Jacksonjake

Re Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies - the top of the article clearly states: "This is a constructive article! Topics are not related to criticism". There are talk pages and other pages to post criticism of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can see that when I questioned whether Wikipedia is even capable of examining itself, I wasn't far off the mark. The "constructive" element to what I wrote would be obvious to an educated person. Which excludes the self-congratulatory, exclusive geeks who run Wikipedia. I did a little research and saw that your contributions are down by two-thirds compared to four years ago. You ask for ideas, and then censor the ones that cut too close to the bone. Good luck, chumps. You'll need it.

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Jacksonjake and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

L evans

Hi please join in the discussion on the talkpage and seek consensus using discussion - thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hello, I saw your post on Jimbo's talk page. Welcome. Did you know that we have a ranking system for articles and that many people around here participate in peer review to get content up to good and featured statuses? I think you'd be much more challenged to find those articles to be in a state of "putty" in the hands of those with a conflict of interest. Anyhow! Welcome here. Maybe you can help cleanup some of the mess around here. =) Jesanj (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And here's an edit of mine I thought you might appreciate. Jesanj (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Kudos for the edit. Let's see how long it lasts. You can pretty much click at random in Wikipedia and find bilge like the one you worked on.Jacksonjake (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On it's own, it won't. It should have been added as additional content, as now, the page doesn't say what St Joseph's is. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The original material in the article was not the best. It wasn't well-sourced and it was promotional. The new material was absolutely dreadful. I've removed all of it and left in ONLY the first sentence that says it's a hospital with so many beds and where it is. If someone wants to expand on what the hospital is, fine, but to coatrack what happened to one doctor at the hospital in the hospital article is absurd.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, in my view, when Wikipedia acts as an encyclopedia should, in institutional terms it's an accident. It's because a writer like you understood the difference between fact and opinion, and took seriously the need for neutrality. But when you look at the very core of Wikipedia, it is hollow. It is organized around the idea that fact is whatever a roving flashmob says it is. And the rules here are routinely ignored. Your edit to the hospital article is excellent, but if they hire a few lobbyists to go into that article, it won't be hard for them to tie it up in knots. If they don't, it'll be because the decided not to, not because they couldn't. Wikipedia is wide open to wholesale manipulation, and it starts at the very core of the enterprise.Jacksonjake (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? I doubt it. That article is now on my watch list, and no such thing will happen. But, I will tell you (both) this much, if the article is not expanded very soon to at least spell out a bit more than "it's a hospital! They did bad things!", I will request it to be immediately deleted. I've got no objection to the content that is there, but c'mon, an encyclopedia (which I'd like this place to resemble as much as possible) goes into more depth about what the subject is before they talk about what the subject did. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, who needs to hire a flack when you can get one for free?Jacksonjake (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, you want to see things fixed, right? Then help. The paragraph in there isn't a problem. The lack of virtually anything else is the problem. Look here for instance. When was St Joseph MC founded? How many patients a year do they treat? Are they part of a hospital chain? What other controversies have they experienced? (yes, I said controversies). What awards have the truly won that are citable from places other than themselves? For instance, I can't find the US News one... so, ooops, I have no plan on putting that back. See my point? I have NO intentions of catering to them, intentionally or accidentally, but an encyclopedia article has more content than that. Don't belittle people who are trying to help you. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I am here as a pure critic. I know how much that conflicts with Wikiearnestness and Wikifauxnaivete, not to mention the Wikihighschoolstudentcouncilmentality, but sometimes pure critics have a point or two to make. You know, H.L. Mencken and all that? Think Wikibooboisie. If you want the article fixed, then fix it yourself. My rate for doing stuff I don't care about is $100 an hour. Jacksonjake (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure if you mean that to be read exactly as you've written it. Inotherwords, if I combine it with all of the rest of your recent comments from the last 24 hours or so, it seems you are saying you are here to disrupt. Anyway, have at it. As you've admitted you are not here to contribute, I've got nothing else to say to you. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, once more, but much simpler just for you. I am here to criticize. Unlike those who engage in Wikiwagoncircling, Wikividictiveness, Wikiblindness, and all the rest, I think focused, articulate, intensive, harsh criticism can be highly constructive. Sometimes, it's just what one needs to clean the manure out of one's ears. But the Chinese leadership sure doesn't like it, nor do many of the Wikiserfs. Oh well! Be on your way then! Jacksonjake (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. diff Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page, ya fuckin' moron.Jacksonjake (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Jacksonjake, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. diff Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You are screwing around with my talk page. Keep doing it, and I'll go after you for harassment. Now go away. Jacksonjake (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact.Thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Could you please clarify your recent edits? It is possible it might give other Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. If of course, you were indicating you would take them to WP:ANI, that is a different story, but with the recent tone of your posts, it's best if you clarify so you do not give the wrong impression. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, your Wikichildrensbrigade is now ganging up to reject fierce criticism of your joke of a psuedo encyclopedia. You don't want to hear the bad news, so you'll dust off all of those rules that you routinely ignore. Do you have any idea how stupid this is? Think about it a second: You have lost two thirds of your contributors in four years. Hundreds, and maybe thousands, of articles have been turned into propaganda, or started that way, through involvement by governments, corporations, ideologues, and cranks. You are disrespected worldwide. And what do you people do? Go after someone who states the obvious. I can't say I'm surprised, but it ought to be said. Jacksonjake (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Luke Evans (actor), you may be blocked from editing. --Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is fun. Wikivindictiveness rears its head. You will ignore the rampant violations of all of your group's phony "standards" until you encounter a fierce and sarcastic critic, at which point you will gang up and threaten to force him out. Fine, and you might even succeed. But remember: Your playground has lost two-thirds of its children in four years. It is laughed at world wide, and exists mainly because of an insider deal with Google to put it at the top of many searches. You want to get me thrown out? Hey, what took you people so long? There's never any reason to hear the bad news. Jacksonjake (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect it may be what you deem sarcasm (that others apparently don't) that has scared away so many editors. I know a few who have made that complaint. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Others" are looking for an excuse to delete a critic. It's Wikiwagoncircling. You actually believe that being nice will solve Wikipedia's problems? Really? That is where you think this children's pseudo reference enterprise's problem lies? That's why you think your project is laughed at around the world? Jacksonjake (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jacksonjake, 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 and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

186.130.144.222 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Some content you might like

I like fair criticism. I also like good content. I added this just a little while ago. I thought you might like it. Jesanj (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failing to grasp that this is a collaborative project. Wikipedia has its flaws, and Wikipedians are interested in valid criticism, but Wikipedia is not your own personal soapbox and you cannot reasonably expect that we will sit back and allow to attack it. You have wasted enough of our volunteers' time, and made it clear that you have no intention of editing constructively, so please take the advice I offered you earlier—don't use Wikipedia, which you so despise, and find another website where you will be happier. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=This is a blatant attempt to silence an articulate critic who has pointed to Wikipedia's critical flaws. Is censorship really your mission in life, because it sure seems like it.}}

Darn, unfair criticism. We don't censor. Too bad you weren't here to help out. Jesanj (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, you did read his comment about not being here to help out, correct? ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I guess I just couldn't help but point it out again. =) Jesanj (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)