Jakandsig

Hi Jakandsig! I've been looking at some of your edits and you seem to really know your stuff - thanks for the information and references. However, I'm noticing that you aren't properly identifying where the URLs go to: for example the name of the newspaper and the date of the article - and you tend to put a summary of the information as the name of the link, rather than the actual title of the page or newspaper article. This is misleading because your summaries are not the actual titles, it makes it hard to see how reliable the sources are (some are personal blogs, which should be avoided), and it may make it difficult to reconstruct the source if the URL changes or becomes a dead link. You can use citation templates or not, as you prefer, but please use the exact title rather than a summary, and say who published the item and for a newspaper, on what date. This page is an introduction to referencing including tutorials for using source code and visual editor (I notice you are using visual editor - I wouldn't recommend that myself, and I suspect that's why you sometimes use [[ ]], the code for an internal link, instead of [ ], the code for a URL, but it's your choice). ... I hope these pointers and the various links in the template above will be helpful. Thanks again! Yngvadottir (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Indrian (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (  or  ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Indrian (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Sony CD-I player.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (  or  ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (  or  ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that you have reached out to me on my talk page in a largely civil manner and appreciate that you seem open to moderating your approach. That will not necessarily halt my move to begin an RFC/U, but I am always happy to engage in dialogue. I would also emphasize that an RFC/U is not a forum to ban an editor or to "punish," but rather a forum to identify inappropriate behavior and work collaboratively towards a solution. Just because an RFC may be filed does not mean your life on wikipedia would be over.

Look, I know that wikipedia has a lot of rules and can be very bureaucratic. This is situation gets even worse because we have rules that specifically say you can ignore the rules. I have been here a long time, and there was a lot less of this policy stuff in the early days when I joined, so I have assimilated a lot of it gradually over time. I understand that for a newcomer, it can be daunting.

It is really not my job to educate you on wikipedia, but there are a few helpful links I can give you. First of all, the pillars of wikipedia, the only policies that are identified as "core" and fundamental to the operation of the entire project are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. In a nutshell, these policies state that all points of view as articulated in reliable sources must be given proper weight, all information must be verifiable in reliable sources, and editors cannot draw their own conclusions or add their own research that is not derived from reliable sources. Generally, we do not require all information to be sourced the moment it is added, but if unsourced material is challenged, then the person that added the information should be ready to back it up. The one exception is information added to biographies of people that are still alive, which should always be sourced if controversial (see WP:BLP).

So most of your edits that have been challenged on content grounds have been challenged based on the three core policies above. Several times you have drawn your own conclusions on the influence of this or that, which violates WP:OR. Other times, you have included information incorrectly from sources, which violates both WP:OR and WP:V. You have also puffed up certain subjects (most notably CD-i) or downplayed them (most notably the NES) beyond claims made in sources or through claims not supported by the majority of sources, which violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

Now, that brings us to user interaction. There are two core policies here WP:ASSUME, and WP:Civility. The first states that all editors should assume we are all here to help improve the project until proven otherwise, while the other says that debate should stay civil and avoid personal attacks and insults. Now, I have been here a long time and I can tell you that even the most level-headed, nicest editors sometimes skirt the edges of or violate these policies in the heat of the moment, as no one is perfect. You, however, have hurled insults left and right at multiple editors without even any pretense of having a reasoned discussion about an issue. This behavior actually will get you blocked and maybe even banned if it continues. That is not a threat, that's just how things work around here.

So that brings us to what you should do when someone is disagreeing with your edits. First of all, its important to understand that everything on wikipedia runs on consensus (see WP:CON). This means that in the case of a disagreement between two or more people, the community as a whole weighs wikipedia policies and the merits of the disputed information and comes to a decision on whether it should be added or not. There is no favoritism in this process and certainly no concept of "seniority." Everyone is equal. There are certain individuals that have been granted administrative powers, which allow them to block and ban users and serve as the final arbitrator on disputes in certain special forums, but their opinions are given no more weight in a regular content discussion and their decisions are also subject to review. If you find that an editor or editors object to an addition and are reverting your changes, per WP:BRD, the best course of action is to stop trying to change the article and go to the talk page to state your case. If this does not resolve the issue, there are other forums you can go to like various wikiprojects to try to gather more opinions. If that still does not help, you can always enter the formal arbitration process by preparing an RFC. I do note you have been coming to the talk page more often recently, but at the start you were refusing to do so.

So that's that. If you can adhere to some of these policies and work with your fellow editors, you should be okay around here, but if you keep hurling insults and refusing to negotiate, no one is going to want anything to do with you and will avail themselves of wikipedia's dispute resolution methods to force you to behave appropriately or leave. On a personal note, I get the sense that English is not your first language, as you have made a large number of basic grammar mistakes in your edits, consistently misread sources, and made claims about user conduct that make no sense. This may explain some of the communication problems we are having, but it does not excuse your conduct. I personally find it staggering that after all the insults and name calling and accusations you have hurled at multiple editors that you would claim to be persecuted. Your claims that I have not read your sources are also stunning, as I have found that in most cases, I have read them all far more thoroughly and accurately than you. I have also tried to explain things to you past the point of reason on multiple talk pages, so your claim that people will not engage you in conversation is also surprising. I hope some of the comments here help you reframe the context of your situation.

Well, that is probably enough for now. If your message was a genuine olive branch, I appreciate it and have posted this response in kind. If your behavior does not change though, no amount of protestations that you are being "persecuted" or just "trying to do a good job" are going to help you in this community. Indrian (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Even though I provided a reliable source stating that Microsoft's Project Gotham Racing was a spiritual successor to Sega's Metropolis Street Racer, with this edit summary you continued to insist that "no one had that though in their mind when both serie were relevant". I'm sorry if I sound abrasive--it's just the way I am--but do you have any idea what you're talking about? Both games were made by the same team at Bizarre Creations; they just changed the name and switched publishers when Sega went third-party. In order to prove to you that people did notice this at the time, I dug up an old Game Informer. GI #97, May 2001, pg. 59 has a "Codename: Project Gotham" preview that states: "It's a very promising racing title developed by Bizarre Creations, the development house responsible for the excellent Dreamcast racer, Metropolis Street Racer. Anyone who has played MSR knows that it was a challenging and addictive urban racing game based on winning skill points called Kudos. So, what do you think Bizarre has up its sleeve for the Xbox? How about a challenging and addictive urban racing game based on winning skill points called Kudos? That's right--it looks as though Project Gotham will be, despite the change of name, an out-and-out sequel to MSR." One word of advice: If you don't know what you're talking about, stay silent.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:

• How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
• Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
• How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
  • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
  • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
  • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
• The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
• Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
• Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

For your attention.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Considering the extent of your sockpuppetry, together with other disruptive aspects of your editing, you are lucky not to have been blocked indefinitely. Sergecross73 has decided to extend the block for just a month, but you should be aware that if you continue to do the same kind of things that led to this block, you are unlikely to be allowed such a short block again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

For your attention.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply