Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 7 April 2016

Got questions? post any new questions by starting a new section below. Before posting, understand the following: If it isn't cited, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia; don't even bother arguing it with me. I am a a follower of Conan the Grammarian: if it's bad writing, I am going to correct it or kill it. I am polite and appreciate politeness in turn. If you act like an ass-hat, I'll ignore you, report you, or simply point and laugh. If I have asked you to not post on my usertalk page, please respect that request and don't do it. If you do anyway, I'll simply delete it and seek your block. I like butterscotch; oddly enough, I also like butter and scotch. Funny how that worked out. In any case, I don't know how that matters here, but I'm just throwing that out there, in case anyone wants to send me some.

My Talk Archives

2010: 4.16 - 11.02 2011: 11.03 - 12.31≈ 2012: 12.31 - 6.22 2012: 01.23 - 12.27 2013: 01.07 - 09.29 2013: 12.17 - 2014: 07.02 2014 - 2015

Legends listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Legends. Since you had some involvement with the Legends redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charli XCX

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charli XCX. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies.

Regarding my misinterpretation of your contribution on the Space Elevator talk page 2.5 years ago, my face is completely red. I had interpreted it then the same way as the other commenter. It would have been odd for an author to hype up his article like that, but I think that's why it lodged in my memory and led me to looking it up again. I can also see how the rebuking from the other contributor would have lodged into your own memory. Sorry to have pointed the finger at you so wrongly. Skyway (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for an elegant apology, Skyway. All is forgiven. I honestly wasn't aware of the other editor's rebuke, as I didn't follow the page and wasn't aware of it until you provided a link to the comment. Anyway, have a great day! :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Condescension vs. Constructivity

I find the tone of your comments on Captain Hook overtly condescending, and I ask you to try being more respectful. If you see a problem with an article, don't issue a vague "warning" from on high to that you're going to come in and fix things if somebody doesn't clean up their act. And don't tell other editors that we should be relieved that you didn't delete more. That isn't constructive and it certainly isn't "polite" (as you believe yourself to be), because it's pointlessly antagonistic. Misplaced Pages depends on civility, and frankly: you're not doing very well with that here. If you wish to make constructive criticism, try doing so by tagging specific things you think need improvement (citation needed, original research, etc). Or actually make the improvements that you think are needed, rather than berating other editors for not making them already. You are no one's supervisor or superior here; please stop acting like you are. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, you missed the point. If you choose to revert things twice without discussing them, and without a solid basis for doing so, you are going to get trout-slapped. Yes, I am not going to stay polite and gentle if you refuse to get the point. You got civility in the edit summary. When you fail to heed it or get offended by the suggestion of doing the actual work, then you are essentially handing me the paddle to smack you with. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict." You are being rude and disrespectful, and making thinly veiled personal attacks. The metaphors of physical violence are inappropriate. Please try to be less confrontational. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Copy/pasting blocks of policy text on my page doesn't help your cause, Jason. My comments and edit summaries were polite until you decided to go ahead and revert with the comment that the info you thought should be in the Lede was obvious.

Which begs the question: aren't you getting the point? Is it because that, while recognizing that my points are correct, that you simply don't like the way they were made? If so, then II am sorry you felt your feelings were hurt by being told to fix the problem instead of reverting.

Now, unless you plan on actually getting down to brass tacks (the actual problem), I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne

I hope this will suffice, as I believe it sounds more encyclopedic than "other characters" and there is a page for List of Batman supporting characters. DarkKnight2149 14:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason I find the phrase "Batman's supporting characters" to be correct is because Batman is the primary/titular character when it comes to the Batman franchise. That's why there is a page called List of Batman supporting characters and that's why the phrase "Batman's rogues gallery" is correct. And if you still disagree, how would you propose we re-word it? "Batman and other characters" just doesn't sound encyclopedic and "other characters" could mean anything. DarkKnight2149 14:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Darkknight2149. The reason why I find the phrase "Batman and other characters" is that Batman is in fact a character, and Gotham is an ensemble piece. If anything, it could be strongly argued that the show is arguably more about Jim Gordon's evolution than Bruce Wayne's. So we aren't talking about stories that rotate around Batman as the centerpiece. They are all characters. What they will possibly become is in the future, and we have to deal with the material we are given.

The edit you are suggest would in fact be more appropriate were the Gotham series more like Smallville, wherein virtually every scene from every episode used Clark as the main character. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What is your opinion on these possible alternatives?:

• Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the Batman franchise characters
• Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the Batman mythos
• Gotham, a 2014 series that acts as a prequel to the Batman mythos
• Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the DC Comics characters that appear in Gotham City
• Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the DC Comics characters that appear in Batman comic books
• Gotham, a 2014 series about the origins of the characters that appear in Batman comic books DarkKnight2149 22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see you have put some thought into this. Of them, the last would work for me. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. DarkKnight2149 01:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago!

Come join us on Saturday, March 5th between 12PM - 5PM for the Art+Feminism 2016 edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago! We'll be focusing our efforts on women involved in the arts, and a list of articles for artists in Chicago and the U.S. Midwest has been compiled at the project page. The event is free, but only if you register at the project page ahead of time. I'll be there, and I hope to see you there too! I JethroBT (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Natalie Portman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See the talk page. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Listen, you pretentious ass-hat: if you consider this edit to be "blanking page content or templates", you might want to consider how we do things here in Wikiedpia. First of all, you don't template the regulars. Secondly, you actually take the time to use the discussion page to hash out difference of opinions. Thirdly, you had best understand the terms that you are accusing people of violating. I will get over your behavioral faux-pas (aka, 'major fuck-up'); if you do it again, however, you will shed any assumption of good faith you will ever get from me. Consider that your last warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)