User talk:Jack Sebastian/Archive 5

Pushing things
Regarding this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=531560886&oldid=531558154

Admins had already asked Barsoomian to be more civil. You know he hasn't responded well to your coaching in the past, so I don't think this was a useful addition to the discussion. It actually is what prompted me to close the discussion out of fear it would get dragged back down into defensiveness and finger pointing. As a bit of unsolicited advice, I'd suggest you two avoid contact with each other if possible, think really hard if what you want to say to Barsoomian is necessary, and maybe wait a few hours or a day before posting even that. Sancho 05:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the later reply, Sancho. I have tried to avoid the user, and then they magically appear in articles I edit. The first time it happened, I just considered it bad luck or coincidence, but you know what they say about 'once being coincidence and twice being enemy action'? After this happened a few times, I decided to watchlist the character and see what else they were up to, apart from baiting me. I found I wasn't the only person this was happening to. It isn't jsut a matter of incivility; it's more along the lines of using Wikipedia as a battleground. I think underneath the combative, prickly personality, there is a good editor trying to get out. It cannot come soon enough for myself and others.
 * All that said, I'll do my best to avoid him. If I develop further problems with him, I will message you before widening the loop on resolving the problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Made an official request for a dispute resolution, since we seem to be going nowhere. LoveWaffle (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sanjuro
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sanjuro. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A question of civility
Hi Jack, a friendly word of advice. I noticed the edit summary for this edit which could easily be seen as threatening. Please comment on the edits, not the editor. Continuing along in this vein will eventually cause someone to take exception and result in a case at AN/I or somewhere like that. Having been there myself, I do not recommend it. - 07:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Thorne (talk • contribs)
 * Hey Nick, I was pointing out to the anon that they were not as anonymous as perhaps they thought they were. They come and get all involved in a discussion after having been corrected in a prior article. They had been waned about incivility and shortly thereafter, they dropped the other anon account and started up a new one. And just "coincidentally" show up at another discussion I am involved in, with an axe to grind. I just called them on it. No threat was offered whatsoever. The suggestion to be careful was a notice to not edit war a matter still in discussion, as they had don precisely that before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming Star Trek film talk page
Heading titles are not supposed to reflect frustration, nor should your posts be designed to embarrass, shame or provoke others. Talk pages are to discuss ways to improve the article, and this requires that we adhere to WP:CIV and WP:NPA. If you can't compose a post or choose a discussion heading without violating those policies, then you need to take a step back from the discussion. You say you wanted to discover the source of polarity and find a solution. That's awesome. But can you do so without engaging in name-calling or violating behavioral guidelines, please? Nightscream (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Point made. In retrospect, it was unnecessarily harsh to those who were just seeking to keep things calm and reasoned. Mea culpa. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not state (nor intend to convey) that you admitted to incivility, and I apologize if it came across that way. What you did do was admit that the heading was intentionally provocative. It was my conclusion that this was constituted borderline incivility, and could inflame the situation and make finding a solution harder.


 * Also, in reference to a comment at the end of your previous message to me, I didn't refactor your post. I merely changed the heading, which is not the same thing. Headings serve to inform readers as to the topic of the discussion, and changing them is easily within the purview of other editors, who are not required to ask permission for this, so long as there is a good-faith rationale for doing so. I'm not going to revert your compromised heading (and I do appreciate your compromise), but I would suggest to you that headings need to have both an immediate and long-term purpose. When looking for a particular discussion on either an active or archived talk page, glancing through the Table of Contents is more likely to help readers if the heading tells them what the discussion is about. "Congratulations, fellow editors" does not do this. Would you consider changing it to a topic-descriptive heading, and simply putting the "Congratulations" comment as the opening of your first post, in order to facilitate that ease? Just a suggestion. You don't have to respond if you don't want to. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk)
 * I don't think that further revision would help; indeed, it might further exacerbate those who were essentially pushed a little bit harder than usual to find a longer term working solution than was uneasily in place. And I'd point out that BOLD isn't a very good rationale for refactoring:
 * "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request."
 * BOLD has a number of good uses; this would not be one of them. AS per WP:TPO, it would have been nice had you approached me as you have now, and asked me to self-re-edit.
 * That said, what's done is done. Talk has clearly been initiated, and more people became interested in seeking a more durable consensus based upon my commentary pointing out how the rest of the world saw the squabbling that made all Wikipedians look like fan forum squits. My goal was accomplished. Those who do not appreciate its execution or effect aren't really likely to be enlightened by an explanation as to the semantic construction of the post. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude, of COURSE wikipedia is full of fan forum, uh, somethings. ;-) We appear to have but 2 options in wiki-life:
 * RAGE about it
 * LAUGH about it
 * Raging burns you out, laughing recharges you for another go. I think you can figure my favorite approach from those premisses ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You make excellent points, and I think I do try to keep a cheerful mindset…most of the time. I have a temper, (sth I share with my Pops, a former Wiki user as well) and it is something I wrestle with.
 * I like Wikipedia, and I hate it when it gets misused as a fanboy place, and when people forget that we're an encyclopedia. Btw, a squit refers to insignificant rubbish. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Big Bang Theory
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Big Bang Theory. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Just wanted to apologise for my behaviour the past couple of days. Was argumentative and immature and not worthy of an Editor. Anyway, I will endeavor to be more civil in future. MisterShiney   ✉    17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As will I. I have a few select buttons that people can push to get all my pointy repartee, and one of them is people making fun of Wikipedia (which I think is a great idea). You weren't doing this, but you pushed some of them by insulting my Shaming Post™. It escalated from there. Let's start over. I am sorry I let myself vent upon you more than was fair. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I'm just glad we could sort it out. Want some more cookie? I'm afraid there isn't much left... MisterShiney    ✉    17:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Choco chip cookie bitten.jpg


 * Lol. No, I'm good. My cravings are usually for all the salty snacks.I wish there was a beef jerky template. Even one for a hot dog would work (and be somewhat more fitting) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. In the absence of savoury snack templates...a cookie will just have to do. lol. MisterShiney    ✉    19:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Carly Foulkes
If you would like feel free to open an RFC. More eyes are always better.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll formalize the RFC if you will first set up a section that introduces the issues to those who you want to respond. Once you draft a section, contact User:Ylee and get him to agree that your summary is fair. I will review your summary from my own perspective. Once we have set the debate, I will formalize the RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the bwlow would work. Should I send a talkback template to Ylee? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The below text looks fine to me. Ylee (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I will get to this in the next 2.5 hours (before I sit down to watch some basketball on ESPN).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RFC now open.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary of issues
This Request for Comment surrounds the following statement:


 * "Despite the association with pink dresses due to the T-Mobile ad campaign, she claims not to wear pink in her personal wardrobe."

The above information is parsed from a cited source, but at least one other editor is concerned that the information is not only trivial, but that the undue weight of the mentioning borders on sexism, noting that few (if any) of our other articles about spokesmodels contain personal fashion choices. The question: is the information encyclopedic? Is it sexist trivia lent inordinate weight in the article?

Please comment on Talk:Disney XD (Europe)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Disney XD (Europe). 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:French novels
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:French novels. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Re; Michael Ovitz edit (bypassing your banner advisement because I'd rather talk here)
I think you might want to revisit this edit, Dynaflow. If you are quoting directly from the source, you need to add quotation marks. If you are paraphrasing, you will need to redact the info, as it comes across as evaluative speculation - something we cannot have in a BLP. Because this is a BLP, I need to revert this edit until you can either properly attribute the comments or find reliable sources that state what you have added. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The source was contained within the tags you rolled back with the rest of my edit; there is also no reason not to paraphrase an accurate statement which properly cites its authority, instead of quoting verbatim from the source in every instance that gives off the scent of controversy. The alternative would be to turn every article on any halfway-interesting living person into a WP:QUOTEFARM.
 * I think you misunderstand how WP:BLP is supposed to be applied in this sort of circumstance. Just because the edit happened to be made in an article about a living person doesn't mean the information added was necessarily about the living-person subject of the article.  Read my edit carefully.  It pertains more or less entirely to the Disney board and its travails in court after Ovitz's departure in order to add background to the article.  The BLP policy does not apply to corporate persons (see BLP).
 * I take exception to your characterization of my fairly vanilla gloss of a court's long-winded exoneration of the Disney board of directors as being "overly disparaging," and I am completely at a loss as to how a citation, down to the page in a novella-length opinion, of a decision of the Delaware Supreme Court (which is more or less the final word in American corporate law) can be seen as screaming out for "better attribution." You can't get much more reliable than a primary-source document that also happens to be The Law.
 * I ask that you re-read WP:BLP, re-read my edit to Michael Ovitz, and restore my contribution. Thank you.   --Dynaflow   babble  05:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this. Although I think I understand BLP particularly well, I decided to re-read the topic, due to your post. For me, the problem is this: we are an encyclopedia, and we cannot take sides in any matter. Moreover, we cannot be perceived to be taking sides sides in a matter. Encyclopedias must be neutral, and while I am conscious that the sort of content Wikipedia contains presents an inherent bias towards superficiality and sensationalism, this does not translate as implied permission to do so.
 * Below are the two versions of the text in question. The pre-existing text is first, and then as per your edit, which I have taken the liberty of highlighting:


 * Disney shareholders later sued Eisner and Disney's board of directors for awarding Ovitz such a large severance package. (legal case reference) Later court proceedings reflect that Ovitz' stock options were granted when he was hired to induce him to join the company, not granted when he was fired.  In 2005 the court upheld Disney's payment. (NY Times reference)


 * Disney shareholders later sued Eisner and Disney's board of directors for awarding Ovitz such a large severance package. (legal case reference) Later court proceedings reflect that Ovitz' stock options were offered by the board to Ovitz in good faith when he was hired for the purpose of inducing him to join the company, and not simply gratuitously given away to him when he was fired.  The finding that the board had acted in what it thought was the best interests of the company, even if the end result was disastrous and arguably foreseeable,  insulated the board's decision from judicial "second-guessing" under the business judgment rule. (In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation, 906 A.2d 27, 67-68 (Del. 2006)   In 2005 the court upheld Disney's payment. (NY Times reference)


 * Note how the text is pointedly partisan, which is understandable, as it was offered by the plaintiff in the case. Now, if the case had been successful, it might be appropriate to mention this material (with quotation marks). However, the court upheld the previous decision, rendering moot the arguments and characterizations made by the lawsuit. It is for that reason, as well as that of the lack of objectively neutral 'distancing' Wikipedia must maintain in any article (but especially a BLP), that makes me less than willing to reinstate the edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The "pointedly-partisan" language accurately reflects the court's finding, not the plaintiffs' argument (except insofar as it is not possible to understand what all the hubub was about without incorporating, to some degree, the plaintiffs' gripe in the discussion of why the court thought the plaintiffs were wrong). I would contest its characterization as partisan in any case.  The court was the final arbiter of what happened, and so was entitled -- indeed obligated -- to decide who was right and speak in terms of certainty.  Read the source (a copy of the slip opinion is available here).  Also, all the material I added was about what the Disney board of directors did, what the plaintiffs in the derivative litigation thought they did, and what the court decided actually happened.  Three interrelated questions, then: 1) How does cutting out one side of the argument help foster "objectively neutral distancing?"  2) How does this aid in understanding what happened?  3) How is a capsule review of a conflict between three groups of people (the Delaware courts, the Disney board of directors, and the plaintiff class), all of which are explicitly not subject to WP:BLP, subject to WP:BLP?   --Dynaflow   babble  18:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In answer to all three of your subsidiary questions, i would remind you that the article is about Ovitz, not about the decision. People were sued over the severance package that Ovitz received. They lost and Ovitz was able to keep the package. That is the beginning and end of the case's involvement where Ovitz was concerned. The attending legal opinion is immaterial, and unnecessarily disparaging to Ovitz. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On a side note, it might be a good idea to create an article about the case, and subsequently link it to Ovitz' article. It isn't really on point in this particular article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, a major part of Ovitz's legacy and noteworthiness comes from having been the object of one of the best-known, most-cited, bellwether cases on executive compensation of the modern era. Discussion of the case is highly relevant to understanding the lasting impact of Michael Ovitz's tenure at Disney to the field of corporate governance.  It matters little to the materiality of the information to the article that Ovitz's role in the case itself was essentially that of Godot along the country road.  When you mention Ovitz and Disney, what is more likely to spring to mind?  Are you more likely to think of his ill-starred, fourteen-month tenure as president of the company, or the decade-long court battle over the circumstances of his hiring and firing that has drawn a huge amount of jouralistic and academic interest?  In circles knowledgeable about the issues invlolved, it is invariably the latter.
 * Again, if you look at what was added, this is not a BLP issue at all, and additionally satisfies WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and it is relevant to the subject of the article. It merits inclusion and should not have been removed.  This was not the sort of situation we had in mind when we collectively made the decision to except BLP vios from WP:3RR and get more aggressive about chasing down the sort of spurious scandal-mongering that could expose Wikipedia to real-world liability.  See WP:CRYBLP.   --Dynaflow   babble  20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dynaflow asked me to comment. Before I came here, I first read the WP article, then the relevant references at the WP talk p. I commented there on the issues raised there. I see this is another question entirely.  This discussion belongs there, not here. I do want to point out that AfD applies to everything in WP affecting a living person, so in a sense this case can be relevant to BLP about   both Eisner and Orvitz: we look at what is said, not what the article is titled. That this is the article on Orvitz is also relevant to BLP, in that matters only remotely affecting him are not appropriate content. That he and Eisner are public figures, however, allows quite a latitude, and I agree that this is more a matter of general NPOV and excessive weight.  But I see nothing wrong with the paragraph,e even if viewed as BLP.  It directly affects him, and the NYT is a RS (I'd make an effort to find an accessible online report of the case, btw) As for claims that the case is of seminal importance, what's the sources? It's a State case at the trial level, which is not a precedent elsewhere. I recognize that Delaware corporate rulings often do in effect set a national standard, but if so, there would be comment over it. Have other rulings been based on it? Is it still good law?  Or is the situation so exceptional (i.,e, was it rational to pay any amount of money however great in order to get rid of him) that  any case elsewhere would be differentiated from it?  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've 'ported the entire conversation to the article talk space, as per DGG's suggestion. Let's pick up the thread there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis‎
I should have noted that I gave reasons for the deletion of the 'Mexico' section on the talk page, my mistake, though I disagree that I should have required other users input in this particular case. DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Carly Foulkes
You can mention at WP:POST that you want them to include it in the discussion report, but I don't think this is a broad enough interest topic to make it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why there? That's even less likely to receive feedback than, say, the Village Pump. I don't want to waste anyone's time, but I am pretty adamant that this issue we find ourselves at odds with to be about nothing more than cruft. Any other suggestions? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malayalam cinema
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Malayalam cinema. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arrow (TV series)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arrow (TV series). 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Err, thanks 'bot. I'm the one who suggested the RfC in the first place. Go hug a toaster. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Jack, I noticed your AN posting regarding "rollback" - I have ticked off that box for you in your user-rights page after having a look through your 5000 edits and 3 year history. You seem to have a good grasp of how things work. Remember: ONLY for vandalism, and if you have any questions, Rollback would be the page to start with. Cheers. — Ched : ?  17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chad. I would never use it for anything other than blatant vandalism anyway. Its a blunt instrument that only works in certain situations; I get that. Again, thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh .. and as far as the quote? is this what you're thinking of? :-D — Ched :  ?  17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, you win! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

War Horse Edit April 8, 2013
Hi there,

I'm not too experienced as an contributor and was unsure where best to respond to your edit, here or on the War Horse (film) page itself. Apologies if this is incorrect location. The following web link from the National Army Museum (in London) positively identifies the regiments -which were genuine units- in which the British characters are portrayed as having served in the film. The uniform costumes were included in a display there following the film's release.

Where best should this be cited in the wiki article as I note the plot synopsis itself is largely citation free?


 * http://www.nam.ac.uk/press/war-horse-costumes-set-excite-museum-visitors

Regards HertsHistorian (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)
It has been a week since this discussion started and LoveWaffle (talk) has participated in the process. Since you have remained neutral throughout the proceedings will you close the discussion. It seems that everyone except LoveWaffle thought the initial compromise suggestion was reasonable. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, I think. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Carly Foulkes redux
I think the recent reversion readded some of your content. It probably does belong as much as the rest of the stuff. In terms of your content. Consensus will prevail. When other people come by and want to change the article that is good. The best situation is when I can create an article that enough clearminded editors are interested in that I can move on to other things. I am trying to get away from creating articles because they take up lots more upkeep time. I am working on templates more nowadays. I just hope that this lovely lady finds a new role that puts her back in my line of sight regularly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. She deserves to be more than just a corporate fashion statement. That goes for anyone, really. Corporations aren't people. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Valley of Fear
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Valley of Fear. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Captain Marvel/Shazam in Injustice
Normally, I agree that Voice Chasers can be considered reliable, but like IMDB, its information is user-submitted, and thus there is room for error. On the Injustice page for example, there's a few things that stick out to me. Like a few voice performers listed in the credits who aren't listed on the page in any capacity. Or Black Adam listed as being voiced by Richard Epcar even though he says he only voiced the Joker. Or the fact they have an actor tied to Lobo despite the fact that we've seen absolutely no footage of him and neither Netherrealm staff nor Sobolov himself have said anything in regard to his reprisal. And, much as this doesn't technically hold up as evidence, it simply sounds nothing like Seitz's voice. People were crediting him for Deathstroke in this game despite the character sounding nothing like him, and they were later proven wrong when it was revealed Hertzler was the one responsible. It seems pretty clear to me that this is a similar case. It's more likely Joey Naber playing Shazam (again, a case of actors in the credits not being listed on the page).

The fact is there's no characters tied to the actors listed in the credits. It's just names, and that's it. So most likely, whatever user submitted to Voice Chasers added the few cast members who have been confirmed by mainstream media or the actors themselves (Conroy as Batman, Strong as Harley and Raven, etc.) and played the rest by ear. And it's not the first time this has happened either. As a semi-recent example, since his debut in Sonic Underground, Knuckles was credited as being voiced by Ian Corlett for years on end because, similarly, there were no characters tied to the credited actors and people were forced to guess based on the sound of his voice. Nearly a decade and a half later, though, someone asked Corlett about it via Twitter, but he said it wasn't him, and it was more likely Brian Drummond's voice; Drummond later confirmed this via his own twitter account. Now if a mistake like that can go unnoticed for 15 years, even on normally-reliable sites, don't you think there's a little room for skepticism?

I've already contacted Seitz via his Twitter to try and confirm this, and I'm waiting on a reply. Nonetheless, as long as the credit is in question, wouldn't it be better to have no information on this on the page than information that might be wrong? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let me know what Seitz says, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Chicago help
I am looking for another Chicagoan to assume some responsibility in WP:CHICAGO. Would you be willing to lead or co-lead the 2013 Chicago WP:WIKNIC. Could you please ping me if you are interested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Into Darkness
Hello, I think the plot was posted because there was a screening of the film in Australia ; I don't know enough about procedures here to know if that is valid or not, just letting you know FYI. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Sonic games
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Sonic games. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness
A lot of people have looked at the history of edits in order to view the plot summary, including the identity of the film's villain. Your efforts to keep it a secret were in vain. Word has been spread accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.196.231 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Star Trek Into Darkness Cast Addition of Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime (cameo)
Hi,I have watched the movie and therefore edited the cast. I am a new contributor so I do not know the exact terms for editing an article. Please elaborate further on your action to remove the edit made by me. Regards Dhallapoo (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. The movie is not in wide release as of yet. It's been shown here and there, and a small number of Wiki users have been privileged enough to get to see it in advance of everyone else. The idea of a plot summary is that it is the group (emphasis on group) consensus as to what the main plot points of the film are. Since the majority of people haven't seen it as of yet, that is pretty much impossible. When the film is in general release, then everyone can see it and everyone can comment on the plot summary; that's how Wikipedia works (the whole 'an encyclopedia anyone can edit' thing). We are not and should not be in a hurry to "scoop" any other website. If anything, we should be the last to put in a plot summary, as we run on sources, not our own observations.
 * Does that help you to understand my viewpoint? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really following your logic here ... What is your definition of "general release"? It was released wide on May 8th in the majority of the English speaking world, much of Europe and other international territories. You seem to be limiting the ability of the majority of the English language contributors to begin crafting this group consensus plot summary you speak so highly of ... I mean it has to start somewhere. Your attitude sort of wreaks of US imperialism. -76.90.247.216 (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, the word is "reeks," and no, it doesn't. Even though the country of origin is American, most of the cast is American and the very concept the film is based upon is American, my opposition to the plot summary being added has nothing to do with the American release. Look at the Lede; it pretty much tells you when the official release (aka, the general release) of the film is. Before that date, we don't publish a plot summary. Go ask at WP:FILM. I am sure there are more than a few non-Americans who can confirm this for you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, but I have gone to WT:FILM and asked. 99.192.50.95 (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to post any old time, anonymous user. I'll wait. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Star trek into darkness
Just a friendly note you seem to be getting close to the 3RR rule. If I am wrong shoot me a note here I'll watch your talk page. -- Cameron11598  (Converse) 01:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I was aware of my status of three edits reverting out the edits of people who have apparently lost the ability to discuss. I'll probably take it to admin board, since logic and pointing out the basic rules here appear to have fallen on deaf ears. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Discord (My Little Pony)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Discord (My Little Pony). 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 Feedback request service.'' — 2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:8 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: ‎Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. title reverting
What are you talking about? I was the one who requested the protection, Mr. Stradivarius was acting on my behalf. Also Hotwiki was acting completely in good faith, yes he should have requested a move first, but he only acted once. The first time was by Logical Fuzz, hence the need for protection.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, when you are reverted, you get thee to the talk page and sort it out. You don't change it back to you preferred version and then game the system by requesting protection to lock in the "right version". All of it without a word of discussion, despite the fact that you were requesting page protection due to a lack of discussion - which you yourself failed to provide on the article talk page. What makes your claim of innocence ring false here is that you reverted another user1 and request page protection 13 seconds later (2). Hotwiki and Logical Fuzz did not act with that level of cynicism. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Equally respectful, controversial or likely controversial page moves should be discussed first per WP:MOVE, especially when they are against naming conventions as is the case here (WP:COMMONNAME). I was completely in my right to be bold and move the page back before requesting protection. Hotwiki did not revert my edit, he (assuming good faith) acted unconnected to Logical Fuzz's edit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is your presumption, which sidesteps the fact that you reverted the same edit twice. After reverting the first time, inconsideration with the idea that it was likely a "controversial page move", you had a responsibility to bring the matte to the talk page. You had three opportunities to do so, and yet did not. You secured your preferred version with a quick RfPP. And any arguments regarding COMMONNAME should have been made in the aforementioned article talk page - because you would have met considerable resistance to removing the 'Marvel's' bit, as it appears to be part of the actual name of the series thus far (3). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it seems Mr. Stradivarius agrees, a request to move the page should have been made first. I just returned the article to its previous state and protected it to stop further unrequested moves. Also no one is arguing that "Marvel's", is not apart of the official name because it is. We however do not use official names in article titles, only the most common name.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Stradivarius spent more than a moment or two thinking about it. As for your reasoning about common names/official names, let me ask you how difficult it would have been to create a SeeAlso instead of the larger, more disruptive action of moving the entire article? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I do not know why you cannot assume everyone involved acted in good faith, including Mr. Stradivarius. He protected the page five hours after I initially requested it, plenty of time for him to review the article's history. Second, I did not see the point of a circular redirect besides WP:MOVE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME is clear on the matter. Moving the page back to is previous state was not disruptive unlike the act of moving it in the first place without discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But you didn't initiate discussion, either, TriipleThreat - and you reverted twice. Clearly, others were in disagreement with your edit, and it was your responsibility to bring up your legitimate concerns in article discussion. The shorthand of simply reverting wasn't and won't ever be the right way to go. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you consider Hotwiki's edit a revert, but if that was the case he should have initiated discussion per WP:BRD. However any case this is hardly a move war and now editors will be forced to request a move, the proper way.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is arguing about closing the gate after the horses have run away, but the point i am trying to drive home is that there was nothing stopping you from initiating discussion, especially when you had already reverted the same material twice. That two different users saw it differently than you should have made the point to discuss a lot clearer. And as for the move war, Stradivarious protected the page precisely because he thought you considered it a potential war in the making. If you did not think this was a potential war, why even report it to RfPP? Either you thought it was a potential edit war in the making or you wanted to protect the version that you thought was right. You cannot really have it both ways, Triiiple. I am pointing out a mistake in your thinking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes a potential war, not an active war. I nipped it in the bud.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what nips it before it even buds? Talking about it. I'll tell you what: ask the protecting admin to protect the other version of the article (ie, the one you reverted), and my Good Faith will be restored instantly. Also, actively defend your preferred view in the article discussion, which you have yet to do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What's to defend? Mr. Stradivarious made a statement and asked editors who want a move to request one. I consider the matter settled unless a request is made.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Californication
Thanks for editing, but the previous version (mine) wasn't grammatically ill-formed or anything. It's just a matter of taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Rebellion (talk • contribs) 07:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was incorrect grammar. But don't worry, it wasn't an indictment of you or your ability. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mind telling me what was wrong with it? I would appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Rebellion (talk • contribs)

Re: Star Trek
Hi Fellow Editor. I'm bowing out of Star Trek. Iget too frustrated editing there. It's a bit of a closed shop. I'm trusting you to ensure there is some WP:Balance and all points of view are taken on board. On a a humerous note I'm looking forward to the sequal [Star Trek Into Whiteness http://startrekintowhiteness.tumblr.com/]. Thanks S H 16:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to see you depart, SH. The way in which Wikipedia works is that several voices all dissenting, all wanting their own particular view expressed within the article helps to create a better article. the way that articles begin to seem like "closed shops" is that the smaller voices of dissent allow themselves to get shouted down by a group of decidedly unhelpful and often uncivil contributors. I know the learning curve is pretty steep when it comes to learning and understanding the way things work here, but in the end, it is very worth it. I urge you to try again, and this time try to keep in mind that unless pointedly accuses you of something you haven't done, treat it like an opportunity to work out a thorny problem. The people who cannot/will not get along with people usually self-destruct or get shown the door. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Defiance
My earlier posts today were made out of frustration and anger, which was not constructive. Please ignore them. I posted a link to a production video explaining the relationship of the video game and TV series. I would have difficulty finding the RS discussion on Facebook pages and I'm not as experienced as you with this; it would be a great aid if you linked to the relevant discussion/position on such RS matters. It might actually be constructive if, in a single big test-edit, you deleted all of the parts of the article you find problematic, so I can deal with specific concerns instead of yelling about them in the abstract. I want to make this work out.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright it's been a full month and you haven't acknowledged any of the points I made on Talk:Species in Defiance.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Woopsie. I'll go there now. I must have missed your reply. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Species in Defiance" deleted
Well it would appear that "Species in Defiance" has been deleted. I didn't receive any notifications on my talk page (though I have been away from wiki for a while and was unable to check in ).

Quite simply Jack I am baffled: what good came of deleting this? I am, on an ideological level, an "Inclusionist" and I find your drive to delete that article utterly confusing. What was gained from deleting it?

I can understand if you felt it was poorly cited, that sort of thing.

But this new drive to delete articles based on claims of "Notability"? These are unusually strict, given that "Wikipedia is not Paper" and all.

I'm not seething with rage or anything; if "Alien races in Mass Effect" got deleted, well, the species in Defiance weren't nearly as notable as the races in Mass Effect. So if Mass Effect couldn't fight this I doubt I could.

Even so, I mean...philosophically...I remember not many years ago when Wikipedia was inclusive of such material. Now I see open calls to push cited material off of wikipedia for not meeting very strict notability standards.

In short, are you happy that things like "Races in Mass Effect" are being pushed *off* of Wikipedia itself and onto sub-Wikia sites? This is gutting Wikipedia itself. I mean I've seen the statistics - Wikipedia is undergoing a brain drain, and isn't nearly as active as it was even five years ago.

I understand that you don't make these rules, weren't the one who got rid of "Races in Mass Effect" but...as an encyclopedian, why do you support such measures? Not deleting content of dubious citation or deleting original research - but deleting things based on grounds of simple "Notability"?

Should I try to re-integrate this information back into the main "Defiance" article? How would I even do that?

Thank you for not blanking the page out of hand but going through the proper channels/procedures. I'm just left stunned at the procedures; Notability rules that even got "Species in Mass Effect" deleted.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded on the user's talk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emily VanCamp
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Emily VanCamp. 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 Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Batman Begins
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Batman Begins. 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 Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Butting Heads
There was a reason I added that source (and reverted the removal of content) to Yukio's film section:

"How much is your Yukio like the comic-book Yukio? She’s a lot like the original character, although she doesn’t look the same. She’s very strong and confident, she’s a badass basically.""

- Rila Fukushima

I'm pretty sure that's an explicit acknowledgement from the actress, that she's playing an adaption of an existing character. &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 04:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see now. I looked at the Collider reference and saw nothing of the sort, but the SciFi one is on the money. I'll self-revert. Thanks for letting me know. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC).

I must ask
Would your username be inspired by a certain B5-episode? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd never say. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mando Diao? Never heard of it, what am I bein accused of? Aha! Seems they read the same poet I did, see Infruset. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572514566 your edit] to Bear Grylls may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Grylls married Shara Cannings Knight in 2000. {{cite web |url=http://www.mensvogue.com/arts/articles/2007/08/

Please comment on Talk:Clint Eastwood
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Clint Eastwood. 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 Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you intentionally get everything wrong?
Non-edits are frowned upon. Any more of that nonsense and I'll have you sanctioned. At "No Country..." you again manage to have it exactly backward! That's how it is with chest-beating sometimes, I guess. In any event, I guess you are unaware that the bold edit is the one I reverted. Take your wish to introduce an error on the page into discussion. Sounds very boring because it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about but, again, you do have a chest to beat. Good luck with that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell me, does threatening ever work with you? Judging from the long list of blocks under your belt, I am guessing not. So why on earth would you think that you can threaten me. If you want to seek sanctions for me, go ahead. I double-dog dare you.
 * The thing is, you make arbitrary edits, refuse to reason with anyone, refuse to consider that you just might be wrong, and begin edit-warring. this is the pattern with you. The edit you keep reverting in No Country For Old Men isn't capitalized. Period. Explain yourself; I've offered you ample opportunity to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest Carly Foulkes kerfuffle
There is a new mini edit war in need of opinions at Carly Foulkes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Species in Defiance
1 - Your rigid devotion to absurd citation rules is symptomatic of the destruction of Wikipedia these past few years.

2 - I remain utterly unapologetic for what you called "Synthesis" - which I call "reasonable extrapolation". For god's sake you refused to even acknowledge "Indogenes can smoke cigarettes but it's also bad for them, just like humans" - until I fought you at every turn.

3 - I am shocked that you consider yourself to be "accomplishing" anything on here...you're a card-carrying Deletionist, judging from your contributions list. You and only you were trying to shut down the articles on Defiance. You camped on it and wouldn't leave it alone. You haven't "contributed" to any of this, just gutted the work of others.

4 - The actual discussions you made on that page simply ignored points I was making: you waved a hand and said I was citing only Facebook to prove something so basic as the name of the Castithan religion....even after THREE go-rounds of me directly pointing out that the citation links was to the official website, not facebook. You're not even paying attention.

5 - While I am passing annoyed that you criticized the page so much and brought enough attention to it to get it deleted, this was a secondary goal. Some of the Defiance cast & crew were coming to my local scifi convention and I wanted to impress them with a nifty little guide to the worldbuilding - and yes they enjoyed the "Species in Defiance" guide and chatted about little factoids in it. You served your purpose, and deleting the page after I already ran it by the crew at my local convention only "slammed the stable door shut after the horse had already bolted"..............I used you like tissue paper.

6 - You want to reduce the scifi TV pages of Wikipedia.org to ashes? You're welcome to be king of the ashes. As for me, I'm going to metaphorically sell out and work on one of the private wikis devoted to Defiance: showing them the depth of my work on "Species in Defiance" will be my resume, as it were (and it helps that under a different name I'm already an Administrator on other Wikia sites). I won't exactly be "king" on such a sub-wiki, but I'll settle for a shiny dukedom.

7 - Men who are small can never stand tall, while giants still walk in the light.

--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for pointing out the obvious; but you were the one who chose to use Wikipedia as an in with the scifi crowd. I am not going to ever apologize for pointing out the (many) mistakes you were making; the fact that you pointedly chose to ignore that advice and then blame me when the consequences came a-calling is no one's fault but your own.
 * Indeed, you failed to respond to the AfD notice, or from either of the head-up messages I sent you. I was the only one defending the deletion, and you blame the whole thing on me? Vi, I know a dead horse when I see one. You are simply going to put the fault of your own slovenly, ill-plotted work habits on me, no matter what I say, so go ahead and consider your mission complete. Now you may go away, and never darken the doorstep of my talk page again. My time is too limited to waste it continuing to try and help you. As you are going to blame me for several deletions which I had nothing to do with no matter what I say, I'm not going to say anything else about this with you.
 * I am glad you have found a place to call your own on another wiki; I am sure you will be happier there than you were here. The rules of Wikipedia require a bit more fortitude than other places; not everyone can hack it. Good luck in your endeavors. Elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Vikings
I am sorry if it sounds like I am trying to cause problems, but in the show, Borg is given the title Jarl, and Haraldson the title Earl, even though they are the same title in different languages. In the talk section I have poste one of many pages from History Channels webpage that refers to Harr's character as Jarl.VsanoJ (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this sort of explanation would serve the talk page discussion better, but I appreciate you reaching out. Despite what actual history says, we cannot dispute errors/oversights within the series unless we cite someone notable and reliable speaking about those same things. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Young Justice article, first-time editor
Hello Jack, when you have some time, I'm one of the WP:RETENTION folks walking a first-time-editor User:MorrowStravis through their first attempt to add an external link. They've made the case that YoungJusticeWikia ought to be in the Young Justice (TV series) article, but since the edit-history tells me you've rejected such attempts before -- sans talkpage traffic from silent anonymous WP:NINJA folks usually from what I can tell -- they opened up a talkpage section. They also opened up two or three noticeboard queries, which is how I happened to catch wind of their effort. :-)     They were not trying to force their changes through, they just didn't understand the terse message they got from a wikiKnight who reverted their most recent WP:BOLD but also WP:ELNO addition on general principles.  If you're not keeping up with that article anymore, or busy or whatever, no problem, of course.  Thanks for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

p.s. And now for something completely different.....

Yours is a very common frustration for some Wikipedia editors. We cannot add what seems obvious (w/out citation) and that is infuriating - at least it was to me, when i started editing Way Back When™. the thing is, Wikipedia is considered helpful because the opinions it has in the articles always belong to someone else. Wikipedia, as a whole, should not be offering any original insight into any of its articles. We already have the clowns over at Conservapedia thinking we are all leftist commies or whatever because of our supposed liberal slant. I think that making sure we are keeping our own opinions as to what's important enough to write about within the rules of objective neutrality. --Jack, over at the young justice talkpage, explaining why some things cannot be in wikipedia

Only a leftist commie would say clowns!! I have you now, Skywalker, mhuuuaaahahahaha!!! Errr... wait... wrong movie.. dern it, just nevermind. :-)     74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

p.p.s. Wikipedia does have an authoritarian slant, often mistaken for a liberal slant, although a classical liberal would be quite angered at that misconception... but the problem is not that wikipedians fail to follow NPOV, but that we mirror the sources, and journalists (especially when it comes to political reporting) are systematically biased. Wikipedia reflects the bulk of the sources, and the bulk of the sources lean social-democrat in the UK, corporatist-democrat in the USA, and disdain any but the twin-party candidate. That said, it doesn't make conservapedia correct, better, truthful, or whatever you want to say. But please, per pillar four, don't insult the folks over there. No need to editorialize, and call them clowns, that's not WP:NICE. Criticize the content, not the contributor, even if they contribute in the wrong way at the wrong place. :-)       And sorry about the skywalker-thing, if you don't share my particularly-odd sense of humour.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I get the joke, and the point. For the former, you are hilarious. As to knocking Conservapedia, they began their crusade after leaving Wikipedia disgruntled over science versus religion. I (and most of the reasoning world) think the two can co-exist; many of them do not (ie. that Flying Spaghetti Monster -inspiring crackpot idea of Intelligent Design). A circus is contained within a series of rings. Anything outside it is dismissed as not being part of the show; this is a perfect definition of Conservapedia. It is not mean to call an apple an apple, or a clown a clown. They do a disservice to history and to the residents of our future. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hard to argue that the FSM and their noodly appendage are not a.w.e.s.o.m.e. -- but that should go without saying. But fair is fair; wikipedia has the same problem, only our 'rings' are defined by mainstream sources.  (As Galileo could tell us, not always truthful.)  I've got all sorts of cool stuff I know, that cannot be in wikipedia, since I don't have a reliable source to back it up! Which was the frustration of the other editor which led to your explanatory quote above, and also no doubt part of the reason why the conservapedia folks left.  After all, if I'm correct, and reliable sources *are* biased in their politics (and to a lesser extent biased in their science reporting e.g. towards fringey stuff... and biased in their media-industry reporting e.g. towards good-looking-yet-dumb celebs rather than ugly-but-smart celebs)... then wikipedia is also a circus, albeit of a more useful sort that conservapedia.  But I guess I don't much care what they do, over in the conservapedia-rings, although clearly *they* care what we do over here in the top-ten-website-in-the-universe rings.  Why pick on the underdog, especially if some of them might come to their senses one day, and the good eggs going to waste over there return here?  Anyhoo, my opinions on first amendment and WP:NICE are neither here nor there, I'm happy to gab politics with you any time but I'll let *you* make the overture next time around... that said, when I read your clown-sentence, I could not resist the joke.  :-)     Thanks for taking it in the spirit of fun it was intended, and thanks for improving wikipedia.  See you around.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Back at you, anon79. Feel free to approach me any time you have need to. I can be annoying and harsh as hell, but I am not trying to bust skulls. :)
 * And I'll head over to YJ and see what's what. I took it off my watchlist when the show went sleepy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciate it. I'm probably going to stay back, and let you and MorrowStravis work things out.  Go easy on them, try and fill them in on how things work if they make a goof.  I've tried to give them the ten-minute survival manual, and they already seemed to know about template-syntax and such, presumably from editing as an anon, or from the fansite wiki.  Definitely will be an asset, if they like it here and learn the customary traditions and such.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in retention, too. At least they are trying, and not all 'they iz teh gey' or whatever. They want to contribute, I'll help them. If they grow rude, I'll leave them like a waif in the forest. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cheers (season 1)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cheers (season 1). 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 Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC. 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 Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your Thoughts?
I saw you have edited the Sleepy Hollow article. I wanted your opinion about this edit. Some user posted a review from a website idiotbox.co.uk. Is this website reliable? I haven't seen reviews from this website on any other TV show articles that I have come across on Wikipedia. It can be the owner of the site trying to get backlinks from Wikipedia. Should this review be removed?Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed the addition as well, Muhammad Ali Khalid, especially due to its gushingly positive review of the series, but the backlinking thought hadn't occurred to me (kudos on the nonlinear thinking, btw).
 * It hasn't come up before, but maybe the reliability of the source is worth asking RSN about. Idiotbox is rather new (their reviews only go back to June of this year), so maybe they haven't made an impact yet. The look of it is rather clean, something you don't usually see in a fanblog. It's a toss-up to me. Ask RSN; get some eyes and opinions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor Who
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor Who. 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 Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
  M  aurice   15:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Day of the Doctor
Hi, since you were somewhat an arbiter on Talk:The Day of the Doctor, please help conclude this discussion. Thank you and hope to hear from you soon. Chunk5Darth (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything? Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've weighed in a lot on the subject; it would seem a good idea to let others have a say in how the article should progress. I've been watching it with interest, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)