Jump to content

User talk:Jagged 85/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Video Games w/ Floating Island

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

[edit]

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.[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

SMS sales

[edit]

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)[reply]

Other Stuff

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and Jagged 85 has abused Wikipedia by misusing sources: essentially making stuff up that is not in the source. Please stop commenting on issues that you have not properly investigated. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

query

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

GA reassessment

[edit]

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)[reply]

Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 sales

[edit]

You could use VGChartz to source the 5.19M sales until a more reliable source is found? :) Salvidrim! 12:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've tried looking to no avail; I know VGChartz is not considered reliable. Salvidrim! 14:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bengali culture

[edit]

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)[reply]

A barnstar for you

[edit]
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)[reply]


Wow, thanks. I really appreciate it! Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

Central Asian Cinema

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks! Great job! Nataev (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

[edit]

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.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

An award for you

[edit]
A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award
Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, 67.80.64.128. I really appreciate it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

April 2012

[edit]

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)[reply]

WikiThanks

[edit]
WikiThanks
WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks again. I really appreciate it. Jagged 85 (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

May 2012

[edit]

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)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rocket 88 (Original Version) - Ike Turner Jackie Brenston 2.ogg

[edit]

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)[reply]

Origins of rock and roll

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Phuture - Acid Tracks.ogg

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good point. I've now provided an individual reason for each rationale, based on what we've already discussed above. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:J-Lo - I'm Real.ogg)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll

[edit]

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion for deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Dishonest edit summaries

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Edit warring is not the answer. If you want the tags changed use the talk page either on the page in question or at [1] please review[2] J8079s (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
J8079s: Sure. I'll just copy-and-paste this discussion over to the RfC talk page and continue the discussion there. Beats having to get those annoying "New Message" pop-up messages all that time. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

August 2012

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

warnig on edit war

[edit]

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. 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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Truce on the RfC talk page?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: Hello

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding the past...

[edit]

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)[reply]

Military history coordinator election

[edit]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

September 2012

[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term and systematic misrepresentation of sources, despite a previous RFC/U on the same problem. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A fuller explanation is here. T. Canens (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jagged 85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banned

[edit]

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jagged_85/Archive_8&oldid=1143073648"