User talk:Jagged 85

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Redirection of this talk page[edit]

A recent edit redirected this talk page to the corresponding user page. For the reason given below I don't believe this is a good idea. Nor does it appear to be justified by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. The justification cited for the redirection in its edit summary was an essay—not a policy or guideline—devoted to opinions on how to deal with vandalism. Moreover, it's at least disputable whether Jagged 85's activities constituted vandalism as it's defined by Wikipedia policy, and I would, in fact, dispute it. I have therefore reverted the redirection.

There are many links to discussions (mostly now archived) on this talk page in the Jagged 85 Rfc, its associated evidence page, and other pages devoted to the subsequent cleanup. As an occasional contributor to the cleanup effort I have many times needed to consult this talk page or its archives to check up on some item of information. I would presume that other, more active contributors to the cleanup effort would have done so as well. They should not be put to the entirely unnecessary inconvenience of being redirected to the user page, having to click the link at the top to get back to the talk page, bringing up the talk page history and only then finally getting to the page they originally wanted by clicking on the appropriate link in the history.

On the other hand, if Jagged 85 himself were to request that his talk page be courtesy blanked and redirected to his user page (has he?), then I believe his wishes in that respect should be followed. In my opinion, that would provide sufficient justification for disregarding any inconvenience the redirection might cause other editors.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, though I think all but the latest threads should be archived. bridies (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I archived the old talk. The banned notice is in that archive, here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Late_Harappan_script.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Late_Harappan_script.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Jagged 85! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey[edit]

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Jagged 85. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Bangladesh South Korea Locator.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term and systematic misrepresentation of sources, despite a previous RFC/U on the same problem. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
A fuller explanation is here. T. Canens (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jagged 85 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I'm confused why you decided on an indefinite ban (I assume a permanent ban?) so quickly without listening to the other side of the story? As this ArbCom case in March 2011 shows, there are just as many editors who disagree with the allegations in the RFC, so the community consensus is clearly not as one-sided as you may think. It was only then, after I noticed how many Islam-related articles were being stubbed simply because of that RfC, that I started becoming more critical of the RfC and started expressing regret for refusing to present a counter-argument or get other editors involved at the time before any damage could be done (which I refused to do back then simply to avoid stress).
Like I stated during that ArbCom case, the examples presented against me were cherry-picked to present me in the worst light possible, as if these bad edits are the norm rather than the exception. Like I've said before, I acknowledged that I have occasionally made bad edits, but what editor hasn't made bad edits before? If you spend so much time analyzing an editor's edit history in so much detail, you can easily find bad edits for any Wikipedia editor. I've noticed plenty of similarly bad edits before from the very same editors accusing me, but was never willing to put the time and effort in to pursue the issue. In fact, an editor involved in that ArbCom case even requested to me to attempt such an analysis for several editors in response to the RfC, but I refused back then because of the amount of work that may require.
Regarding my more recent work on video games, if you look at the large amount of information I've contributed, the vast majority (I'm certain at least more than 95%) of that information matches the sources very accurately. If there has been any odd errors made in between, I assure you that it was simply an error of judgement. Also, neither bridies or Indrian ever raised any issues about my editing practices until they, at least in Indrian's case, noticed there was an RfC in my name.
Also, my accusers argue that I have not shown any improvement over the years, when in fact I have shown very clear evidence of improvement. In the evidence presented against me in the original RFC, the vast majority of examples were from 2007-2008, with very few examples from 2009-2010, showing that I did make plenty of improvement at the time, something that the RfC in 2010 never acknowledged. And despite there never being any official topic ban, I avoided editing topics related to Islam, or even the history of science and technology, out of good will for the past two years, even despite my criticisms against the RfC. In addition, the vast majority of my references since then (whether to do with films, music, video games, or other topics) have been very easily accessible, so your comment that "a lot of the problems involve difficult-to-obtain sources" is not true at all for most of the edits I've made in the past two years (even when it came to books, I've always tried to post a Google Books link when available). If I really wanted to systemically abuse/misuse/misrepresent sources, why would I make all my references very visible for other users to check? Since the RfC, I've always tried my best to avoid repeating any of the same mistakes again, even making it clear back in January 2011 that I wish to avoid any mention of "first" as much as possible. More recently, as soon as bridies and Indrian raised issues with my editing practices in my work on video games, I immediately took what they had to say on board, asked one of them for any constructive criticism, and even went back to review some of my previous edits to fix any errors I notice, evident in my edits since then. All this evidence shows that I have made plenty of improvements with my editing practices over the years. Just because I continue to reject the allegations of "systematically" abusing/misusing/misrepresenting sources, that does not mean I was ever unwilling to make any improvements or accept constructive criticism, because all the evidence I've pointed to above clearly show the contrary.
I know some may think it's unacceptable for an editor who's been around for so long to continue making errors, but considering the large amount of contributions I've been making and the entire articles I've often had to build up on my own without any outside help, how can one not expect me to make any errors? I would argue that the same criticisms apply to many articles written mostly by a single author, as each individual tends to focus on certain aspects of a subject more than others. Even articles written by professionals are bound to contain errors (especially ones written by journalists, for example), so why is it that my contributions are expected to meet a perfect gold standard that even many professionals often don't meet? Why am I being treated like a vandal with a permanent ban for making common human errors in good faith? Despite my willingness to take criticism on board and all these improvements I've been making over the years, it seems like it just isn't enough for some. After all, it's just my word against a dozen others... But like that ArbCom case showed above, there's also a dozen or so who'd disagree with those allegations. The only thing I could do is to continue to make improvements and be more careful about my edits, but if some people refuse to believe I've even made any improvements to begin with since 2007, what's the point? I've more recently tried to make amends with bridies and Indrian, and expressed a willingness to co-operate with them and accept constructive criticism, but if they think that's not enough, what's the point?
I'm not sure what else to add, because I could probably go on and on arguing my case, but considering what you've said before (that you "don't think there's anything they could say that will change my mind"), I'm starting to doubt whether anything I say really would change your mind. Maybe it really is just futile? Whatever you decide (whether reducing the block or leaving it a permanent ban), I'd rather end my Wikipedia editing "career" (well, it did almost feel like one) letting everyone know my views rather than leaving in silence.
P.S. I know the guidelines say such long ramblings won't help get an unblock, but there's too much ground to cover for me to be short and concise. Also, it might say "Admit to it" would be a good way to get an unblock, but I just can't "admit" to something that I feel is untrue (specifically regarding the allegations about systematically abusing/misusing sources). However, "Make people trust you again" and "Don't do it again" are most certainly things that I can do, and have been trying to do ever since I became aware of the issues that bridies and Indrian raised in recent weeks. And finally, regarding "Tell us why you are here", I'm here for more or less the same reason as most other Wikipedia editors: to improve Wikipedia. In particular, I've always tried to make whatever articles I edit as informative as possible, sometimes even to the point of criticism that they're a bit too informative. That's something I've been thinking about recently, that maybe reducing the amount of content I add might help me focus better and prevent errors getting through. I've also been thinking about asking for more outside help on articles rather than editing them mostly on my own without any outside input (since the more users working on an article, the better it usually turns out). I've also been thinking about promoting some of the articles I've been working on to GA status (something I mostly avoided for a long time), which would of course require more outside input on them. I'm sure there's more improvements I could make, but that's something I've expressed willingness to work on with other video game project members (specifically Indrian and bridies). Not sure if that's good enough though, but to be honest, I don't really mind if I don't get an unblock any time soon, maybe even never. Whatever the decision, I'll just accept it as the way things were meant to be. Jagged 85 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please shorten your appeal, and limit it to directly addressing the concerns that led to this block and what you will to do prevent future occurrences of the same issues. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Jagged_85 has not addressed any of the specific and very serious abuses of sources at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Computer_Games_Evidence, dating from January 2011 to September 2012. --Merlinme (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It will take too long to address every single one of them, but I'll try to address some of the examples listed under "Major misuses of sources" for now:

  • Regarding "Xanadu, Temple of Apshai, and the best-selling computer game of all time in 1985", I made an error of judgement assuming the source was implying Apshai was the best-selling computer game in the West up until that time. After later realizing the error, I began expanding the List of best-selling PC video games (specifically the "Older computers" section I created) to include dozens of more games produced during that time period. As those figures in that table show, nearly every single figure I added to that table match the original source very accurately. If the allegations of systemitcally abusing/misusing sources were true, then wouldn't that be true across the board instead of the odd examples here and there?
  • Regarding "GORF Sales and Revenue", again, I once again made an error of judgement with that specific entry in the table. But what about all the dozens of other games I added to that same table I created in the Arcade game article? Nearly all of the figures I added to that table match what was stated in the original sources very accurately. Again, this is another example of the "cherry-picking" I was referring to above.
  • Regarding "Speed Race and Collision Detection", I wasn't too sure how exactly to write out "key claims to fame" in a more encyclopaedic manner (since "key claims to fame" sounds a lot more journalistic). I simply made an odd choice equating the phrase with the words "introduced" or "innovative", but looking back, I probably should have instead went with "featured", which is what I've been doing more often with the more recent edits I've been making over the past year or so.
  • Regarding "The Nintendo Entertainment System and Hardware Scrolling", I think I've more or less addressed this one at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Computer Games Evidence#Recent samples, yet you criticized me for failing to remember this edit. Assuming I've been making an average of 10,000 edits per year, I really don't see how you can expect anyone to remember every single one of those edits as if they were a machine rather than a human? And once again, nearly everything else I added to History of video game consoles (third generation) match the sources cited very accurately, once again highlighting some of that cherry-picking I was referring to above.
  • Regarding "King & Balloon and Multi-Core Processing", that heading is a misrepresentation of what I added. What I added was "dual core" processing, not "multi-core" processing. I linked "dual-core" to Multi-core processor only because that's what dual-core redirects to. And like that example already explains, I made a (very common) misunderstanding that dual-core processing and two processors mean the same thing.
  • Regarding "Buck Rogers and Scaling Graphics", the source states that Buck Rogers trumped Turbo and Zaxxon with its "fast 3D scaling", which implies that Turbo and Zaxxon did not have "fast 3D scaling", making it seem as if Buck Rogers introduced it. Maybe "introduced" may have been too strong a word to use, but like I said above, nowadays I more often use the word "featured" instead in instances like these.
  • Regarding "Galaxian and Boss Encounters", I would argue this is more of a case of mistaken context rather than a "major misuse" of a source, since the source itself clearly uses the term "boss" here (but in a different context to what I initially thought).
  • Regarding "Star Cruiser", I was relying two different sources, one Allgame which describes it as a first-person shooter and another Japanese source that discusses the game in some detail. Even that example points out that the Google translation of the Japanese source is quite difficult to understand for anyone reading it. However, the Google translation clearly uses the word "unique", which is more or less equivalent to saying "innovative", so it's false to claim that I just made that up out of nowhere. Regarding its 3D polygon graphics, I used the term "introduced" in the context of the genre, but maybe it wasn't the right word to use. Like I said above, nowadays I'd more often use the term "featured" instead in situations like these. Regarding the "six degrees of freedom", I remember the Google translation mentioning something about the ship being able to fly in any direction, but either the Google translation may have changed since then or I may have mistaken it with a different Japanese source (which I may have to track down in future), but I assure you I did not just make that up out of nowhere. As for my more recent work on Arsys Software (which is still in a very early stage right now), what I added ("All the backgrounds, objects and opponents in the game were rendered in 3D polygons, many years before they were widely adopted by the video game industry. The game also emphasized storytelling, with plot twists and extensive character dialogues") is supported by the source, the Google translation of which states "The greatest feature of this game, probably was represented by polygons dungeon all the way up to the trees, ship, and people from the vast expanse of space. [...] In addition, the story betrayed in the sense not only depiction polygon, said games and unique system that combines elements of RPG and 3D action, the imagination of the players, and turning serif affectation of character, now that it was 20 years since the launch enjoy what has become a faded but without." Again, it's difficult to make out what exactly it is saying, but the "story betrayed" part sounds like a plot twist and while the "turning serif affectation of character" sounds like it's referring to character development. Maybe someone who can actually read Japanese can do a much better job of translating/interepreting, but all I can say is that I tried my best to make some sense of it.

And that's all I can do for now. Like I said, I could address more of the issues raised, but that would take a long time, and it already took quite long addressing the issues raised above. Like I've said before, these were simply errors of judgement (and only represent a very tiny percentage of my overall work) and that my editing practices have in fact shown considerable improvement over the years (taking whatever criticism I've heard on board and trying to avoid them as much as possible). If you don't feel my explanations above are adequate enough, and you still feel anything less than a permanent ban is too little punishment, then there's probably not much more I can do to convince you otherwise. All I can say is that I've tried my best.

Jagged 85 (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So, to summarise, you admit to making referenced edits to Wikipedia computer game articles using words like "first" or "introduced" or "early" or "innovative" or "significant" when those words were not supported by the references, and in general claiming that X was the first Y when all the reference said was that X was a Y? This in the couple of years after your original RFC/U, where you were warned you could be banned if you carried on making referenced claims that X invented Y when all the reference said was that X had a view on Y? In addition to making claims that were not supported by references, when you apparently didn't understand but apparently didn't care that you didn't understand: 'it's difficult to make out what exactly it is saying, but the "story betrayed" part sounds like a plot twist and while the "turning serif affectation of character" sounds like it's referring to character development.' Are you kidding me?? Since when is "I tried my best" an excuse for guessing what the references mean?
And I notice you haven't even attempted to explain flights of fantasy like: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Computer Games Evidence#Early "experimental shooting games" What part of this is supposed to persuade people that you should be unbanned? --Merlinme (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I think you're misrepresenting my stance here. Back in January 2011, I already clearly stated: "Can't we simply avoid stating opinions about which was "the first", but instead simply state the facts like "game x from the year y was an early example of mechanic z"?" If you think this shows absolutely no sign of improvement over the years, then I don't know what else will (besides all the other improvements I've mentioned above). And like I said, it was an error of judgement. Maybe it was a bad idea trying to interpret a machine translation that doesn't make much sense. And like I said above, I simply haven't had the time to explain all the examples. When I do get the time, I'll try respond to some more examples, but for now, it's just not possible right at this moment. As for that example you pointed to, I may as well point out that whoever added that is clearly mistaken and hasn't actually investigated the source properly. The part of the source I was referencing is not on the main page, but in the flyers below. For example, regarding Missile-X's "real-life colour images as background", go to the source, click on "Missile-X Flyer #4051" below, and lo and behold, what the flyer says almost exactly matches what I wrote in the article! Like I said before, I do not pull facts out of thin air, but everything I've added has always had a basis. If you think the source doesn't contain what I've wrote, then dig a little deeper and you'll find that in a lot of cases, the sources do actually match what I say very accurately (especially the KLOV sources, where I've referenced the flyers which many seem to overlook). Like I've said before, if you already believe I'm guilty to begin with, then there's probably not much else I can do to convince you otherwise. But like I said, all I can do is try, whatever the outcome is. Jagged 85 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Jagged, I really think you are failing to understand the point. Maybe that is because no editor explained it properly, but I will try to lay it out as I see it. First, whether you have an "agenda" or not really does not matter. I personally do not really care whether your edits are deliberate distortions or "errors in judgment" because the damage your edits have caused is the issue. When you state that X source gives Y fact when this is not actually the case, you not only degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, but you make it far less likely that an editor is going to take the time to check the accuracy of your edits because they assume your info is a valid representation of what is in the source. Many of your bad edits in video game articles remained in the encyclopedia for over a year because either no one bothered to check your edits or no one watching the page had enough knowledge of the topic to realize the edits just did not make sense. This does immeasurable harm to wikipedia's already shaky credibility.
Second, I realize not all your edits have been bad, but once again this misses the point. We all make a mistake every now and then, but you have made dozens of them (maybe more) over a period of four years. I stopped adding mistakes to the video game evidence page at about twenty because I don't have the time or inclination to document every bad edit, but those just scratched the surface and are more than sufficient to establish a pattern of behavior. Furthermore, while some of these may be "errors in judgment" I am still amazed how often I have seen edits where the source itself contradicts your claim. If you had earned a Ph.D and your dissertation and other papers were later found to contain as many blatant errors and misuses of sources as you have added to wikipedia, regardless of what percentage of your total edits those happen to be, I honestly believe the institution would strip your degree from you. I don't understand why you believe wikipedia edits should be held to a lower standard.
Furthermore, Your claims of cherry-picking are irrelevant because the data does show a persistent problem even if it does not manifest every single time you make a claim. Maybe your bad claims were only 5% of your edits or some similarly small percentage, but the claims were so out of whack and even directly contradicted by the sources you used, that the poor quality was much more important than the quantity. Heck, that makes you even more dangerous: instead of being able to revert anything you put in because we know it will be wrong, we have to laboriously check every edit you make and the reference you use to determine whether the information was bad. This takes valuable time that editors can be using to do other things. Why do you think you are special enough that you deserve to have the rest of us serve as your personal fact-checkers and copy-editors?
Finally, you cannot say you were never warned. There was an entire RFC against you, and while I was not involved in that and cannot claim great knowledge of all that transpired, I saw the evidence your accusers presented, and your edits were pretty atrocious. At that time, the editors in question were willing to assume good faith and give you another chance. Instead of taking good advantage of that opportunity, you switched topics and committed the exact same abuses again while claiming that your accusers were part of a Eurocentric conspiracy against Islamic contributions or some other hogwash. Why should we give you a third chance after you distorted so many articles in two different subject areas?
P.S. Your defense here continues to demonstrate your lack of understanding of certain subjects. Dual-Core processing is multi-core processing, so there is no misrepresentation. Multi-core means multiple cores. Dual-core is two cores, quad-core is four cores, etc. Its all multi-core. If you are going to attack the evidence, have your facts straight first. Also, your continued reference to you January 4, 2011 talk page edit is as misleading as many of your wikipedia edits since our evidence page includes several examples of claims that something was "first" that date to after that talk page comment was made. This also does not take into account your multiple uses of the word "early" in regards to a game concept or mechanic when these games were not "early" examples at all. Do you really think no one is going to read the evidence page and notice that your contrite statements here are out of sync with your actual behavior on wikipedia? Indrian (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't even know what to think anymore, because this kind of feels like a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation. I've tried to address many of the examples presented, as requested by Merlinme above, simply to show that I have always been editing in good faith. I've tried to highlight many of the improvements I've made in my editing practices over the years. I've tried to show how, over the last few weeks, I've been trying to make amends, limiting my contributions, and being more careful about what I add, all on my own accord. If you feel that's not enough, then what more could I possibly do? Like I said to both you and bridies, I did not want things to "spiral out of control", so I did all I could to address the concerns both of you raised, and even asked you directly for any constructive criticism you may want to add. I'm very well aware that things are leaning towards a permanent global ban right now... but why does it necessarily need to be a permanent ban? Ever since both you and bridies raised those concerns a few weeks ago, did I make any problematic edits since then? You may not have realized it, but I have taken what you and bridies had to say on board a few weeks ago. I do "get" what my problem is, but it's just kind of hard to discuss it when I'm being condemned for anything and everything I say. I've even figured out how I can prevent such errors from happening again: by simply limiting how many contributions I make. With the sheer volume of contributions I've been making, sometimes even I myself can barely keep up with all that information I've been adding. Like the example regarding the NES, I barely even remembered that edit until someone pointed it out. You may believe this is gross incompetence on my part, but I believe it's simply a case of trying to deal with more information than I can handle. That's why I've been limiting the number I've contributions I've been making these past few weeks, and it seems to be working so far. Isn't it possible to reduce the punishment to a temporary ban and then give me a trial period to see how I do?
P.S. However, I don't agree that the opinions expressed so far truly represents the community consensus. If you want a more balanced community consensus on whether or not I should get a permanent global ban, shouldn't the editors involved in the the 2011 ArbCom, or the editors who were willing to award me barnstars, at least be contacted for some input on what they think about my contributions? Right now, the community ban discussion largely consists of users who I have either previously had disputes with or who don't know me. Why not bring in more opinions from the other side of the coin to get a wider picture? I only think it's fair to hear both sides of the story (from users other than myself of course) before making such a decision.
Jagged 85 (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like your community ban is going to be unanimous, so you should read WP:UNBAN. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Your motives are essentially irrelevant. "Tried my best", when referring to grossly misleading edits using sources you (at best) didn't understand, following an RFC/U which told you to stop doing that exact thing, is simply not good enough. You shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. I personally think it's hard to overstate how much damage you've done to the project.
That may sound very harsh, but if we are to assume that you have been acting in good faith, then I would suggest you take your undoubtedly prodigious amounts of enthusiasm to some other project. Please don't edit encyclopedias. Encyclopedias are supposed to be written (and particularly referenced) by people who know what they are talking about. Far too often you don't know what you are talking about but apparently don't see this as an issue when editing the encyclopedia. --Merlinme (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I had a quick look at the first flyer for Sub Hunter. Yes, it does say something about 3 dimensional color scenery. Yes, it does say that the subs fire mines. Fair enough. So that just leaves: 1) Claiming it was an early submarine simulator without a source, when it's clearly not; 2) linking to the wrong source 3) the question of whether an advert for the game is a good source; I'd suggest it's not for establishing the significance of the game's use of colour, i.e. whether it's worth putting in Wikipedia; 4) Claiming it was an "experimental shooting game" without a source. In other words, it allows me to verify a couple of the more minor claims. It does not fix the problem of adding wild claims which you haven't referenced correctly (for goodness' sake, I shouldn't have to ask you what you meant when following one of your references), where the source does not support the most important claims anyway. --Merlinme (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but have the editors in the the previous 2011 ArbCom case been contacted yet? What about the editors who were willing to award me barnstars? Have any of these people been contacted yet? How can you call this a "community consensus" when all the users voting are ones who've either had disputes with me before or users who don't know me? What about the dozen or so editors I've referenced above who have very differing views? Shouldn't they also be contacted to give their input on what they think regarding this matter? (I'd do that myself, but cannot since I can only post here on my talk page.) Jagged 85 (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
If you feel the section of the community who showed up at your ban discussion is not representative, you should appeal to ArbCom. They are elected by a much larger section of the community (by thousands of votes if I recall correctly). Arbitrators having had prior content disputes with you will recuse from the proceedings, as it happened last time around. Arbs did decline your case back then and some of them explicitly said they found no problem with the community response, e.g. this one. Finally, the banning policy says nothing about rallying your wiki-friends, but WP:CANVASS does. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The opinion of "users who don't know me", i.e. previously uninvolved editors, is normally considered to hold a lot more weight than that of your friends when trying to determine consensus on issues like this. The fact that, to date, zero uninvolved editors (or anyone else, for that matter) have found a reason to oppose the ban seems pretty compelling to me. I can't see a couple of your friends turning up and voting against making a lot of difference (assuming of course they would actually be prepared to vote in your favour after reading the RFC/U and the more recent evidence).--Merlinme (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Jagged, I have read this ArbCom and I am not sure what you are trying to prove. The issue in the arbcom was not the findings but the cleanup, which certain editors believed was removing material beyond your provably erroneous claims. Even the initiator of the case stated that he was "asking for neither the exoneration of Jagged 85, nor sanctions against any other individual." In other words, the case was not an attempt to refute your bad behavior, but instead an attempt to refute the cleanup response. Indrian (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • suggestion: I'd say the only reason for unblocking Jagged_85 would be to force him to do the cleanup work. If Jagged_85 can demonstrate that he can go through all the affected articles, provide quotes from these hard-to-find sources, rephrase the peacock terms, and delete the parts that fail verification, etc, I see no reason for not allowing him back to the project. In other words, I suggest that he would be restricted to doing verification/cleanup work until further notice. His cleanup efforts would also prove (if successful) that he is capable in accurately reflecting and understanding sources. Once he's done with the clean up of all the affected articles, and others can review his work, he can ask for this restriction to be lifted. Wiqi(55) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Just noting that my comment was unsolicited. Wiqi(55) 01:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
One may sometimes give editors in danger of serious sanctions a short length of WP:ROPE, not an entire stretch of WP:TRANSATLANTICCABLE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. Like I said above, a few weeks ago, as soon as the issue was brought to my attention, I already made a start on reviewing previous edits I had made to several video game articles to check if I've made any errors, even for articles know one has raised any issues with yet, like for example History of Eastern role-playing video games, an article I've been working on extensively. I even dropped a note on the talk page noting the poor quality of the Chinese and Korean sections I myself created and how much work they need. I was also intending to check many of the sources in the rest of the article, in the hopes that it could one day be promoted to GA status like the History of Western role-playing video games that User:SharkD did a great job on. Now that I've been blocked, I'd probably have to wait for another editor just as interested in the topic as I am (and just as willing to check through all those sources) to come along and do that instead. Even beyond video games, I also went back to check for any errors I've made in several music articles I've edited, despite the fact that no one ever raised any issue about that topic. I am more than willing to check and correct any errors I've made in articles I've been working on, and I did make a start on it a few weeks ago on my own accord. And that's because I am confident most of my edits are fine, but at the same time I am aware that there are plenty of errors I may have overlooked. I can't think of many Wikipedia editors who have been adding so much information like I have so quickly. There are a more than a hundred editors who have made more edits than me, but how many of them are full of almost nothing but big +'s in their edit history? By trying to add so much information so quickly, there are bound to be some errors made, which is why I've been trying to limit the number of edits I make these past few weeks. I've always had a habit of adding excessive amounts of detail and trying to be as informative as possible, and this is exactly what backfired. I realized what my problem is a few weeks ago and I already know how I can prevent those little errors from happening again, but if some people aren't willing to give me the chance to demonstrate this, how will we ever know?
I know some may point to the RfC back in 2010 and ask why I didn't do it back then? My response is that it was a different situation back then. After that RfC, I became inactive for quite a long time, then when I came back I diverted my attention to different topics for a while. I wasn't running away, but I just needed a break before eventually returning to do some clean-up work on the history of science articles. Several editors previously involved in the RfC then became impatient and started stubbing numerous articles, which led to criticism from numerous editors and eventually that ArbCom case I've referenced above. Up until then, I had never openly criticized the RfC or ever even accused it of Eurocentrism, but only started doing that after the whole stubbing fiasco. And it just so happens that the articles being stubbed were the first ones I was intending to do clean-up work on, so I eventually gave up on the idea altogether. And that's something else I'm worried about... what if this ban leads to editors stubbing entire articles just because I was the main editor? That's what worries me more than the ban itself.
Nevertheless, this time the situation is different. I am not simply intending to do clean-up work, but also wish to promote several articles I've been working on to GA status, something I had neglected for a long time (ever since several articles I had previously promoted to GA status were demoted after that RfC). Another thing is that, I've already more or less added everything I could have possible wanted to add to the video game articles (and other topics for that matter). Right now, I can't think of anything more I could add (or at least nothing major). The only thing I can do now is simply review the articles I've been working on and bring them up to a higher standard, which of course would require me to check through the sources again to see if there are any errors. The only other thing I may intend to do from time to time is adding scores and reviews for new games that come out, something that I don't remember anyone criticizing me about yet. Other than that, all I have left to do is clean-up the articles I've been working on and bring them up to a higher standard, and this will be my main focus for quite a while.
Jagged 85 (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The "help in the cleanup" was supposed to be part of the "don't ban me this time" deal after the original RFC/U. It didn't happen; instead we now have another two years of bad edits to clean-up. While I understand the sentiment, Wiqi, given what's happened since the RFC/U, who on earth would agree to let Jagged_85 declare that an article he'd previously edited was now clean? I don't see how it would work unless another editor had approved Jagged_85's edits, making it a dubious timesaving compared to just doing it ourselves.
It's not just the outright falsehoods either, it's the guessing what the source means, it's the complete hijacking of articles with irrelevant information, it's the failure to understand the subject and use good judgement when making edits. Jagged_85, you still don't seem to understand that bad edits are a lot worse than no edits at all.
As I said when bringing the new case, I'm afraid I think the time for second chances is long gone. --Merlinme (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think stubbing his "contributions" would be the best idea here. They need to go ASAP. They're not contributions, they're just haphazardly assembled POV messes standing in the way of actual contributions by actually knowledgeable editors, whether now or in the future.
As for his long overdue ban—seriously, can anyone think of a user who has done more damage to this project and is more deserving of a permanent ban? This went on for way too long, and now we have an even bigger mess to deal with than the huge mess we had before. The best thing that could come out of this situation would be wider attention to users like Jagged85 getting off the hook too easily, perhaps resulting in less misapplied tolerance in the future. I believe I've called for a ban on this guy since I found out about the ArbCom situation after seeing first hand the wildly ridiculous Islamocentric stuff he was "contributing" to numerous articles all over Wikipedia. Who knows how far the influence of those articles reached and continue to reach. Obviously, he should have just been outright, permanently banned then. For the record, it was made quite explicit that he knew what he was doing, yet he simply continued then and after regardless, calling for "good faith" when necessary or convenient.
The result, of course, is yet more of a big mess on everyone else's lap. In fact, he was so comfortable with this arrangement that he even made snide comments regarding the quality of the cleanup process, referring to involved users as "lazy".
Of course, now that he's finally banned, Jagged is singing a different tune. The mockery of those actually assisting the project has again turned to pleads for "good faith". Anyone who would consider unblocking Jagged probably doesn't deserve the tools to do so in the first place. I propose that we move on: slap the most severe ban possible on this user, throw away the key, replace the user's user page with a notification of what happened, and let's discuss what we're going to do about the mountain of mess that he left behind. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Merlinme: I don't think that's what Wiqi is suggesting. I believe what he is suggesting is something more along the lines of me cleaning up an article and removing any errors I may have made, making it easier for whoever it is checking the article to see if there are still any errors remaining. Like I've said above, I don't really intend to add anything more, but only fix and/or remove whatever is already there. I'm not just saying this to "save my butt", so to speak, but it's simply because I've honestly run out of ideas of what more I could possibly add that I haven't already added. And like I said, I am also intending to limit the number of edits I make (like, say, maybe a maximum limit of 5 edits per day?), which would undoubtedly make it much easier for anyone else to follow my edits. Aren't these restrictions good enough? Or would you prefer some more restrictions? I mean, you're not really giving me any options here? You're just saying something along the lines of "no second chances, permanently banned, and that's that." If I was being stubborn and uncompromising, I can understand such a hard-line stance, but I've already made it clear that I'm more than willing to compromise and accept whatever restrictions you decide on, so I don't understand why any punishment less than a permanent ban is out of the question? Jagged 85 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Bloodofox: I don't know why you're misconstruing what I said? I did not call the users "lazy", but I was referring to the act of deleting/stubbing entire articles "lazy". That is what I meant before about "lazily deleting/stubbing them like what several editors have been doing". I'm sure the users are hard-working and dedicated in whatever they do, but the act of stubbing/deleting entire articles is "lazy" in my eyes, in the same way my failure in double-checking and reviewing my own contributions was also "lazy" (despite the fact that the large amount of time and effort I put into adding all that content is not lazy). It's the act itself that I'm referring to as "lazy", not the users.
As for my contributions "standing in the way of actual contributions by actually knowledgeable editors", I'd have to disagree. Because, well, how do you explain the poor state of the Islamic science/civilization-related articles today? Hate to bring up that ArbCom case again, but if anything stood in the way of "actually knowledgeable editors", it was the users who consistently drove away those "knowledgeable editors" from editing the articles in the first place using that RfC as an excuse. Either way, I don't know about you, but I'd much rather prefer having something to build on, rather than just a blank piece of paper. Most articles start out pretty crappy and slowly improve over time with more input from more editors. Isn't that the point of collaborative editing? I don't understand why it's necessary to one-up each other all the time instead of just working together? Jagged 85 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, slightly off-topic here, but has Wikipedia been on some kind of banning spree lately? After higher-profile bans like this and this (and plenty more), I kind of feel like I'm just next in line to get banned. Not sure what to make of it, but I've been starting to find (even before I was blocked) Wikipedia's banning policy quite disturbing as of late. What's with the increasing punitive measures lately? Are these bans supposed to set some kind of "example" to other editors? I'm not even sure what kind of example Wikipedia is trying to set with all these bans? That Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and not the "sum of all human knowledge"? Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm only asking this as a question, not as some kind of excuse for myself. Jagged 85 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you'd kept to what the RFC/U asked (e.g. making more careful edits, getting some mentoring, never ever ever abusing sources like you had leading up the RFC/U) then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Bearing in mind that you didn't keep to the RFC/U conditions but instead seriously damaged the credibility of Wikipedia in a different topic area instead, I can't see any appetite in the community for giving you any more chances; the risks are extremely high, the costs (in the time of other editors having to keep an eye on you) are considerable, the rewards are unclear.
Seriously, find something else to do with your time. Something that doesn't require accuracy. --Merlinme (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Editors get banned all the time. After a long hiatus, I checked an old discussion page. Three of the seven participants had been banned in the meantime, each one apparently for completely unrelated reasons. So, it's nothing unusual, I conclude. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Banned[edit]

Hello, Jagged 85. Pursuant to the discussion that took place at the Incidents noticeboard, you are hereby notified that you have been formally banned from the English Wikipedia by community consensus. As such, you may not be unblocked by an individual administrator through use of the {{unblock}} template or the Unblock Ticket Request System; instead, you may appeal your ban to the community, or via email to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. If you choose to appeal to the community, you may present a statement on this page, accompanied by a {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} template, requesting that your statement be copied to the Administrator's Noticeboard for comment and review.

Please note also that this ban only applies to the English Wikipedia; despite calls for a global ban in the discussion noted above, no such sanction exists yet, and even if it did you don't qualify and this community lacks the ability to subject you to such anyway. Therefore, you are free to edit other projects should you so choose, but I would advise you to avoid issues similar to those that have led to your ban here. In the past, productive editing on other projects has been viewed favorably by the community and Arbitration Committee when reviewing ban appeals.

I regret that I have to leave you this notice, but I wish you luck with your future endeavors. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.