User talk:Jagged 85: Difference between revisions
| Line 627: | Line 627: | ||
:A fuller explanation is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=513079044&oldid=513079007 here]. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
:A fuller explanation is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=513079044&oldid=513079007 here]. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{Unblock|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=420112514#Jagged_85_RFC.2FU_and_cleanup 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). <br> 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. <br> 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. <br> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoot_%27em_up 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. <br> 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? <br> 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. <br> 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. 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. 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. |
{{Unblock|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=420112514#Jagged_85_RFC.2FU_and_cleanup 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). <br> 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. <br> 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. <br> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoot_%27em_up 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. <br> 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? <br> 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. <br> 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. 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 rather than editing on my own. 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. 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. [[User:Jagged 85|Jagged 85]] ([[User talk:Jagged 85#top|talk]]) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC) }} |
||
Revision as of 05:54, 18 September 2012
|
|
2009 — 2010 — 2011 |
Video Games w/ Floating Island
Hi Jagged 85. I noticed that you recently added a few examples of video games with floating islands in them. Because of the frequency of that theme in video games, it was recommended here that the list be kept small with only key examples. In my opinion, the standard should be games that are essentially based around the floating island theme and that and are at least somewhat widely known. The Ys, Final Fantasy, Mana, and Chrono examples don't seem to be good fits for the type of limited list recommended. Do you think any of those really need to be included? SeiADP (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Thexder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Action role-playing game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Grand Theft Auto
- History of Eastern role-playing video games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Grand Theft Auto
- River City Ransom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Grand Theft Auto
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
SMS sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega_Master_System&action=historysubmit&diff=342052874&oldid=342035199 I think this is the best thing you've got for now. 10 million, book source, one source - so no need for a footnote. No need for "as of" either, since it's supposedly a final number. It's the best we've got for now unless consensus shifts towards 13 million again, but that's doubtful. Even just as a temporary measure, this is worthy of the SMS, Console Wars, 3rd gen, and best selling consoles articles.--SexyKick 08:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Other Stuff
Hi, I noticed that you contributed heavily to articles like Islamic inventions in the past (those articles that say "this article used sources which are misrepresentative" kept proping up so I looked at their histories and was surprised to find a few months ago they were massively detailed) - well I checked out the old revisions for it and found that there were some good sources to back up the claims of Islamic inventions. I'm a bit surprised as to why they were deleted so much. Could you please contribute and shift some of that knowledge over to the MuslimWiki here please? ChainedButFree (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Long story short: Nearly two years ago, several Eurocentric witch-hunting users, also known as the "Jagged 85 cleanup" commitee, had issues with my "undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements", and so they launched a propaganda campaign to tar my image and present me as an editor who "persistently misused sources" by cherry-picking the worst possible edits I had ever made at Wikipedia and presenting them as if all of my 60,000+ edits were of a similarly bad quality (when in fact only less than 1% of my edits were like that). In the months leading up to that RfC, they managed to wear me down with an on-going barrage of personal attacks. Under all that stress, I eventually gave up and let them have their way. They took this as a sign that it's okay to overzealously delete everything I've ever contributed to all the Islamic-related articles, successfully managing to maintain the Eurocentric status quo that they held in high regard. Anyway, I had no idea there was any MuslimWiki. Is it a new site? Seems like an interesting project. You can feel free to look through my editing history from two or more years ago (around April 2010 and earlier) and use any of that material for the MuslimWiki project. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That's disgraceful. I didn't realise the racism on Wikipedia was that bad. Could you possibly help in gathering all of this data (I don't know how many articles were butchered) but we could use them definitely somewhere. This knowledge must get out to the public somehow, especially if there are good sources out there for it. I googled your name you have an article dedicated to you on this subject on that notorious Islamophobic website WikiIslam. I'm not sure if you are aware of that. The MuslimWiki project isn't new. Its just been dead over the last few years because not that many people knew about it. There is an editor over there who's been working furiously to get it restarted. He asked for a bunch of help for it on some Islamic forums and thats when I started to look for some sources on Wikipedia. I kept finding those article banners and eventually found out about you. Are there any other editors which could help with this project? I spent a good hour or two reading up on that "rfc" and I didn't see anywhere where they actually discussed the majority of the sources just merely attacked you. I'm surprised again why they didn't take it seriously and discuss the majority of the sources they then deleted off the articles. We could use you a good editor like you over at MuslimWiki. Can I contact you by email here on Wikipedia? ChainedButFree (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind contributing to MuslimWiki at some time in the near future, but for now, I'll just provide a list of links to previous versions of some of the deleted/truncated articles (to the last version I edited before deletion/truncation) here:
- Islamic Golden Age (17 April 2010)
- Early reforms under Islam (25 February 2010)
- Islamic ethics (10 April 2010)
- Madrasah (3 April 2010)
- Sharia (18 April 2010)
- Islamic economics in the world (17 April 2010)
- Islamic capitalism (14 April 2010)
- Arab Agricultural Revolution (23 April 2010)
- Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe (29 March 2010)
- Early Islamic philosophy (2 April 2010)
- Logic in Islamic philosophy (15 August 2010)
- Islamic sociology (before deletion)
- Medieval Islamic sociology (before deletion)
- Islamic psychology (27 March 2010)
- Science in the medieval Islamic world (15 April 2010)
- Alchemy and chemistry in medieval Islam (1 April 2010)
- Mathematics in medieval Islam (5 April 2010)
- Astronomy in medieval Islam (2 April 2010)
- Islamic cosmology (2 April 2010)
- Medicine in the medieval Islamic world (17 April 2010)
- Bimaristan (22 April 2010)
- Geography and cartography in medieval Islam (4 April 2010)
- Physics in medieval Islam (11 April 2010)
- Timeline of science and engineering in the Islamic world (9 October 2009)
- List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world (4 April 2010)
- Al-Kindi (30 May 2010)
- Al-Farabi (25 March 2010)
- Al-Khwarizmi (23 February 2010)
- Geber (1 April 2010)
- Banu Musa (14 February 2010)
- Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī (1 April 2010)
- Alhazen (1 April 2010)
- Avicenna (13 April 2010)
- Al-Khazini (30 January 2010)
- Avempace (20 March 2010)
- Averroes (12 April 2010)
- Al-Jazari (12 April 2010)
- Ibn al-Nafis (11 March 2010)
- Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (10 February 2011)
- Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (24 May 2010)
- Ibn al-Shatir (29 March 2010)
- Ibn Khaldun (2 April 2010)
- Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf (1 March 2010)
As you can see, quite a lot of pages have been "purged". To find more such articles before they were truncated, simply look at the history pages of various Islamic-related articles (which you can find through links in the above articles) and look for the versions dating back to around April 2010 or earlier. While these earlier versions are far from perfect, they are certainly better than the current truncated (or in some cases non-existent) versions and contain a lot of useful material and sources that you can use, so feel free to add any of that to MuslimWiki. Good luck with the MuslimWiki project!
Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. That's unbelievable. I can't believe they got away with this kind of stuff. I don't understand why they would delete your ENTIRE contributions. Doesn't this go against Wikipedia policy? Can't you complain to some admins over this? I mean there's thousands of sources there. Simply deleting masses of information is just ugly. Anyways thanks for the information. The racism thats on Wikipedia should be exposed. ChainedButFree (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Wikipedia itself suffers from an inherently large amount of systematic bias. Since most Wikipedians are obviously from an English-speaking Western background, Wikipedia will naturally be biased towards Western (or more specifically Anglo) interests by default. This systematic bias couldn't be anymore obvious than the witch-hunt that was directed at me two years ago. The Eurocentric agenda of this witch-hunting "Jagged 85 cleanup" committee is evident from their very goal of undoing "the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements." No amount of smear campaign or propaganda on their parts (i.e. the still unproven false allegations about me consistently "abusing" or "misusing sources", when they themselves have misrepresented sources plenty of times) could possibly hide their blatantly Eurocentric agenda. It's not just me either, but there have been plenty of editors who spoke out against their uncalled-for deletions of entire articles (or even just editors who simply want to improve the articles) only to end up on the receiving end of personal attacks and harassment from that very same self-righteous witch-hunting committee. The amount of bigotry and harassment from these few overzealous editors is what's holding back those Islamic-related articles from ever improving beyond the shambled stubs they've turned them into. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- No worries Jagged. I'm not surprised given the racist history of Whites in the past that this stuff might happen. It happened to Africans and what a disgrace that was. Thanks for pointing out those articles once again. I've copied and saved many of them and I'll investigate the sources for them. They seem legitimate. Most of the internet sources back up what you've written, if someone were to just randomly browse those they'd find that Islamic invention stuff to be true (its funny how only a few editors ganged up together when your articles were left there for months and years surely someone would have noticed the errors you'd made in less than a week. I just don't believe the Jagged 85 committee - you should report them, you can't just mass delete contributions based on a few errors and what about other editors contributions?). Given the nature of Islamophobia in White countries today its natural that they would attempt to destroy information or hide it as they did to Jewish contributions a few decades ago. Its just sad that this behaviour is still prevalent today. Also with respect to Eurocentracism yes I agree, many inventions of civilisations were passed off as "White" during colonialism when a lot of this knowledge was stolen (The BBC series on Islamic Science proved this to be true especially with respect to the Renaissance). Also are there other editors that I may contact that can help with salvaging this project? ChainedButFree (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you have reason to believe that a group of editors is destroying or hiding information, please report it at WP:ANI because that would be a very serious problem if true. Conversely, you should retract the comments you have made above if reading WP:Jagged 85 cleanup changes your opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- No worries Jagged. I'm not surprised given the racist history of Whites in the past that this stuff might happen. It happened to Africans and what a disgrace that was. Thanks for pointing out those articles once again. I've copied and saved many of them and I'll investigate the sources for them. They seem legitimate. Most of the internet sources back up what you've written, if someone were to just randomly browse those they'd find that Islamic invention stuff to be true (its funny how only a few editors ganged up together when your articles were left there for months and years surely someone would have noticed the errors you'd made in less than a week. I just don't believe the Jagged 85 committee - you should report them, you can't just mass delete contributions based on a few errors and what about other editors contributions?). Given the nature of Islamophobia in White countries today its natural that they would attempt to destroy information or hide it as they did to Jewish contributions a few decades ago. Its just sad that this behaviour is still prevalent today. Also with respect to Eurocentracism yes I agree, many inventions of civilisations were passed off as "White" during colonialism when a lot of this knowledge was stolen (The BBC series on Islamic Science proved this to be true especially with respect to the Renaissance). Also are there other editors that I may contact that can help with salvaging this project? ChainedButFree (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Wikipedia itself suffers from an inherently large amount of systematic bias. Since most Wikipedians are obviously from an English-speaking Western background, Wikipedia will naturally be biased towards Western (or more specifically Anglo) interests by default. This systematic bias couldn't be anymore obvious than the witch-hunt that was directed at me two years ago. The Eurocentric agenda of this witch-hunting "Jagged 85 cleanup" committee is evident from their very goal of undoing "the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements." No amount of smear campaign or propaganda on their parts (i.e. the still unproven false allegations about me consistently "abusing" or "misusing sources", when they themselves have misrepresented sources plenty of times) could possibly hide their blatantly Eurocentric agenda. It's not just me either, but there have been plenty of editors who spoke out against their uncalled-for deletions of entire articles (or even just editors who simply want to improve the articles) only to end up on the receiving end of personal attacks and harassment from that very same self-righteous witch-hunting committee. The amount of bigotry and harassment from these few overzealous editors is what's holding back those Islamic-related articles from ever improving beyond the shambled stubs they've turned them into. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Many instances of complete misrepresentation were explicitly documented (see for example Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence). Although I can't find the quote right now, I distinctly recall that Jagged 85 said himself that he was doing edits extremely quickly, which is not surprising given the 60,000 or so edits, many with complex journal references as sources. He said himself that he was getting partial quotes through the internet rather than reading the sources carefully before using them. Finally, Jagged 85 received numerous notifications of the problems from various editors, and did not respond promptly (in some cases not responding at all). He also didn't help to clean up the problems. II | (t - c) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
ChainedButFree, I appreciate the sentiments, but I think you're better off spending your time contributing to the MuslimWiki project rather than trying to undo the Eurocentric systematic bias that exists here on Wikipedia (mainly when it comes to articles dealing with serious subjects like history, politics, religion, and science). I've already gotten used to the false allegations, rumours, propaganda, slander, witch-hunting, and what not, but that's sometimes the price you have to pay when you start becoming too influential for your own good. When you have over 60,000 contributions, much of it towards topics that very few Wikipedians ever pay attention to, you're bound to create enemies, not to mention the sheer volume of contributions makes it easy for them to cherry-pick holes in them and use that against you. Anyway, it's nice to know that an alternative MuslimWiki exists to document the kind of stuff that gets systematically erased and overzealously deleted here on Wikipedia. I'll try make contributions to the MuslimWiki project some time in the near future, but for now, I wish you the best of luck with the MuslimWiki project. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah no problem Jagged. You're work wasn't in vain. But just to be doubly sure I've been cross referencing everything you wrote. Anyone can tell that that rfc was about one thing only, mass deleting information by cherry picking. The astonishing thing is they didn't even check every single source and that is what is particularly disturbing. That is how I know you're in the right. Most of the books are online, and most of the journals are online too that give credit to Muslim civilisation for these things. To mass delete not only YOUR contributions would have been intolerable without checking facts but to mass delete OTHERS contributions is where it got me. Oh and I wasn't really trying to fight anything off here on Wikipedia, I just need a place for this knowledge to exist somewhere at the moment where it can be kept safe from zealots. Keep your chin up Jagged. Obviously I can't go up against systematic racists and racism (I have a hunch that that committee, at least one of the members belonged to that WikiIslam website that just paints Muslims so horribly and badly otherwise it wouldn't even be there). I can't stand racism Whites really need to sort out this ugly trait they have between themselves. I mean with parts of the Muslim world rising economically and former enslaved colonies getting much stronger (China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia) it won't be long before Whites are made the scapegoats. And who will care? No one that's for sure. They're just Whites. And its just racism at the end of the day. I mean they do have a long history of it. And yeah, join the project. That's what I'm going to be doing soon. I'll see you there. Until then take care. ChainedButFree (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Game of the Year (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to First-person
- Out Run (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Gauntlet (video game)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Golden Axe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zero (magazine) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Chikilidae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Morphological
- Grave of the Fireflies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Time Out
- History of video games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Midway
- List of films considered the best (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Time Out
- List of first-person shooter engines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Crossed Swords
- Paprika (2006 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Time Out
- Steins;Gate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Thriller
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
query
this is a query as to the nature of the edit 01:35, 25 March 2010 Jagged 85 . (15,184 bytes) (+999) . . (added references) to Infinity (philosophy), this is being queried as the material was in the first instance added by User : Ooga131booga 15:18, 24 June 2007 , (as this means the referencing isn't according to the content)
and also that an additional article has been created Infinity (Oriental thought) that requires clarification as to this referencing please Drift chambers (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
just wanting to know how the references align to the content, as some of the Ooga131booga content has now been cut from the first article, and this would therefore be required to be adjusted to reflect this ( by changes to the reference list ) Drift chambers (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Amy Jackson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Big Brother
- Pac-Man (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Dixons
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
GA reassessment
A GA reassessment is going on for Krrish here. Feel free to drop by for commenting. Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You could use VGChartz to source the 5.19M sales until a more reliable source is found? :) Salvidrim! 12:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- WP:VG/RS lists VGChartz as an unreliable source, so I don't really think that's such a good idea. Do you know of any alternative sources? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've tried looking to no avail; I know VGChartz is not considered reliable. Salvidrim! 14:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:Bengali culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chandan Guha (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
|
The Modest Barnstar | |
| You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.36 (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited Battle Royale (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Straw Dogs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Central Asian Cinema
Hi! A new section entitled 'Central Asian Cinema' needs to be added to the box in the article Cinema of Asia. I have wrote extensively about the Cinema of Uzbekistan which is part of Central Asian cinema. I can't add a section myself because a template is used in the article. Can you help out? Nataev (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done! I've just added Central Asia to Template:Asian cinema along with a few other changes. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Jagged 85. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Adventure game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Audio CD
- Drum machine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Clave
- Game of the Year (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Half-Life
- History of Eastern role-playing video games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Square
- List of first-person shooters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Tatsumi
- Popful Mail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Ys IV
- Sonic the Hedgehog (series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Mario & Sonic
- Visual novel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Audio CD
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
An award for you
|
Golden Wiki Award
Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you, 67.80.64.128. I really appreciate it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Action-adventure game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Another World
- Game of the Year (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to GoldenEye 007
- Skinhead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Paki
- Street Fighter II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Virtua Fighter
- Yu Suzuki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to GoldenEye 007
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Digital recording (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Phillips
- Epic Western (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Yojimbo
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
April 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Tik Tok, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiThanks
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to New jack swing, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Heavy metal music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Electric blue
- J-pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Happy End
- Tarkan (singer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Saifullah
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Rocket 88 (Original Version) - Ike Turner Jackie Brenston 2.ogg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jagged 85 (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Origins of rock and roll
Just a note to say that I appreciate all the work you're doing there, without necessarily agreeing with every detail! I was planning to wait until you'd "finished" before commenting (if I need to), but if there are any points you'd like to discuss as you go through it I'm happy to do that. One thought - do you think there are too many samples included now? Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I guess you messaged me at the right time, because I am more or less finished adding samples to the article. The reason why I started adding samples to the article is because, after looking at the blues article, I noticed how the samples on the page are helpful in giving a general idea on the evolution of the blues, so I thought it might be a good idea to do the same for the origins of rock and roll article. The number of samples I've added now are about the same as how many the blues article has. Is it too many? I'm not too sure myself. I have a habit of adding excessive detail, so maybe it's better for others to judge whether some of those details are necessary or unnecessary. Jagged 85 (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Each usage of a non-free file requires its own specific rationale, explaining what the sample is adding to that particular article, why it needs to be there and why it could not be replaced with free media. There's technically no limit on how many articles a file can be in (or how many files can be in an article) if the file genuinely meets the NFCC in all cases, but, generally, a large quantity of usages is going to raise eyebrows. If in doubt, do not include. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- For instance, this addition is very clearly not warranted. There is a passing mention of the song, and no detailed analysis of the musical content. As already mentioned, there's no specific rationale for the use, and nor could there be, unless the article were significantly expanded. Even then, it would not be used in that section. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- My rationale for including "Acid Tracks" in the articles House music, Chicago house, and especially Acid house, is that it is an important milestone in those genres, defining what acid house sounded like and what future Chicago house records sounded like after its release. I can understand why you tagged House music and Chicago house, because they don't really discuss the song in much detail, but Acid house does clearly discuss the song in some detail, so I don't see why that article should be tagged as well. Nevertheless, I'll try to add more detail in the articles to justify its inclusion. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- If there's one non-free song which should be allowed to exist as a sample in the acid house article, "Acid Tracks" is the one. There's really no understating the importance of that song. Second choice would be the hit radio remix of "This is Acid", but that song is kind of an anomaly, a combination of Chicago, New York, and UK styles; it's more a popular product of the acid house scene, not so much a defining example of the genre.
- FWIW, this kind of pushback is why I decided not to pursue adding samples to music genre articles. :/ —mjb (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- From your explanation, I can certainly see that this sample is one which potentially belongs in these articles. However, I'm sorry, but sections titled "Rationale of fair use in Acid house, Chicago house, and House music" on image pages is still not encouraging. When a non-free file is used in multiple articles, each usage requires its own separate rationale explaining specifically what the image adds to each article. Template:Non-free image data and its sister template (with one of the sisiter template for each usage) can be helpful in cases like this, to ensure that all the needed information is included. J Milburn (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like Jagged 85 has provided separate rationales now, and I'm convinced he's operating in good faith. However, the rationales all say the same thing: "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus."
- If I understand correctly, some degree of customization is necessary for each rationale. The rationale should not just be a list of reasons why the sample is harmless; it needs to also say things like we said above, explaining why this sample is ideal for inclusion in this particular article. (And "Acid Tracks" being instrumental, it doesn't make sense to talk about its lyrics, chorus, and vocal style...) —mjb (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- From your explanation, I can certainly see that this sample is one which potentially belongs in these articles. However, I'm sorry, but sections titled "Rationale of fair use in Acid house, Chicago house, and House music" on image pages is still not encouraging. When a non-free file is used in multiple articles, each usage requires its own separate rationale explaining specifically what the image adds to each article. Template:Non-free image data and its sister template (with one of the sisiter template for each usage) can be helpful in cases like this, to ensure that all the needed information is included. J Milburn (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:J-Lo - I'm Real.ogg)
Thanks for uploading File:J-Lo - I'm Real.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll
There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Sport Relief (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Biennial
- Tomb Raider III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Artefact
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Idris Elba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Dishonest edit summaries
Please do not use dishonest edit summaries, as you did here. The {{Jagged 85 shortened}} tag is not an "OR" tag - it is, as you know very well, a reference to your previous abuse of references William M. Connolley (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- That tag is original resarch created by several editors (including yourself), who, as we all know, have been abusing and destroying many articles on Wikipedia left, right, and center, out of sheer spite over a very explicitly obvious Eurocentric agenda ("It has been found that many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements"), using whatever propaganda they can. Don't even bother trying to go there with me. The fact remains is that your tag is original resarch. Either use a proper Wikpedia tag or don't use any at all. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you continue this way, your RFC will become live again. You essentially promised to give up this stuff; please stick to that promise William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, I never made any 'promises'. I simply said I needed a break from it all. Despite all the harassment, propaganda, witch-hunting, and what not targetted against me, you should be glad I was willing to assume good faith (despite you guys not doing the same) and even co-operate (sometimes I surprise myself how the 'me' of 2-3 years ago even put up with all that rubbish)... But all good will already ended the moment that small group (which you no doubt were part of) started abusing and actively destroying so many articles, literally bull-dozing them one after the other, which was far beyond anything promised (which was simply, you know, fact-checking). Why should I keep any 'promises' if you can't keep yours? It works both ways. And for all intents and purposes, this so-called "Jagged 85 cleanup" has been dead for quite a while, and before that never contributed anything worthwhile to Wikipedia, has done far too much irreparable damage to Wikipedia's reputation as an unbiased neutral source, and not to mention the "Jagged 85" tag completely contradicts Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on slander and personal attacks (see personal attacks and witch-hunting). If you want to slander me so much, do it on the talk pages, not at the top of every single article you've bulldozed. And if you want to make the RfC active again over such a useless tag, then feel free to do so, but just don't expect me to be so co-operative this time. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I guess it's time to ask the ArbCom to impose some editing restrictions on Jagged. Enough is enough. —Ruud 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- And say what to ArbCom? "Jagged keeps making edits we disagree with, like, uh, removing a tag that blatantly violates WP:NOR, WP:NPA, and WP:WITCHHUNT." Yeah, "Enough is enough" indeed... Also, you can continue the discussion here instead of bothering me on my talk page, thank you very much. Jagged 85 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. J8079s (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion already ended yesterday and the "edit war" already ended two days ago. What a useless "warning"... Jagged 85 (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
warnig on edit war
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- 1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- 2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you come back to pursue the tag issue use the talk page. Cheers J8079s (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion already ended yesterday and the "edit war" already ended two days ago. What a useless "warnig"... Jagged 85 (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Kamille Bidan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Space colony
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Truce on the RfC talk page?
Hey, I'm happy to Wikipedia:Just drop it on the RfC talk page. I will add no more of the content disputes to that page, so you needn't worry about it "spiralling out of control", and we can agree to disagree - on that page at least - regarding interpretation of policy (and I really don't want to have to argue about Guyinblack's any further). Basically, if I want to complain about your edits, understanding of policy, whatever, I will do so at a proper formal venue or not at all. bridies (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Truce accepted. I'd also like to drop the dispute on the first-person shooter article as well. If the consensus is against me on that one, then there's no point in me pursuing it any further. I've always been open to constructive criticism, so if you have any concerns about any edits I make in future, then just feel free to tell me about it (whether on an article's talk page or here on my talk page). I hope that clears up any misunderstandings between us. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Hello
Thanks for your note. I will be honest with you. I believe you are passionate about the topics you contribute to on wikipedia and want to improve the encyclopedia. I don't know enough about what happened with all the Islam stuff to comment on it (and I most emphatically do not want to be drawn into that aspect of the dispute), but I see no evidence of an agenda in your video game work. I believe you have engaged in some high quality research and have made several high quality edits. Unfortunately, there has also been a fair amount of lower quality research and lower quality edits. I will admit that the sheer volume of your edits coupled with what I would unscientifically consider a higher than average error rate does concern me. I do not claim to know what the best remediation for that is, which is why I had (and still have quite frankly) no desire to unilaterally involve myself in some sort of official action. If others want to take said action at some point, however, I will feel obligated to share my experiences, both good and bad, with your editing. I can promise you, however, that for my part, there is no enmity towards you. Indrian (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your honesty. I appreciate it very much. I just wanted to clear up any misunderstandings rather than, like I said on that RfC page, letting things "spiral out of control." Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the past...
Since this issue will no doubt come up wherever I contribute to on Wikipedia (even though the topics I contribute to nowadays are completely unrelated), if anyone wants to look into my past history and the whole issue surrounding the RfC, and to get a balanced view of what my various supporters and detractors (both sides probably equally large in number) have to say about me, a good idea would be to look at the following ArbCom case from March 2011 (the first and only time ArbCom have ever got involved). I hope this clears up any confusion for anyone who may want to know about my past history. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
New section at Administrators noticeboard
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Merlinme (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
September 2012
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Jagged 85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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. 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 rather than editing on my own. 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. 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)
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=420112514#Jagged_85_RFC.2FU_and_cleanup 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). <br> 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. <br> 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. <br> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoot_%27em_up 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. <br> 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? <br> 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. <br> 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. 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 rather than editing on my own. 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. 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. [[User:Jagged 85|Jagged 85]] ([[User talk:Jagged 85#top|talk]]) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=420112514#Jagged_85_RFC.2FU_and_cleanup 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). <br> 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. <br> 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. <br> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoot_%27em_up 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. <br> 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? <br> 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. <br> 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. 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 rather than editing on my own. 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. 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. [[User:Jagged 85|Jagged 85]] ([[User talk:Jagged 85#top|talk]]) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=420112514#Jagged_85_RFC.2FU_and_cleanup 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). <br> 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. <br> 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. <br> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoot_%27em_up 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. <br> 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? <br> 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. <br> 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. 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 rather than editing on my own. 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. 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. [[User:Jagged 85|Jagged 85]] ([[User talk:Jagged 85#top|talk]]) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}