User talk:Jagged 85

Hi I see you contributed a great deal to Jay Sean's wiki page, could you help with his production team;s page Orange Factory Music?

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Shoot 'em up

Just wanted to say great work on continuing to update that article. Regarding the Defender (introducing scrolling) and Moon Patrol (introducing parallax scrolling) claims, I started a discussion on the talk page. That includes providing links to youtube videos and other sources to show what I was referring to with previous examples existing of scrolling, side scrolling, and parallax motion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I've suggested merging Farangi (which you worked on) into Franks. I think this is better by WP policy and more useful to the readers. Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

History of role-playing video games

While I think you are in general doing a good job here, listing games as "most influential" without a source saying so is original research. I didn't check them all, but a few seem to be using the primary source for that. It's also a contriversial claim that I'd expect backed by multiple sources.陣内_Jinnai 20:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I only mentioned that in reference to a specific year, to add some context, although now that you mention it, it is somewhat inappropriate. I've removed those bits from the article now, but left it for FFVII which has two sources specifically listing it as such. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Console/computer rpg history pages

Are these edits from those links? I ask because we should probably redirect all of them since console rpg and computer rpg cannot stand as their own articles.陣内_Jinnai 22:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the previous computer role-playing game and console role-playing game articles that were merged into the role-playing video game and history of role-playing video games articles? I'm not exactly sure what your question is? Jagged 85 (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Was wondering if your edits are coming from merging the articles under Chronology of computer role-playing games (which contains multiple spinout articles) and ditto for console. If so, I was going to see if any of those could be redirected to the appropriate sections.陣内_Jinnai 23:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean whether my edits are coming from the Wikipedia articles linked to through the Chronology pages, then not really. Most of my edits are actually coming from independent sources outside of Wikipedia, though there are a few sentences here and there I took from other articles. Although I'm not completely sure if that's what you mean, I hope that answers your question. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was basically checking to see if they were being taken from there to see whether those articles could be redirected without losing any info since, because computer/console rpg articles no longer exist, nor verifiable definitions for them, those should also be merged/redirected.陣内_Jinnai 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean merging both Computer/Console Chronology articles into one Chronology article, then that's not a bad idea. But if you mean redirecting both Chronology articles to the History article, then I wouldn't be so sure about that, as the Chronology articles list far more games than what's covered in the History article, which only deals with the ones that are particularly notable in some way. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Either or. They should also not be spun out like they are leaving the main page as a stub.陣内_Jinnai 23:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Parallel postulate

Possible copyright infringement? http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/jms2/jms25290-92.pdf 51kwad (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. You should check the edit history of the article before claiming such a thing, because it's actually the other way around: that article is most likely copied from Wikipedia. If you check the dates, that article was written in 2009, whereas the parallel postulate article on Wikipedia has been like that since at least November 2008. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, mea culpa. I just wanted to check as the page has been flagged as needing attention. Part of the history section needs citations anyway, are you prepared to do that? Just one book that you used for all that will be sufficient.

I have removed the template above as it seems overkill! 51kwad (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PS I think the Criticism section should go: it is the ravings of an ignorant philosopher who knows not what he is talking about in my biased opinion, but maybe it needs rewording so as to make it sound less serious? 51kwad (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not really prepared to edit the article myself. For nearly a year now, I've stayed well clear of any articles involving the history of science, and I don't really intend to return to them any time soon. I'll leave it to your discretion to decide what's best for the article, but if you need any help from me, you can always drop a message here. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Role-playing video game

How close do you think before you're mostly done with adding info? It needs to be copyedited and I'd want to check the sources (but am willing to wait) as its now well beyond 100k.陣内_Jinnai 01:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm done for now. There really isn't anything more I could add to the article that hasn't already been covered in the sub-articles. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 19:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Developer of Phoenix

I'm not sure if Taito developed Phoenix. AFAIK, it was developed by Amstar and distributed by Centuri in the US, and by Taito in Japan. I don't know how accurate Allgame is, but I think that they're wrong in that case. Duo02 ~Please direct all praises/complaints here.~ 00:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Allgame is listed as a reliable source according to WP:VG/RS. If you disagree with what Allgame says, then you can feel free to present an alternative reliable source (one that's listed at WP:VG/RS) that states otherwise. From what I've seen, there aren't any reliable sources that credit Amstar for the game. For now, we'll have to go with what Allgame states. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Game of The Year 2010 ..

hi .

Regarding Game of The Year for 2010 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Year

Please add Eurogamer Reader's choice for 2010 , which is Mass Effect 2 , as shown in this link : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-12-23-eurogamer-readers-top-10-games-of-2010-article?page=2

Thanks ..

Milky Way

Aloha. I'm working on trying to cleanup the Milky Way article and help restore its previous GA status, which has degraded over the years. As you may or may not be aware, there is a thread on the talk page which makes an allegation about your edits. I am hoping you can either briefly address it, or reinforce the material with more sources that support your contributions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Those allegations you mentioned have been copy-and-posted by the same one or two users all over Wikipedia, on nearly every science or history article I've contributed to. The reason why the History section has been tagged is simply because I added two paragraphs to it (regarding medieval Islamic astronomers) and therefore the section is "suspect" for that reason alone, not necessarily because it has any actual inaccuracies. The best thing to do is fact-check for yourself with the cited sources to see if there are any inaccuracies. If you have any difficulties accessing the sources, you can feel free to ask me about them. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I think medieval Islamic astronomy is fascinating, but I would like to see secondary sources making the same claims. That way, when this comes up for review, it will not be a question of "this only appears in one published paper and is not recognized by mainstream historians", but rather, "this is an established, uncontested fact reflected by the sources", or "there is a dispute, and this dispute is recognized in reliable secondary sources and does not represent the opinion of one or two authors." Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've stopped contributing to science-related articles for nearly a year now and, like I said on my talk page before, I don't really have any intention of contributing to them again any time soon. However, I don't mind providing some secondary sources here, but I'll have to go source-hunting for that (which I'm not too keen on at the moment) so I can't promise it any time soon. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

@Jagged 85: You should stick to discussing the particular issue (sources for certain edits) rather than suggest that your edits are merely claimed to be "suspect" for some unsupported reason. The RFC/U provided convincing evidence to support the statements shown at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup: "It has been found that many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements. In addition, there has been a severe misuse of sources: misrepresenting what a source has asserted; reporting only one side from a source; quoting out of context; inventing claims using a source related to the topic but which does not verify the claim." Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Viriditas asked me to address the allegations and that's exactly what I did. The fact remains that whoever tagged the section clearly didn't bother actually fact-checking, but simply did so for the sole reason that I was the editor for two of the paragraphs in that section. As for the "convincing evidence", sure they've found flaws in some 1% of my edits, but it's still a logically fallacious argument to suggest these flaws apply to all of my edits based on such a relatively small selective sample. Jagged 85 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85, I don't want to cause you any stress (don't we have enough of that already?) so please feel free to archive this thread. If I need to ask you a question about the material, I'll probably place comments on the article talk page, so please add Talk:Milky Way to your watchlist. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)