User talk:I am a jedi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Liberalism, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Cold turkey has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to GameTrailers, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Star Wars vs. Star Trek, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, I am a jedi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalizing?

Yeah, my bad - I forgot, the reason that the article was not deleted was because people were just deciding that discussions weren't necessary, sources aren't necessary, and a single good reason to include half of the games on the list aren't necessary. Yeah, God forbid that I require the article to follow the guidelines that, if it doesn't, it gets DELETED. I guess keeping an article from being deleted is vandalizing it now? I guess the vandal isn't the one pushing it towards deletion. And guess who's doing as such? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE WILL BE DELETED IF ENTRIES ARE ALLOWED ON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNSOURCED, AS MOST OF THE ENTRIES ARE. That is a condition of the AfD process that occurred. It's not just about sourcing, EVERY SINGLE GAME I REMOVED WAS NOT DISCUSSED PERIOD. There is nothing that suggests that including bad content on Wikipedia is allowable to make an article larger. In fact, Wikipedia sourcing rules side with me - never do they say that content can remain on an article without sources, but it explicitly states that the removal of such content is allowed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is that we have to make this article fail the requirements for not being deleted, not so it can be better, but in fact, so it can be three things:

1. Longer
2. Worse
3. A candidate for a quick deletion, and the argument that "the editors aren't even attempting to save it for deletion" will ensure it gets deleted.

I'm just curious, do you want to have this article deleted? What don't you get? If you get your way, the article gets deleted. This is NOT like an encyclopedia. Can you rip out pages and readd them? No. Can you edit an article and revert the edit? Yes. Bad content cannot and should not exist on Wikipedia. Being long isn't important, in fact, being long is of no priority. The only priorities are quality and verifiabiltiy. What don't you get about "everything has to be sourced"? What don't you get about "this article will be deleted if it has even one unsourced statement or undiscussed entry"? Give me one good reason whatsoever that suggests bad content should be on this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ARE YOU LISTENING? WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FACT THAT YOUR WAY LEADS DIRECTLY TO DELETION AND NOWHERE ELSE? It's NOT my job to source the entire freaking article because people are ignoring the rules of the article! Show me a guideline that says I have to source it, or leave the unsourced content on the article. The only thing I'm gung-ho about is keeping the article away from Deletion! At what point is keeping the article from being deleted forever because people like you prove time and time again that this article will never ever ever ever be good, because all you do is say "we'll source it, we'll require discussions!" And guess what? Most of the entries are unsourced, highly POV, poorly written, discussed for a killer "zero days, zero hours, zero minutes, and zero seconds", and instead of doing a whopping "anything", you tell me to fix it? Seriously, you've proven to me that this article will always suck, because people like you will never allow the suck to leave. It's not my job to babysit you, it's NO ONE's job to do so. Fix it yourself. I won't nominate it for AfD, but I'll vehemently support its deletion at this point. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I forgot - being a good editor is just HORRIBLE. I'm sorry for making that sucky article less sucky. I guess I'm just crazy, since I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to, you know, be good, instead of long.

The article sucked so much, it should have been deleted for being as horrible as it was, let alone the utter lack of sources. It's constantly compared to List of best-selling video games. Yeah, silly me, I forgot that List of best-selling video games is an indiscriminate, completely unsourced list, and anyone can just add stuff. Oh, hey, IT'S NOT. It's very strict, and since it has very important information, they don't let just anything get on. This is an indiscriminate list of games that random people consider bad - particularly bad. The only reason the article exists is because editors established a discussing system and requiring sources. Are you saying that it would be better for the article to make it more vulnerable to deletion? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

An article that was based on random IP's personal opinions which were never discussed at all in the absolute slightest amount! How can something without good sourcing be a GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION? I objected to the inclusion of so many of those games, at what point should they be on there? 100% OF THE GAMES ON THAT LIST MUST BE DISCUSSED. THERE IS AND NEVER WILL BE ANY EXCEPTION TO THIS.

Yeah, because you fix the article. I'm so bad for trying to get people on the right track, and trying to make the editors follow the rules that are keeping the article from being deleted. You're such an amazing article, what with you doing nothing but make the article suck. You don't source anything, you don't remove anything, it could be a long string of vandalism, and as long as it was really really long, you'd fall straight in love with it.

Do you realize that in the time I've known you, you've never mentioned EVER wanting to make the article well-sourced, or even good - all you've mentioned is "being long" and "being complete". Never once have you shown interest in the article being anything else.

Um, no, it doesn't? Are you telling me that "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." doesn't allow me to remove content I consider to be unsourced by the FACT that there are no sources? And regardless of THAT GUIDELINE, the article's guideline of discussing the inclusions allows me to remove every single entry that was not discussed on the talk page. Why even have guidelines if people like you are going to just ignore them? The guidelines exist to keep the article from being deleted. Why don't you ever acknowledge the fact that your way requires the article be deleted?

A game is notable for negative reception because it has "at least one person out of 6.5 billion people calling it a bad game"? Give me one good reason why every single game on the list deserves to be on there without approval from ANYONE besides yourself and the adder of the content? I have at least one source which gave the original Smash Bros. a 1/10, and it's from Electronic Playground, a fairly notable source. Are you going to tell me that it's not allowed without discussion, even though you allow EVERYTHING without discussions or, dare I say, any sources?

You need to think about what you say before you say it, seriously - not I. It is a 100% guaranteed fact that keeping the article in the state of utter suckiness like you want will lead to deletion. Hell, without the hyperbole, "keeping it unsourced will lead it to deletion". I cannot drive it through your skull that Wikipedia does not allow unsourced statements, and in this case, this article has to have stricter inclusion criteria than others because there is controversy over a lack of criteria for inclusion. And yet, there is NO criteria for inclusion whatsoever, despite it being compared to List of best-selling video games, an article with EXCELLENT inclusion criteria. Since you will never ever improve this article (considering your only priority is a long article, not a good one), I'm going to put this on the Articles for Deletion page unless someone ELSE can give me a compelling reason to believe this article will ever ever improve. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the one and only thing my actions have done is get people interested in improving the article. You do nothing but perpetuate the low quality, and yet you criticize me for encouraging people to contribute? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because there shouldn't be any editorial POV on the Hitler article whatsoever, and any and all POV should be that of reputable sources?

Will you stop trying to get this article deleted? You couldn't care less about it not sucking, as long as it's a laundry list of games that one person didn't like, it's fine with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

People ARE fixing it. People are discussing new ways to present the article, people are presenting new ways to FIX the article, and people are discussing every game in the list. All you do is cling to this content, not trying to really improve it in any way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop. I am, quite frankly, tired of this. I've been here for three years, you've been here for not even three weeks. You've never ONCE participated in any of the discussions on the talk page, and yet you act like you actually care about the article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on User talk:A Link to the Past: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kariteh (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video games notable for negative reception

Jedi, I must respectfully disagree with your logic. Wikipedia first and foremost uses notability and reliable sources to judge articles. Without either of these, the article has a chance of being put up for deletion -- something that I admit, am tempted to do to Video games notable for negative reception when I'm in my worse moods. The term "negative reception" is too ambiguous to have any notable guidelines -- the community as a whole needs to come together to find where we draw the line for these games.

If you have an argument that can cite Wikipedia policy as per why the article should be longer (or if you don't -- I really don't care, I'd just like to see you participating), I beg of you to continue discussion about the article here at the talk page of the article. Let's see what other users have to say before we go about in a reverting-war of sorts. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What "Ignore all Rules" means

You're citing an essay now?

Right.

A good article without sources is NOT a good article. Ignoring the requirement for sources does not improve the quality of articles, by the definition of "quality article" is on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the definition of quality, as determined by the policies made for Wikipedia, is not true? It is true that one of the policies is that all statements that are likely to be contested must be sourced or they may be deleted. Even if you argued that there are cases where the rule can be ignored, THIS is not one of those cases. Not one single thing in this article cannot be disputed. It's strongly based on opinion. There's no way anyone can ignore this rule in this situation. A source is necessary for ANY opinionated statement. That cannot be disputed. Without sources, it is POV. There is nothing that suggests Wikipedia would be improved by allowing opinionated statements in articles without sources to back them up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And most of the entries are attributed to one source or none. Considering you were just claiming that you could ignore all rules, and are now claiming to successfully adhere to the rules (which you don't, in the case of sources and quality), I guess Ignore all rules is pretty much out. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• facepalm* No self-respecting Wikipedian would say that reducing the quality of an article is necessary for Wikipedia. Ignore all rules does NOT exist to give people the right to ignore any rule that they feel like when they feel like ignoring it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate listing of information - one source or none is not "discriminate". In a highly opinionated article, including all of those entries, every single one added without any discussion - literally none - the idea that sources are not necessary is a laugh. It is an indisputable fact that an article with no sourcing cannot be featured under any circumstances. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video games notable for negative reception

You really need to stop reverting this article or you'll end up getting yourself banned; you already broke the WP:3RR rule at least once, which is a bannable offence in itself. I don't want to see that happen, so this is just a friendly heads-up. Miremare 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching it. Regarding 3RR, between 10:47 on 30 May and 11:37 on 31 May, you made five edits to the page, all of which were returning it to your preferred version, which constitutes edit warring. Like I said, I don't want to see anyone banned, so please discuss the matter on the talk page instead of engaging in attritional editing. Miremare 23:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't care so much about you reverting back to that version if you EVER gave one good reason, based on any single Wikipedia policy or guideline, that it was better that way. And no, being bigger is NOT a sign of quality. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Doesn't look like the first block had any effect. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block seems rather harsh, but when a user's fresh return from a block for edit warring is to continue the edit war with a summary like "i'm back, baby!", it seems to imply they have no plans to stop reverting. If unblocked, are you going to keep reverting, or will you discuss this via the dispute resolution process? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree; an indefinite block is rather extreme. You need to state that you will not edit war if unblocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Might be extreme but an unblock request wanting to "revert the article to its former glory" doesn't show much promise. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an indef block is a bit extreme. Perhaps protecting the page would result in a consensus-making discussion, halting the edit war? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was a bit too much of a knee jerk reaction on my part. I am changing it to a week unless anyone else objects. It still doesn't look like this user gets the picture, but I suppose one more chance wouldn't hurt. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock}} i thought it was the three revert rule, not the no revert rule. after my dutifly served 24 hour block, i reverted the page only ONCE before this block. also, if you look at the talk page of the article in question, you will see that i WAS doing all in my power to stop the fighting. just before my 24 hour block, i even left a cookie on the other user's talk page. it may be too late for me to save the article, and after this whole ordeal i don't even care about it anymore, i just want to get back to being an average wikipedian.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

block reduced to one week. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually read the 3RR rule. It is not an right that you get three reverts a day. You can still be blocked for simply edit warring. Looking at the talk page, I see you saying "what's wrong with this", you get blocked and then you come back with "I'm back, baby!" once the block is gone. You are arguing against policy which requires sources for information. While the article is smaller than I think necessary, when you get back you need to work to add information with reliable sources. Reverting back to an older version now is disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)