User talk:Bold Clone


 * User talk:Bold Clone/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guardians of the Galaxy (1969 team), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ravagers. 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) 10:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

February 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Stranger Things; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. -- / Alex /21  07:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

3RR
Hey, could you elaborate on this comment? It sounds a lot like you are accusing me of violating 3RR. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. I reverted the IP’s edit, called him out for edit warring, and accused you of “mindlessly reverting”.
 * That was an over-reaction on my part, but I won’t apologize for it. Here’s why—You insist that because my edit is disputed, I stop and go to committee, ‘’yet you refuse to join that same discussion.’’ The same goes for that IP I reverted. What disappointing hypocrites you two are!
 * If you disagree with my edits, then the burden is on ‘’you’’ to voice your opinions on the talk page, not me. If you cannot do that then simply put you do not have the right to come in and enforce a “wait and discuss” policy when you yourself refuse to discuss the very issue you are disputing. I have already said my part in the discussion, and it is your responsibility to continue the discussion. Don’t come in and automatically reverting whatever is in conflict. If you want to begin a conversation, then the burden is on you to do so. If you want to continue a conversation, then the burden is also on you to do so. I’ll be waiting on the talk page for you. — Bold  Clone  16:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't "mindlessly reverting" anything, the onus is on the people edit warring to have the discussion, and I will contribute to that if I feel like it. My edit was about restoring the article to the WP:STATUSQUO and pointing out that you had violated 3RR and needed to stop edit warring. I suggest you stop editing this issue until consensus at the talk page is found, and if I feel like I can contribute to that discussion then I will at that time. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bogus. You weren't thinking. You weren't arguing. You weren't debating. You were upholding the status quo simply for the sake of the status quo. In other words, mindlessly reverting. You could apparently be bothered to butt in and enforce the status quo through rules-mongering, but not enough so to actually get your hands dirty and debate the issue. I had already contributed to the discussion, but the IP involved refused to participate. I held off for a week to see if anyone, IP or otherwise, had anything else to say about the matter. Apparently not. If the matter isn't really controversial enough to merit a debate, then I am just going to restore the material and work from there. -- Bold  Clone  04:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Communication with other editors
When communicating with other editors, please do so via talk pages. not in edit summaries. Techhnically, the edits that you are making at Jessica Jones (season 3) constitute edit-warring and you could be blocked for it, even though you haven't breached the three-revert rule yet. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads-up. I appreciate it. -- Bold  Clone  20:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Says thank you. Continues to do it. 61.68.89.154 (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You know how it is. It's so tempting to get the last word in. And I really did have something constructive to add to the page (unlike the other guy). -- Bold  Clone  18:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thirteen (Transformers)


The article Thirteen (Transformers) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable fictional topic"

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. TTN (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Thirteen (Transformers) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thirteen (Transformers) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Thirteen (Transformers) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You might want to consider stop digging
You have reverted me a total of 5 times now, and I am starting to sense that you are moving yourself towards an noticeboard discussion about this - something I would prefer not happen to you. I am not addressing article subject matter discussions; they can happen on the article discussion page, as they have been. It was a bold edit to add the bit in the first place, so the burden is on the addition of the information and not the person removing the unsupported info. Please, consider your next move very carefully. Use the discussion page instead of using the edit summary a a bully pulpit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your most recent revert in The Mandalorian exceeds 3RR. I urge you to self-revert immediately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional notice
There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Is_this_meat-puppetry? a discussion] where a matter you are involved in is being discussed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Using multiple fronts
Out of respect, I am going to ask you to self-revert your edit on Lightsaber, as it offers the appearance that you are seeking to bypass the discussion and end-run the Darksaber unsupported information. Its disingenuous, and I think you would agree that it is best to keep the discussion in one place alone until we arrive at a solution. While you did not add initially add the info (it was added by yet another editor from the Mandalorian discussion), your edits have been in support of seeking a fait accompli instead of my edit which notes that a reviewer is speculating that the item is the Darksaber. I want to believe you are a person with integrity, and that these sorts of shady end-runs are beneath you. Don't play that game, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No.
 * And out of respect as well, I will ask you to please be patient. I am not interested in bypassing the discussion. However, you are. You are refusing to wait for a consensus after repeated requests from me, You are altering information on multiple fronts. We have not established that the reviewer is speculating in the first place. If we reach a consensus regarding that, then by all means adjust the info. But until then, please wait. -- Bold  Clone  04:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed that you don't see your behavior as empowering that sort of sneaky tactic, but whatever. Understand that your support of this behavior is going to negatively reflect my impression of you for a fairly long time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, Jack. I couldn't care less about your opinion of me. If I were to worry about how other editors saw me, I would never do anything for fear of offending someone. If I'm going to edit, I am going to eventually come into conflict with other editors. C'est la vie. This high-handed moralizing on your part says far more about you than me. You have a bad impression of me? Great! I freely encourage you to have as low an opinion of me as you want. No one's stopping you. As far as I'm concerned, you're a hard-working long-time editor. Really. I mean that part honestly. But I think you are too pedantic when it comes to details. You lack the flexibility to achieve good teamwork.
 * Glad to see your Good Faith, Jack. Happy New Year. -- Bold  Clone  04:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it does say more about me; I won't play sneaky games to get what I want, or push a personal pov. You seem okay with others doing that, which is what is disappointing. I am not talking about being buddies or talking long, warm showers together. I am talking about trusting another editor enough to know they will do the Right Thing, and the Assumption of Good Faith, once lost is almost impossible to regain. When you lose that trust, collaborative editing becomes that much harder. As for being pedantic, I think my inflexibility regarding Wikipedia's few rules is a Good Thing. The rules and guidelines we have are there for a reason. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Sneaky games" is subject to interpretation. But enough personal attacks on me. If you don't have good faith in me, that's fine. I could not care less. The rules exist for a reason, yes. But the rules are not everything. And you cannot see that. -- Bold  Clone  05:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not utilize a WP:FAITACCOMPLI to push your preferred version of an article. The arbitration committee has frowned on that behavior from editors, and it can result in a block if the behavior is persistent. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am trying to pursue a resolution through discussion, Cole. Jack is refusing to wait until the discussion is finished, and has been pushing through his edits even though they are not approved or agreed upon. I am trying to maintain the page as-is until the discussion has reached a conclusion. Is there some sort of problem with that? -- Bold  Clone  05:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the WP:BRD cycle, the edit you (or anyone) made to include the material was the bold step. Someone removing it was the revert step, and that should leave us at the discuss step (until a consensus for inclusion can be reached). See also WP:ONUS. Material that is challenged is customarily left out until a consensus to include it has been established. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * And it bears pointing out that I was not pushing my preferred edit, which would have the material completely removed from the Darkblade/Lightsaber article until it is supported by the primary source or secondary from the show-runners. Instead, I copy-edited the statement to more accurately (and avoiding in-universe language as well) reflect the nature of the claim. Bold Clone, if you somehow feel that the edit was inaccurate, make that argument. I certainly want not pandering to a viewpoint. I was following how we do articles here. If you feel like my disappointment at your dispensation of our rules equal personal attacks, then it is a lot more accurate to say that more of a 'you' problem, and you should feel free to report that at the appropriate noticeboard. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disappointment hardly counts as a personal attack, Sebastian. However, claiming that I am: 1) "disingenuous," 2) "seeking a fait accompli," 3) potentially not "a person with integrity," 4) performing "shady end-runs," 5) empowering a "sneaky tactic," 6) playing "sneaky games," 7) pushing "a personal pov," are coming close to that sort of behavior, and I would warn you against using similar language in the future. -- Bold  Clone  06:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the relevant posts again. Those descriptors were not applied to you, and not even entirely to the editor who initially added the info. You just supported that behavior. You aren't disingenuous, but your support of that behavior kind of makes you appear to be the sort who turns a blind eye to it. That is the accurate assessment of the facts. If you took offense at the characterizations of others as an attack on yourself, consider your support of edits a little more closely. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am offended that you are claiming I support that kind of behavior. I am offended that you are claiming I appear to that sort of editor. I am not taking offense at your opinion of other editors, but at the implication of me. -- Bold  Clone  06:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another user apparently tried to end-run the contentious notation of the mentioning of the Darksaber in the Mandalorian article. That is indisputable. I edited it to more accurately reflect that the source was offering a speculation as to the seen item was the Darksaber. You reverted it back to the edit (twice) that notes it as conclusive instead of speculative. That is also indisputable. My characterizations did not lump you alongside the initial editor; your own guilty conscience did that. I do, however appreciate that didn't try to use BRD as a personal defense for your revert, because the offending editor boldly added it, and - instead of outright removing it - I copyedited it to be more accurate. You removed it twice. Again, indisputable/
 * To be frank, your stated lack of awareness of how your revert reinforced that initial bad faith edit is of deep concern to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Another editor in the Mandalorian talk tries to use it as an argument in favor of inclusion.

Refactoring
Look, it was not my intention to remove your post; I was focusing on your alterations to my post. You can go back, revert your own post and re-add it, without the alterations to my post. I would appreciate it; however, I will revert the entire post yet again if you cannot find the time to do so in short order. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Mandalorian RfC
You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions about The Mandalorian article, and might have interest in the current RfC: Regarding Darksaber Mention in The Mandalorian Plot Summary. You might be interested in adding your voice to the RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)