multiple NPOV warnings. Just trying to being it back. Orane (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if I can be of further assistance. I don't really listen to his music, but I am aware of the narrow path that BLPs must walk. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really a fan of his music either lol. But yeah, feel free to dive in and edit away. The article needs all the help it can get. I'm not sure when I'll be able to really sit down and bring it up to standard, since it wasn't a very good article in the first place. But as long as we get rid of the bias that's in it, we're halfway there. Orane (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GOCE

• The flag was put there today and I've been working on it during the day, If it would of taken me until tomorrow afternoon to finish I would of taken the flag off during the night, it is perfectly ok to have that flagged all day, but we a t the guild know the importance of working fast as we can and not make mistakes, and we do not leave those flag posted when we know we will not be actively working. Sorry for inconvenience, by the way I'm done so when I finish this message to you I will remove the flag. Thank you for your understanding. Happy Editing. Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for "Not" waiting a few minutes while finished. Cheers Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK evaluation

Re your post on Gatoclass's talk page, there's no set order for hooks to be verified in. As long as you've nominated it in accordance with the rules and it meets the criteria it'll get approved eventually. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Desiree Bassett

Hello! Your submission of Desiree Bassett at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token ea3bfed6fb928dbfa33cbe4a560d0dba

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

New message

Hello, Jack Sebastian. You have new messages at Sgt. R.K. Blue's talk page.
Message added 03:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blank User page

Hi Jack: You seem to have created for me a User Page which is entirely blank. Er ... was there a reason for this? (Please respond here.) Many thanks, HairyWombat (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I prefer to keep it red. HairyWombat (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess there is room for every fetish under the sun. Enjoy yours, friend. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Desiree Bassett

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Desireé Bassett

Very interesting article. Please don't add unused parameters to refs. It makes editing a real pain. The easy way to do refs is under your "my preferences", click gadgets and select reftools. You'll see them appear in edit mode. Also, every Internet ref should have a date in the "accessdate" parameter. Keep up the good work. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

PS, I moved the photo to Wiki Commons, so all projects can use it, see. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Rlevse, thanks ever so much for the input on the article. This is why I aimed for DYK; it gets a lot of attention. I get your point about the unused parameters; I intentionally left them blank (except for the access date, which I for some reason thought was auto-generated) so that others would fill int he blanks as they came upon them. The Citation gadget advice is a godsend, and I REALLY appreciate that; it will be an oft-used tool in my utility belt.

As for the image, I also appreciate the porting of the image to Commons. I read up on Commons imagery, but found it very confusing. I meant to ask about moving it to Commons this past week, but RL intruded. If you have a moment, could you explain the process of doing such? For example, i am working on another article wherein I have a self-produced photo image of a trademarked item (ie, the evolution of several different Star Trek phasers - not a collage, but a single image); how does copyright work with that? I would imagine it is much like taking a picture of Warhol's "Campbell Tomato Juice Box" or L’eggs. I would gladly accept insight on the subject.

As well, I've been told that the article reads like a rah-rah of the subject. If you could, I'd love some input on how to filter that fannish-ness out. I think I'm being impartial about the subject, but then, I think women dig me because I speak with an English accent. ;)

Again, thanks for the input and compliment; I intend to keep putting out good work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to trust me on this. If I forgot to remove a citation or one is now n the wrong place please remove it. Basically the person who added the tags had a very valid point. Too many quotes are unencyclopedic, and especially if they are stacked in her favor saying how brilliant she is then it violates WP:NPOV. Too many quotes especially from her reads as a magazine/blog, not appropriate for wikipedia, no critical commens whatsoever. I've retained the comments I think are both relevant and appropriate but it could still do with toning down and made more encyclopedic to avoid the "fanishness". It was just an effort basically to begin to sort out to reason why the tags were placed on the article. But if somebody edits the articl, don't expect people to discuss it in detail and espect an explanation for every edit. Otherwise it may be seen as WP:OWN. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Blofeld, i was simply asking for your reasoning; I wasn't acting OWNish. There's an awful lot I do not understand about Wikipedia and wiki culture, and so I ask questions. You seem painstaking enough to answer questions, and I asked you my questions in good faith. I remember reading somewhere that it's good to salute optimism, but its better to await proof. Bc of that, I am asking questions. I think that some of those quotes could stand to stay, specifically the one I pointed out to you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are failing to understand WP:NPOV, Firstly quotes made by her own father are inherently biased. We require independent critical commentary on her work and development from professional sources. You could include say a Rolling Stone magazine review quote but not that of her own father. Anything he had to say if really appropriate can be given in prose. As for that blog. It is a blog. Read WP:RS. Try citing credible newspapers or professional music magazines/websites and you'd be on the right track. My quote, "too many quotes are unencyclopedic" you said would seem to contrast with other advice that I've been receiving; to whit, 'if you cannot cite it, you cannot include it'. You;ve misunderstood what I said. You should always cite sources quotes or prose but just because a quote can be sourced doesn't make it unencyclopedic or relevant. A selection of quotes from neutral reliable parties are sometimes useful for critical commentary but the way you added quotes was either to glorify her from her father's viewpoint or were pointless quotes about her not wanting to fall off a bike, the chitchat you'd see in a magazine interview. Once you learn the difference between an encyclopedia and a magazine then you'll start to develop. As for Joe Satriani I'm a major fan too and have been playing the guitar for 20 years and am pretty good. Desiree most importantly sounds good, definately has the spririt of Hendrix/Page but I am not that impressed with her technnique in all honesty. I don't see much dexterity in her fingers, her playing hand always seems a bit stiff in my view. Perhaps it is because she has small hands she can't reach the sort of notes that Satriani can. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld makes some good points. The article is a bit FANish but I think she's notable. Use neutral tone and reliable sources. I'm not the best person to ask about image copyrights, try User:B. You can make an account on commons and directly upload images there (PD, GFDL, and most CC, ie ones not copyrighted) or if they are already on en.wiki use this transfer tool: User:Rlevse/Tools#Instructions_for_moving_an_image_to_WikiCommons. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Blofeld does make some good points. I think he could be a little less condescending ("Once you learn the difference between an encyclopedia and a magazine then you'll start to develop" - please), but I guess a little attitude comes with the high edit count. As a matter of fact, i do agree that the article could be made more neutral, short of gutting the article, I am willing to work with folk and learn.

Blofeld, I know Blog, npov and RS pretty well. What I would point out is that the "inherent bias" you are suggesting is a comment that isn't even about her: its about the two musicians who play alongside her. If you think it could be given in prose, Please give me an example of how you would phrase it. I'm not being a smart-ass, I am inviting your attempt. Additionally, we do use blogs from notable music critics, just like we use production blogs from tv shows - we even cite Twitter at times. I guess I would ask why you think her music review - given as a review in a blog - isn't notable. Break down why the source is bad, because simply because its a blog isn't really having any traction with me, especially since the reviewer seems to be notable outside of the blog as a music reviewer. Would I prefer to grab quotes from Rolling Stone? Sure, just like I'd prefer to grab quotes about Creationism that aren;t from one boased source or another. I see the need to - at the very least - balance out competing viewpoints, but there aren't a lot of negative articles about the kid yet. I'm not against including negative reviews or articles that are less flattering, but there aren't that many of them, if you find them, add them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain Marvel edits

Concerning your criticism/reversion of my edits to Captain Marvel (DC Comics):

1. For the vast majority, the comics issues are themselves the sources (this is especially true for the rewrite of the description of the feature's appearances in the last 13 issues of Adventure Comics; there is, off the top of my head, at least one reprint from DC's early 70s Shazam! comic, a Mary Marvel solo, and maybe another with C.M. Jr.; the non-appearances of the feature in #s 500 & 503 and the reasons therefor are similarly not open to dispute).
2. I did not "remove Newton" but merely relocated his first appearance to the revamp of which his arrival was part.
3. As for the serials, just check out the articles for Adventures of Captain Marvel and the earlier Mysterious Doctor Satan and you'll find citations for the fact that the storyline of the Superman serial pitch was reworked as Satan, not Marvel.
4. That you also reverted the strictly "mechanical errors" (minor grammatical changes, duplicated full names/Wikilinks, and especially the typographical misspelling of "Batson" as "Baton," none of which have any effect on meaning) shows that you did not look closely at the diff. pages of my edits, which you linked in on my talk page, prior to hitting the "undo" button, never a good idea.

Again, for the comics discussion, the issues, carefully identified, are themselves Wiki-acceptable sources, even if I did not make formal reference citations of them, and just give me time and I'll duplicate the cites from the serials' articles to the others. Also note that the article has a "Citations needed" template at the top, so singling out my not really unsupported edit of the DC Comics run in favor of a less accurate version that is no better cited is very strange. I have added your talk page to my watchlist so you can respond right here and I'll know about it. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My most humble apologies, as item #4 was completely unjustified. Very sorry, sir. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

After posting the above, I went to your profile page to see if perhaps you were an administrator, and instead found "Novice editor." I should have checked before I ever posted here and allowed for that. Again, my apologies. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had no intention of adding in the cite for the flying effects, and did so only because you raised the issue. Interestingly, that paragraph already ended with a ref cite to the same work, seeming to cover the entire paragraph. I wonder which it really says, since it's William Witney's personal memoirs, not a film historian's carefully researched report. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rory Gallagher

Thanks for helping with the Rory Gallagher article, which I found woefully --near untouched last October since 2005 or so. I tried unsuccessfully to get others to form a work group to update and build the article, but aside from a half-decent discography that still doesn't cover all his albums, and some expansion of text with photos, mostly on my part, little has been done, even though his brother has upgraded the website, and there's a lot more information there. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rory Gallagher photo removal

Sorry about that! The photo I removed was from a photographer friend, Rik Walton, who has a great selection of photos. He wrote today that he is involved in litigation regarding the use of that particular photo PRIOR to the date I asked him to change the photo from copyright to Creative Commons- CC-BY. He has kindly offered a pick of another photo (his are excellent) and I'm going to take a look at them and decide, I guess. Rik removed the photo from Flickr, and I told him while he's got this previous legal issue we wouldn't use it for now. I really should have left a summary of why I pulled the photo, but was feeling tired and ill- still no good excuse. Sorry. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Help Contribute to Article: TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time

Hey man, what's up? I'm new to Wikipedia and I just started this article for contenders for the greatest TV episode of all time. Listen, it was first up for deletion and it could be deleted if there is a huge lack of content. I put more stuff on there man, but I think it would be great if you could help contribute to the article. I really want this one to survive; it could be an important one. So, post something on the article's talk page about contributing to the article; thanks!!! Oh babe (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Oh babe

Re: TEA

Likewise, I'm sure. *sigh* Jack, Jack, Jack, Jack, Jack... It's cool. Look, I'm in a transitional period. I've let go of a lot of anger/frustration. All my Rage Against the Machine and whatnot. I'm fine, totally. And so is the article. No edit war, no problem. It's clear you care about the article. Good for you! I'm glad somebody's looking after it. However, it's a better responsibility than watching your list and reverting errors/vandalism. You've gotta be proactive (like moi). And that means looking the whole thing over and fixing it, bit-by-bit. That's what I do, when I can. And yes, sometimes I do it in very blunt (read: insensitive) way. I'm working on that (eh), but I'm also proud of being different. As my page (---> Ace Class Shadow; My talk.) indicates, I'm not censored. (Guess what; neither is the site.) So, in short: sorry if I offended you, it's just part of my charm. Sincerely, Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. Big words, man. You're smarter than I thought (no offense, seriously). Okay. Good deal. I'll pull it back a bit. I was really just venting anyway. Too many people seem to make mistakes (online and off-); thus, half of what Wikipedians do all day is cleanup their messes, in essence. We cool? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 18:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Astor Courts

As Chelsea Clinton just got married there, now might be a good time to work on the article, because a lot more sources will be available. —fetch·comms 16:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ditto! -- Kendrick7^talk 08:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Sorry, the Summer ran away and took a lot of my free time with it. I'll spend some time writing it up this week. Thanks for the update. For some reason, it didn't click when i heard about the wedding, It's a pretty good place to have it, if you can afford the venue fee and don't mind sharing the ceremony with 2-10 million mosquitoes. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I also just stumbled upon your draft article and think it's worthy of posting and the timing is right. We will link to it from Chelsea Clinton#Engagement and marriage when it goes live. Would be great if you could find any free images - an image was posted but it's not free. (Funny, no press coverage of the mosquitoes.). Tvoz/talk 18:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jason Todd

What guest on Jason Todd? I did cite the latest issue of Red Hood: The Lost Days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoBatfreak (talk • contribs)

I know - I'm reading them, too, NBf. Take a look at the comments I removed:

After spending a month learning about firearms, chemistry, and other fields with Talia, Jason receives his first training from a German assassin named Egon. He trains Jason of what Batman wouldn't, of how to maim and kill with his skills in brutal manners in addition of how to control his anger. However, Jason discovers his teacher is also a slave trader of children prostitution. Unwilling to be a part of Egon's party, Jason saves the captive children. He also executes his teacher as punishment for his crimes along seeing it as the only way of ending the trade since his business is also connected to corrupted officials, by poisoning his drink before their fight as he's awares that he's not yet a match to Egon in combat. After dropping the children at a British Embassy, Jason burns Egon's headquarters to the ground to prevent anyone from finding out about him and continues his search for teachers and self-discovery.

You don't see any of that as evaluative on your part? There is summation and there is synthesis; I feel the removed comments were more towards the latter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Green Lantern edit

My opinions don't matter on this one and that particular edit is not my problem, that's why I am not discussing it. I just tried to fix it. An edit war is a problem, and constant undoings can turn out to be unacceptable. When you and User:TriiipleThreat were edit warring you both did over three undoings violating the three revert rule. Personally, my opinion is the fact of that she could be the villain in this movie or the next one is just as similiar as doing a sequel section on the article which is done constantly. See Iron Man 2#Sequel, so it doesn't have to be the certain film of the article. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference between Iron Man2 and Green Lantern "2" is that while there are definitive plans by the directors to make IM3 (specifically after the Avengers) for release in '13, there is no such talk by the people who would plan a sequel for GL. All we have are loaded questions by reporters asking actors about the characters they are playing, and not about the actual plans or productions. Any edits about what might be in some unmentioned sequel seem more like wishful thinking than encyclopedic writing. It's JGreb said, it's prognostication with your fingers crossed. That is what I was responding to and, while i wouldn't have edited it out again, I would have most certainly escalated the matter to a noticeboard to gain further confirmation of that. That Triple wasn't using the discussion board as much as s/he should have been makes for a more contentious editing environment. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I just used Iron Man 2 as a example, as I noticed Green Lantern had a sequel section too. It's good that you and TriiipleThreat are talking about it though. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about how its good that TiiiipleT is talking with me abut it - I have never understood why some people prefer to argue about stuff instead of working on an encyclopedic compromise. I might have underestimated TriiipeT's willingness to work together, and that's on me. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jack Sebastian. You have new messages at TriiipleThreat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cookies

Here is some cookies that helps promote Wikilove. Which is one of the things that makes Wikipedia a better place. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		Mmmm!− Jhenderson 777 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Just pretend it's a butterscotch cookie. ;) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do :D! Thanks! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Response

Ah, no problem.-5- (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jack Sebastian. You have new messages at Talk:Hide and Seek (Imogen Heap song)‎‎.
Message added 00:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've replied on the talkpage. In addition, you might want to tone down the huffing and puffing about taking it straight to ANI if you have to. It doesn't promote collaborative editing, and you aren't talking to a brand new user here. It comes off as extremely bitey. --Terrillja _talk 07:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to be bitty, Terrillja; just pointing out that I wasn't going to dick around with the back and forth that the anon had been starting. It wasn't necessarily directed at you. Understand that this isn't my first rodeo, either; I consider myself rather keen on the subject of SYN, and am pretty good at spotting it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have moved this back from my talkpage, per the notice at the top, which asks users to answer on their talkpage to keep a conversation easier to follow. Wasn't going to dick around= bite. We're here to improve the project, and part of that is woking constructively with new users to help them understand our policies, not beating the war drums and scaring them off. If the IP (or another user) ignored you, after an attempt at discussion, then it would have been appropriate to escalate things, but coming in right off the bat with a threat to take it to ANI is rather uncivil. I'm sure you were frustrated with what you saw as a perfectly reasonable edit, but that isn't a good reason to overreact. You might notice that the IP has not come back since your "notice". I hope that you didn't scare them off or get them to tell all their friends that they tried to make a good faith edit and they got clobbered over the head with threats, or you have not one but perhaps hundreds of perspective users that may never come here to help a project that is losing users at an increasing rate. --Terrillja _talk 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Project is losing users for entirely different reasons, not the least among them is the concept of Admin For Life (indeed, sometimes beyond that, considering that some folk have remained admins after the account-holder has actually died). As well, the graceless method of discourse does tend to scare folk away (I am taking such a hit here), and the process of blocking/removing the truly disruptive becomes a popularity contest. Most people find it utterly not worth the drama when there are no tangible rewards for putting up with it.

Lastly, I am think that the declining economy might be a significant factor in the decline of contribution; more people are concentrating on honing their job skills/finding jobs/finishing their studies well so as to be competitive in a shrinking workforce. When weighing the value of putting up with some little tin god's personal view/bullshit that Transformers are symbolic of the Hegellian Ideal versus actually making money to keep food on the table, it's a pretty easy choice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...

Is your nick a Babylon 5 reference? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's from Victorian literature and from two steampunk novels I wrote in the 80s as a callow yute. That said, you aren't the first person to ask me that. Was that an Earther from B5? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandal reverts

Thanks homie. Was fun to read the weird history on that one; he couldn't even get where I live correct. Millahnna (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

About the "See also" section for The Town movie article

I replied at Talk:The Town (2010 film)#Removed section. One thing I didn't respond to there was your last sentence, "[...] the article, which is about this film, and this film alone." A "See also" section is always about other articles, as long as there's some connection, but please see my response there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap - I saw that, but forgot to respond to it, John. My apologies, I;ll head there now and respond. Thanks for letting me know, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)