User talk:Jack Sebastian/Archive 6

Tenure

I'm not going to revert you on this since the wording sounds better there anyways, but I think I should let you know that tenure is often used in Doctor Who articles (and in Template:Doctor Who doctor) to refer to the period of time in which an actor is playing the Doctor, not to imply that he is a professor. FunPika 02:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Babadook

The article The Babadook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability: "upcoming" but fails WP:NFF if no evidence it has commenced shooting.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 22:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't have a lot of time to flesh-out the article before being called away. Bovineboy addressed the issue about whether the film exists; it premiered at Sundance, but apparently was released in Australia last year. Had I had more time, I'd have addressed this in the article expansion. I even left sources about the film in article discussion, like building materials, in order to do just that. I am sorry if such a short stub sent up a flare. I'll address it promptly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of X-Men members

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of X-Men members. 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, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elsa (Disney) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Elsa, [[crown princess]] of Arendelle, is born with an ability to create and control ice and snow]]. As a child, she uses her these abilities to create a winter wonderland to play in with her

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Trey Gowdy and his friend Jacck

I feel you're angry with me... I just could not abide the idea that you are cross with me. If it means so much to you to have the misleading quote left in its glaring display of partisan hackery, so be it. I shall put it behind me and allow you to have your Trey Gowdy all to your lonesome. You can be the only one who cares for dear Treys lies and sleight of word through his artificially pumped-up 'award' for fighting the imaginary 'government-run' healthcare... which, by-the-by, does cover mental-health issues, such as ; puffery and self-importance/ego issues, I am sure.. Check that out, "Jack", and do try to calm down... Tata.

Lede section doesn't always require citation.

Dear Jack,

You've just reverted my edit on Oathkeeper, and I would like to direct you to WP:LEDE. Kindly study it. The citation in that section only need to be there to support extraordinary/big/controversial claims. Besides that, it only needs to summarize the over all content of the article. And in Oathkeeper, we clearly have the origin of the title. If you are not convinced, kindly take a look at "Fire and Blood", which is currently a good article on Wikipedia. The article refers to where the name of the episode came from without openly discussing it below. For Oathkeeper, it requires no other citation, as the plot summary below is already supported by the show itself, and the lede section is in turn the summary of that section. Also the lede section still requires expansion. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to contact me, thought the article's talk page might have been a more appropriate place to address the issue; the difference in location is determined by whether the disagreement is one of either a personal or editing nature. Our disagreement is of the latter kind.

The problem here is that, while material in the Lede does not necessary need referencing, it does when a claim is made that is not noted within the body of the article or cited elsewhere in the article:

"…significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article…"¹
"…it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.""²

In this case, the "allusion" is neither referenced nor mentioned elsewhere, so it needs citing or removal. I chose to remove it before, but I will instead tag it as needing citation.

As well, referring tio a GA, while helpful as a comparison, is not solely sufficient as an argument, as the article being compared to is not of FA quality. And, to be sure, Other Stuff Exists. Not all of it is going to be representational of what is best for the article.

I am going to port this conversation over to the talk page for the article. That's where it belongs, really. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRN - FWIW

For what it's worth I generally support your perspective, as you can see for yourself if you review the links I provided. That said, I'm hoping to limit my role in the situation to providing information where I feel it might be useful rather than espousing an opinion, in part because I'm a DRN Volunteer (though did not post in my capacity as such) and don't want to create any confusion as to my role in the filing...and also admittedly because I just don't feel like diving in this time around. :p

If you feel you need additional opinions you might give WT:FILM a poke, though I don't really know how kosher that would be. While I am a DRN Volunteer, I'm also somewhat of a newbie to their processes still. DonIago (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you letting me know. Mostly, my posting was made after taking a bit of time to calm down - both DM and DF pissed me off by wasting my time, so I needed so time elsewhere to re-center. My post today is the result of that. I think that i just lay out the matter as I see it, someone at DRN will see it and see what I do. The pessimist in me knows that this matter is not going to get resolved at DRN (as I do not see either DM or DF accepting that they are wrong), so my post also serves to provide perspective without rancor (of which there has been much, unfortunately). The optimist in me hopes some experienced admins or uninvolved editors step in and let those two know what the actual deal is. I can't speak for DQ, but I'm tired of listening to their broken reasoning, and am tempted to escalate the matter myself. I'll wait for a bit and see what happens. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience I agree that DF can be rather argumentative. DM at least seemed open to looking over the linked discussions, so I'll hope they can be more flexible. I don't recall having any prior interactions with DQ so can't comment there. Anyway, an RFC wouldn't be so bad if that's what it comes to, and would probably (hopefully) resolve the matter. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your experience, at what point should I suggest an RfC? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let the DRN filing play out first. DRN ultimately has no authority, so if you get the result you're looking for there's no reason to pursue an RFC, but if you don't then they'll probably suggest you could file an RFC anyway. Besides, it's always possible something entirely unexpected will happen with the case. DonIago (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope springs eternal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, DF just contacted me on my Talk page and was quite civil about the whole thing, though obviously you guys aren't seeing eye to eye. It did give me the wonderful opportunity to joke that at this rate I'm going to end up being the de facto coordinator for the filing. But I'm happy to help where I can...I say even as I'm trying to avoid getting overly-involved. :p Anyway, just keep cool, avoid commenting on conduct (correcting lies is fine, but avoid ascribing motives, WP:AGF and all), and chin up! DonIago (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the RfC

One note, the questions you have included in the RfC have a strange wording. In their literal form, their ending "with the novel itself as a source?" couldn't appear in an article. Diego (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Usertalk:Diego Moya The biased and misleading wording that you used has shown me that my concerns were justified. To read that RfC, you'd think that someone had been arguing that primary sources were preferable to secondary sources or that the primary and secondary sources contradicted each other in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

With respect, that appears to us to be what you are arguing. You are suggesting that, to note what chapters from the book(s) are covered in the episode, you don't need to reference these connections to a secondary source. Furthermore, you believe that sourcing these connections to the book itself is sufficient. Your second suggestion (that primary and secondary sources were contradictory) is flabbergastingly false. You can't use the book as a source to delineate where it appears in the episode. And - before you bring it up for the 4th time - I am not going to remove secondary sourcing so long as it is from a reliable source. Yes, I did, and I had apologized for it. Just throwing that out there, so you don't go beating the smooshy horse again.

For me, the problem is very, very simple: whenperforming these sorts of comparisons/evaluation/delineations, primary sources are incapable of making these connections, since we cannot use Wikipedia editors as filters. There is no replacement for secondary sourcing, which places the statement from having been rendered internally to one made and verified externally. Talking about PLOT, etc. is a red herring. (--Jack Sebastian)

Then we can address some of that.

No, I am not arguing that primary sources should be preferred to secondary sources. I'd like to know why you think that I am or which of my posts you interpreted as a belief that Wikipedia policy prefers primary to secondary sources. The issues are as follows: 1. regardless of whether any secondary sources have been provided, is a primary source enough on its own for things like [statement] and [statement]? and 2. if both a primary source and secondary source are available, are we required to remove the tag citing the primary source or do we keep citing both?

Hm... I guess it could be when I said "Primary sources are by definition the most reliable sources possible." That's certainly true. The single most reliable source for what was and wasn't in a novel is the novel itself. However, I am not under the impression that Wikipedia policy prefers primary to secondary sources, only 1. that its reasons for preferring secondary sources do not have to do with reliability and 2. any insinuation that primary sources are unreliable with respect to straight facts about their own content is complete bunk. For "Radagast does not appear in The Hobbit," you can't beat The Hobbit.

Yes, I agree that contradiction isn't the issue. But the way you wrote the RfC made it look like someone was saying that the primary and secondary sources contradicted each other, and no one has said that. That's one of the ways in which it was misleading. There were others.

For one, everyone in this conflict agrees that primary sources should not be used to make comparisons and evaluations. If you write an RfC asking, "Does WP policy allow primary sources be used to make comparisons, analyses and evaluations?" then you will get a "No it doesn't" from every participant including me. Then the RfC will do nothing to resolving the real dispute. You'll get to say, "The RfC produced consensus that you may not use primary sources to insert analysis!" but I'd say, "That nice, but I wasn't doing that in the first place." The real OR issue here is whether statements like "Content from this episode can be found in chapters X, Y, and Z" are analysis/comparison/etc. or not.

I'm not clear why PLOT would be a red herring here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please stop adding the text back to the article. You know I am not going to allow you to do it until a consensus is reached in article discussion, and since there's an RfC on the matter, there is a light at the end of the tunnel that the matter can likely be resolved. DRN was an enormous waste of time, but RfC usually isn't.

Now, on to your comments here (though why you are making them here and not in article talk is unknown to me):

We disagree on the ability of primary sources to accomplish what you are using them for. You think that the core question is whether primary sources can allow us to make statements that go beyond simple statements of fact. I don't believe that they can. The disconnect, I think comes from you not seeing the forest for the trees. Primary can state that fact a happened in a book…in an article about the book. The fact cannot be used elsewhere to contrast. It isn't a matter of primary sources and secondary sources agreeing or not. It's the respective aspects of (superpowers, if you will) of each. While primary sources can state facts, anything using those facts outside of their intended purpose requires a secondary source - someone connecting them.

The basic issue here is - as I have contended for weeks - is that adding these bits from the book that do not appear in an episode - is evaluative and comparative. As such, a primary source is not the way to go, but instead a secondary source should be used.

Diego Moya noted the use of PRIMARY as flying in the face of PLOT. He fails to understand that PLOT only works for plot summaries, and not for the other sections of the article. Arguing about it was tangential, and illustrated a deep, deep misunderstanding as to how articles work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blink edits

Hello "Jack"

How did you like the cut scene after Days of Future Past? Also how would you suggest I approach a Blink costume? -user/lapecosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.178 (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I haven't seen it yet, so no spoilers (thoug I am hoping it hews closely to the comic, which I loved). As for the costume question, get a reliable secondary reference; it will get removed without one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. 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) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was vandalism on the page which could not be found as text on the edit page. The only way to remove it was to delete the REFERENCE as somehow the text seemed to be linked to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.109.202 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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

I'll happily unblock you if two things happen: (1) you commit to making no edits to this specific article for the next 24 hours, and also either to discuss the article or to drop the matter entirely, and (2) Darkfrog makes the same commitment. See my comment at the WP:ANI discussion, meanwhile. If you agree to the first condition, let me know by linking my username in your comment. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend:, While I think that blocking me for a week was completely disproportionate to the offense, I agree to not edit the article for the 24-hour period. I would hope that, in the interim, that other eyes look into the article (and the source usage reasoning that Darkfrog24 utilized, so as to prevent flare-ups between herself and other editors in other GoT-related articles). Nyttend, the use reasoning of primary sources for articles should be evaluated, as it has far-reaching consequences for the Project. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jack Sebastian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While I think the block length - or any block, for that matter - is unwarranted in my case, I will abide by the stipulations that Nyttend stated. Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Although Nyttend has agreed to review, and PATIENCE is a requirement on the project, you have become impatient and submitted an unblock request. As such, that unblock request MUST meet the requirements under WP:GAB - namely, show understanding of the reason behind the block, and submit a way forward to ensure that further violations will not recur. Although your unblock meets the latter, it certainly runs 180 degrees contrary to the requirements of the former. The block was obviously a necessity based on your actions - and your claim that it was unwarranted is clearly unacceptable the panda ₯’ 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jack Sebastian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand and realize that my actions constituted edit-warring, and that was dumb of me to participate in it. I am sorry that I did not try hard enough to contact administrators earlier on to prevent matters from escalating as they did. That will not occur again. My previous unblock request noted a frustration with the length of the block, as I only had a single block from almost three years earlier. I just think the block length was overly harsh. As previously noted, I intend to abide by Nyttends request. Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not replying sooner; I don't know why, but I wasn't notified when you linked my username. I wasn't trying to get you to self-abase — your comment of 14:25 was all I was asking for. Darkfrog's not edited since the block, so I'm not sure whether it's unfair to him to unblock you and leave him blocked, or whether it's unfair to leave you blocked because he hasn't edited. With that in mind, I requested outside input, since the only possible reason for you to remain blocked is the possible problem of not treating you and Darkfrog the same way. If others don't think that a problem, I'll unblock unless someone else unblocks you first. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought the wording of the block rationale was a bit odd. If I agree to the terms, I am unclear why my responding to the block before Darkfrog24 should make a difference; we both have the same opportunity to request unblock., - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The input at WP:AN convinced me (even before I saw your comment) that I should unblock, and you're right that you shouldn't have to wait. I'm sorry that I made you wait; somehow I thought this was standard operating procedure, but now I see that it was a really bad idea. On the block length, I thought a longer block necessary because the warring had been going on for several days; between that and (what seemed to me to be) the animosity between you and Darkfrog, I thought the situation might be a lot calmer if a week passed. I've unblocked you; check your block log for a note. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, the edit warring was going on for more than several days (it lasted for weeks), and it was across multiple articles, so I don't think that blocking for a week was necessarily an error on your part; I felt that they'd be blocked at some point, was tempted to report them for edit warring, and was surprised that their edit warring had lasted as long as it did without either of them being blocked. But, as you know, blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive, and I think that only a warning from you (outlining the conditions which will lead you to block them) would have sufficed in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts were that I was not in fact edit-warring. I was the one who sought out Dispute Resolution. I was the one who filed the RfC. I was the one who filed requests at RSN for the dubious sources that kept getting added by (who I considered to be) a problematic editor.

In short, I was the one who followed every step of the dispute resolution process and sought to encourage others to participate. Granted, I lost my cool, but - as you said - I'd been trying to reason with DF for several weeks, and the other editor wouldn't do anything but insist they were right, and then - after a consensus was found - kept adding the same material anyway. When called on it, she added totally unacceptable references to support the same material.

I accept the block; I let my temper get away from me, and I reacted to being insulted by Darkfrog24 early on. I should have gone to have a cup of TEA. So - this question is for the both of you: presented with the situation I have outlined: an editor who won't listen to reason, won't ask others for clarification, accuses everyone else of getting in her way, and gets uncivil about it right off the bat. Tell me how you would have handled the situation better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]