User talk:Jagged 85/Archive 6

AfD nomination of Regions of Asia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Regions of Asia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regions of Asia. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Computer role-playing game

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Computer role-playing game. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer role-playing game. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with Islamic AfDs

Hi. Can you help us at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 16? We need to know if certain Islamic historical figures are notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Figures mismatching sources

Please don't corrupt figures so that they mismatch with the provided source, as you did here. If you have a reliable source, acceptable to Wikipedia, for the new figure, you need to include it when updating the figure. If you don't have such a source, then please don't change figures.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's make this clear. You must stop altering figures without updating sources. It is completely unacceptable. If you have new sources for new figures, add them. If you do not have acceptable sources for your new figures, do not add them. You can't just go through articles changing all the figures without providing any method for those figures to be validated. It violates WP:V, misrepresents the contents of other sources, innumerable other things. You have to stop.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the comments above made the reasons that I undid your edits to Jay Sean discography clear. You have modified sales figures without modifying the references to support the new figures. That is completely unacceptable. If you want to modify the sales figures, provide references to new sources that support your figures.—Kww(talk) 19:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I only reverted your revert of the Sales table. I was then in the process of updating the sources to match the figures, until you interrupted my edit by reverting while I was in the middle of it. Nevertheless, I'm mostly finished updating it anyway. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making the false claim that Down is triple-platinum in the US. The RIAA records no certification for that song whatsoever ... not even gold. It isn't triple platinum, and it isn't our place to put in weasel phrases like "qualifies for triple platinum". It doesn't qualify until the RIAA says it qualifies. Ditto for any CRIA certifications.—Kww(talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The CRIA database hasn't been updated since last October, so I don't see the problem in using an alternative source in this case. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gold

I don't know how many times this has to be said. You are not the RIAA. You are not affiliated with the RIAA. You do not speak for the RIAA. The decision as to whether any set of sales qualifies to meet the RIAA gold certification or is equivalent to an RIAA gold certification is not yours to make.—Kww(talk) 19:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The RIAA website states that 500,000 sales is equivalent to Gold status. What's wrong with pointing that out on Wikipedia? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the RIAA is the organization that certifies shipment. It doesn't count towards RIAA certification until the RIAA says it does. In the case of Jay Sean, it is apparent that the RIAA is not accepting the reported sales of his songs as corresponding to RIAA qualified shipments, or the situation of Down, with reported sales of 3,000,000 and no certification issued at all would not exist. The statement of equivalence is an example of WP:SYNTH.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

'Minor' edits

re: your edits:

Help:Minor edit: "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc."

"When not to mark minor:" "* Adding or removing content in an article * Adding or removing tags or other templates in an article" --Gwern (contribs) 19:16 15 February 2010 (GMT)

Achaemenid Empire

Hi, Jagged 85. I was checking if the largest empires article is in good order and I found your last edit was not beneficial. Here is why, I once had a long discussion with user Kmhkmh and others, and we came into agreement that based on the two sources found, that the AE was approximately 8.0 mil km2. We based this on the World Tribune source and the Restoration of Palestine source. If you could, please tell explain why you removed the newer World Tribune source written by an Achaemenid scholar, which with the other source, says the empire was over 3 million square miles (3 mil m2 translates to 7.8 mil km2). Now 3 mil by itself is 7.7 and rounds to 7.8. However, over would mean around 3.1 not necessarily 3.01, even 3.07 is 8.0 km2. So 7.99 is basically 8.0 as a standard number. I have found unreliable books that say it was less than 3 million square miles, therefore I think we should pay attention to the less or over statements (by the way, the motto of the article is to find the largest estimates by the best people). Currently the newest academic source that talks about the AE size and gives the largest size is the World Tribune article (the site is about geopolitics). Now for some reason you removed that source (it is better to have two sources, and specially one that is more reliable than the latter), and reduced the 8.0 size to 7.7 (actually it should be 7.8 when rounded). Therefore, there is no reason to reduce and remove a reliable source from the AE estimate, doing so would be almost vandalism. I understand you have good faith, but your last edit was unnecessary. Please comment on my page or the articles talk page. Thanks for reading.--Eirione (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I want to apologize for reverting your first edit and sounding harsh (but I did so I can finally fix the problem in a easier way by one edit), it is because I made the mistake of saying it should be 7.8 at the end of above message, what I meant was 3.0 is 7.7 something that rounds to 7.8, but the two sources for the AE translate to the standard number of 8.0, so it should be 8.0. It was later that I found out you changed the 7.7 to 7.8, which meant you did agree with me and thought I meant 7.8 (in the above message), when I was really trying to say 8.0. So please ignore the harsh sounding explanation toward you that I put on my edit in the largest empires article, even though the edit itself was necessary. Warmest regards.--Eirione (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New Revelations about the size of the AE

Hello Jagged, I know this message seems long, but it is worthwhile in clearing things up. I still see that you think that the statement of over 3 million square miles means 7.8, and as you agreed just 3 million square miles by itself is 7.8, then over would imply at least 3.1 which translates to 8.0, which me and two other users (one of which is a mathematician, and knows how to convert words into mathematical terms) agree on. I have found at least seven best usable and unusable sources of the AE (Achaemenid Empire) for Wikipedia (and ten other sources that I will explain shortly about, therefore there are seventeen total links below), the two usable ones is the already accepted Palestine book and World Tribune sources. However, what prompt me to write this new message is because I discovered links that some authors equate the statement of over 3, so that it could mean 8.0-13.1 km2. What I mean is that some authors would use that statement to describe an area that is over 10 km2. The implications of this would mean that saying over 3 for AE, could mean anything from 8.0-13.1. Therefore, to suggest that this statement for the AE could only mean 7.8 or 8.0 is our own made up conclusions (because it could mean anything between 8.0-13.1), and on Wikipedia this would be considered as original research, which is against the rules. Also I am aware that some older sources have just a 3 million or 7.8 statement, but as always done for the largest empires article, I updated the AE estimate based on sources that are larger, and not only the newest, but most reliable, they have to pass these three test requirements before I can use them as an update to the previous source. Just as a reminder, I included the non-AE sources to prove that the over 3 statement could mean not just 8.0, but at least 8.0-13.1, which would complicate things and therefore you will see the solution at the end of the message or the only other option we can do. I finally suggest you check out all the links, because some might surprise you (they contain the same statements by professionals of website titles that prove over 3 could have many meanings of estimates ranging from 8.0-13.1). So here are the links for evidence;

• Here, this user agrees that it means 8.0 and says I only need to provide the usable sources for Wikipedia, which later he agrees that I can use the Palestine book and World Tribune sources. By the way, a few of the links below contain the unusable(s), but I only included them to show you how many newest and reliable sources there are claiming over or more than 3 for the AE (which could mean 8.0-13.1).
• Refers to Brazil as over 3, remember Brazil is 8.5 km2!
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• Refers to Micronesia as over 3, remember Micronesia is 11.4 km2!
• Refers to the Sahara as over 3, remember the Sahara is 9.0 km2!
• Refers to Siberia as over 3, remember Siberia is 13.1 km2!
• Refers to U.S.A. as over 3, remember U.S.A. is 8.0!
• Refers to AE as over 3, remember A.E is 8.0?
• Refers to AE as more than 3, remember A.E is 8.0?
• Go to page 10!
• From same source.
• From same source, more than 10 other sites like this existed.
• The accepted World Tribune source from a AE scholar and historian for geopolitics.
• The accepted Palestine book source referring to the size of the AE that the gospel will be heard around.

So you see? Based on these seventeen sources, it is obvious that the over 3 million square miles statement (sometimes people wrongfully write miles squared which has another meaning and means 1 million or so square kilometers which is far too small for to be considered for the AE anyways, forget this irrelevant and common remark) could mean anything between 8.0 (not 7.8, as I said before, 7.8 only if it says just 3 million square miles) and 13.1 so far as I have found. So what is the solution to this problem? Well, we can be strict and just say we could keep it at 8.0 as before, or be a little controversial and a lot fair by saying 8.0-13.1 (Some users did this with the estimate of the Qing Empire a while back in the article) would mean 10.55 or 10.6, which is pretty interesting. This is why, a while back some users found out that the largest the AE could have got is 10.7, if all the lands mentioned as conquered were conquered, some users disagreed if all of Ethiopia or part of Ukraine or the eastern edge of China was conquered, so they said 10.7 does not have a lot of backing (it is backed by a self published historical blogger and many others) and we could currently only accept about 8 million kilometers squared. So now it is interesting that for our fair and balanced average we get nearly 10.7, as was proposed before! My conclusion is that we can not simply ignore those blatant possibilities highlighted in the links and say lets just leave it at 8.0, because it will be original research. Finally, as based on the current evidence, it is best to have 10.7, though some users will not agree with my proposal, even though it is the only reasonable option. So you, Jagged, propose we keep the 8.0? Or (with a short concise explanation in the footnotes) include the 10.7? It is basically a make believe estimate verses a fair and balanced estimate. So which one? I massively appreciate and dearly thank you very much for reading this message and responding on the talk page of the largest empires article, bye now. --Eirione (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation note

There has been a request for Cabal mediation on a recent request for comment that you were involved in. If you would like to discuss, please see the case page. Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Taqi al-Din

On 8 September 2009 Alefbe moved "Taqi al-Din" to "Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf" and made "Taqi al-Din" into the disambiguation page. Nobody objected. In December 2009 I spent a lot of time and effort in updating links of the form "Taqi al-Din", altering them to "Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf" where that was intended. I made that process complete for article space. Now without any consultation you have renamed it back again. You have ignored the extra redirects I put in, which are now wrong. You have ignored one inward link to "Taqi al-Din", which was ambiguous so I left it that way, but is now just wrong. To rename something back to where it was before is effectively edit-warring. Your assertion that ibn Ma'ruf should be the primary topic is your opinion, unsupported by consensus. I'm inclined to move the articles back to where they were. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jay Sean songs

Please stop putting "equivilent to" in Jay Sean songs. A song is certified or not certified. "Equivuilent to" is not recognized in the music industry or on Wikipedia. Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Please don't label medieval historical figures or places as "Iraqi". During those times, Iraq was just the name of region, not a geopolitical entity, or state. Therefore, that was no "Iraqi" nationality at that time, the region's population were refereed to as Arab, Assyrian, Kurd and Persian. Thanks. --Kurdo777 (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cited sources that refer to him as Iraqi, which was not a nation at the time but an identity for people from the land of Mesopotamia. Numerous people at that time were known as "al-Iraqi". Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I like you as an editor, and you do a great job on these pages. But I am afraid you're completely wrong on this one, trust me. The rational you've given me here is flawed. Someone named "Al-Iraqi" could be a Syrian or Iranian by nationality. Prior to 20th century, Iraq was not a state, it was just a region which falls within different states at different times in history. There are many people from that era who were named after their ancestral cities or regions like "Al-Baghdadi", "Al-Isfahani", or "Al-Sistani", but that does not mean that we refer to their nationality today as Baghdadi, Sistani or Isfahani.... using Iraqi for someone's nationality from that era is no different in this context, expect that there is now a country called Iraq. Bottom line is, there was no Iraqi nationality at that time, and Alhazen did not live in a state called Iraq to be called Iraqi, he was a citizen of Buyid Empire whose nationality was either Arab or Persian. Calling him an Iraqi is historical revisionism, and a fringe theory. Just because something can be cited by sources (web pages, non-specialist sources) it does not mean that it automatically belongs in Wikipedia. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Buyid Empire itself referred to the province as "Iraq". Just because a modern nation calls itself "Iraq", that has nothing to do with the historical sitaution. It does not change the fact that the Mesopotamian province has always been referred to as "Iraq" by both the Caliphate and the Buyid Empire. Besides, I've linked the word "Iraqi" to Iraqi people, not to the nation of Iraq. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your rational that there was a province called Iraq, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nobody is disputing that there was a region called Iraq at that time, but there was no Iraqi nationality. And according to WP:LEAD, only nationality, and in some cases ethnicity, belong in the lad. There is no such a thing as an Iraqi ethnicity, and there was no Iraqi nationality at that time. You're a smart guy, I really don't understand why you're refusing to accept this fact. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually came here for a different reason then involving myself in this discussion, and yet I am. I followed the link to WP:LEAD and I find no references to use of nationality nor ethnicity at all. Frankly, I can't say that I understand what the issue is. I wouldn't object to Daniel Boone (for example) being referred to as a North American, which is neither ethnicity nor nationality. And yet it wouldn't be wrong. Gramby (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edit mentioning the 1890s Saragarhi battle; I didn't know about it before.IAC-62 (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions about capitalist market economics section

Hi, have you noticed that a certain section you contributed (diff) is being removed on the basis of being substantially inaccurate? I noticed this at Talk:Ancient_economic_thought#Removal_of_Capitalist_market_economy_section_which_discussed_Islamic_Islamic_origin_of_economic_structures, see User_talk:Dialectric#Islamic_trade.2Feconomics_section for the analysis. II | (t - c) 07:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Could I or Dialectric get a response on this? Inserting inaccuracies which are referenced is a serious issue. II | (t - c) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting; I've responded [1]. II | (t - c) 05:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mixing sources

Greetings,

While I appreciate your non-western additions to the various astronomy sources, I would also be grateful if you could be more careful about attributing ideas to ancient sources. I've noticed that several of your additions are making claims about assertions by ancient astronomers when it was actually the author of the modern source explaining the concept in modern terms. This makes some of your additions appear potentially biased and misleading. I've tried to make corrections, but please be more careful. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sizes of planets estimated by ancients

Hi Jagged, I read with interest your edits to Jupiter and Mars about estimates of their sizes by the ancients. I am very curious: how did they do this without telescopes? It is so astonishing that it would be nice to explain the basis of these estimates in those articles. I'm sure other readers would wonder the same thing. My skeptical side makes me wonder if it was complete luck based on superstitious thinking. Thanks... CosineKitty (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Mars obs

Nice work so far, keep it up! The only nit that I'd like to pick is that you really shouldn't "fix" links so that they don't point at redirects. If the sentence uses a link that is actually a redirect, then it's a good thing to not pipe the link to the content page. For example: instead of [[Babylonian astronomy|Babylonian astronomers]], [[Babylonian astronomers]] is actually better (and shorter).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Check your talk page

Hi, please read the message about the New Revelations about the Achaemenid Empire on your talk page. I thought you had not been on Wikipedia for a couple of days, so I made an edit, then after I checked your contributions and found that your were active here. So please read that message carefully. Best regards.--Eirione (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Sīnā and the invention of the thermometer

Please do not just put back the claim that ibn Sīnā invented the thermometer without responding to the criticism of this claim at Talk:Thermometer and User:Syncategoremata/Ibn Sīnā and the invention of the thermometer. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was unintentional. I was trying to undo the edit before yours but may have undone your one in the process as well. I should have been more careful. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've done just that sort of thing myself before now. Sorry if my comment was a bit snappy; I think I need more sleep.

By the way, I made a comment on the talk page for Yaqūb ibn Tāriq, as the figures you've given (I think it was your edit) on that page for the Earth-Sun distance don't match the ones in the source. Do you have some other source for this? I can't find a relevant source for this right now.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics in medieval Islam

Thanks for all of your work in tightening up Mathematics in medieval Islam. I was troubled by the "no contradictions" section but didn't know what to do about it without risking a firestorm. I think your edits have substantially improved the article. Gramby (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Paper mills

I had not thought of this before: see here Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Age Structure of Medieval Islamic Education

I notice you've added p. 111 of the following work to a few pages as a reference for "medieval Islamic Caliphate having a higher life expectancy than other pre-modern agricultural societies":

• Bulliet, Richard W. (1983). "The Age Structure of Medieval Islamic Education". Studia Islamica (57): 105–117. ISSN 0585-5292.

I assume you're referring to the figure given on that page for the average age at death of the teachers surveyed but I don't see how a single figure can be used as evidence for a higher life expectancy in one region compared to another. If I've misunderstood your intent there, I was wondering if could you explain how you are trying to use that reference.

Many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at other uses of this paper on Wikipedia and have realised that it is being cited perfectly well elsewhere to support particular claims about the average length of life in Islamic medieval society. And since I didn't mention the articles where I was worried about its use, it would have been hard for you to deal with my comment.

The articles where it seemed to me to be problematic were Medicine, History of Medicine, and Medicine in medieval Islam, where it is used as I describe in my first comment above. I've removed the citation from those articles but please, if I have misinterpreted your intention, please do change what I have done.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I added that source (Richard Bullet) merely to corroborate the first source (Maya Shatzmiller), but not as the main source for the statement. However, now that I think about it, it's not really necessary to add a corroborative source when the first source should already suffice. In other words, I don't see any problem in removing that source from those articles. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply and I agree that corroborative sources are not needed, as long as the primary citation is of sufficient quality.

I've checked the reference to your primary citation, Maya Shatzmiller's book (see Google Books), only to find that she explicity says that the sort of studies carried out by Richard Bullet and other authors are based on "misleading sample[s]" and she appears to discount them as evidence for life expectancy in Islamic societies. She further doesn't give any credit to improved medicine, as is claimed in the articles I mention in my previous comment.

On this basis, it's hard to see how this primary citation supports the claims in these articles, or in the several others that use that source to claim an increased life expectancy in Islamic societies.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Shatzmiller's p66 cannot be used to draw inferences about the life expectancy of the general population, as the statements are clearly limited in scope to that of a small subgroup. I reorganized the claim of general life expectancy in the Muslim Agricultural Revolution article to better reflect the specificity of Shatzmiller's statement, and suggest that the same be done to the other articles where similar claims appear. The current use of the citation as in the Medicine article, is misleading. Dialectric (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

<-- I've tagged the various claims about life expectancy in the Caliphate with {{Cn}}, {{Fv}}, {{Rs}}, {{Vn}}, and {{Section OR}}. Please see my discussion at Talk:Islamic Golden Age#Claims on life expectancy. All the best. —Syncategoremata (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've now entirely re-written that paragraph. See my reply at Talk:Islamic Golden Age#Claims on life expectancy. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this Jagged. I've not read the changes through in detail but they look like a great improvement at first glance.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad Ref

I've removed the ref named Kennedy-1962 which you added in this edit. The body of the ref was missing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Hello, you are invited to take part in the following discussion on this topic. The discussion is about general ways to improve Wikipedia in terms of verfifiability of contents. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Misusing of refs

The first part of this edit is highly problematic. The source says that classical Athens and the Islamic Caliphate enjoyed higher literacy rates than contemporary societies, not that the Islamic Caliphate had a higher literacy rate than Classical Athens. Since your English comprehension is native-level, I can only attribute this to gross carelessness or a deliberate attempt to deceive, hoping no one would check. Either way, this needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The removal of that other sentence was an accident, my bad. But my comment still stands. Athenean (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The real problem is that you failed to comprehend what "larger scale" means. Athens was a single city, whereas the Caliphate was an entire empire. That's what "larger scale" was referring to, not that the literacy rate was "higher". So how should I interpret your misunderstanding? A "gross carelessness or a deliberate attempt to deceive"? What needs to stop is your false accusations. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's assuming "scale"="geographical scale". Athenean (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My bad in assuming only one definition of "scale". Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The source doesn't mention scale, and the phrasing could easily be misinterpreted, so the wording shouldn't have been added. But I think this is a minor, innocent mistake. On the other hand, the tendency for these mistakes to glorify the ancient Arab world could be viewed as a bias. II | (t - c) 05:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the source doesn't mention the word "scale" but it is strongly implied by the second source I gave. Nevertheless, I'll try to keep the wording more closer to the original source next time to avoid confusion. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Palermo population size

Hi. take a look here: Talk:Italian Renaissance#Historical population of Palermo Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Italian Renaissance#Historical population of Palermo. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Moon FAR

I appreciated your addition of extra references and information to the Early studies section of Moon. Could you please expand your references into full citations, to match the format of the citations in the rest of the article? Also, if you happen to have a reference for the first sentence of the section (re. Babylonian astronomy), that would help finish off the section's referencing. Cheers, Iridia (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Done! As requested, I've added a reference for the Babylonians and formatted the Indian reference. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

I've just checked the material, which you added to several articles, about Avicenna's theory of impetus, based on Sayılı's 1987 paper; for an example of your work, see this edit to Inertia. Your edit looks very good, with a citation and even a quote from the paper to back up your claim. Unfortunately you have utterly misrepresented the material since the quote you give to support your claim about Avicenna is actually about Buridan's theory, and has nothing to do with Avicenna.

I have now found far too many instances of this sort of misuse of sources in your edits of various history of science subjects (and I am not the only editor to have noticed this). I have no idea whether you are misguided, malicious, or simply incompetent but could you please take more care than this in any future work on these articles.

—Syncategoremata (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Syncategoremata, when I made that edit in 2007, I did not have access to the full source, but was quoting an excerpt found through Google Scholar. It was only quite recently that I read the full source and realized it was referring to Buridan rather than Avicenna. If you don't believe me and still assume bad faith, then go check the last edit I made to the momentum article last week and you can see for yourself that I replaced that source in reference to Avicenna. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the fact that you're citing sources without having read them is a symptom of the problem. I've always wondered how you produce so many edits, but this kind of casual attitude towards checking your sources suggests an explanation. I suggest you apply the old carpenters' dictum of "measure twice, cut once" to your editing practice. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am very happy to see that you did indeed change the claim in that one article. But given that you knew you had made that mistake, I can't understand though why you did not also change the claim on the nearly twenty other pages where you have repeated it. I also find it interesting that instead of changing the claim to conform to the scholarly source you originally used (the Sayılı article) which you said you had then read, you instead chose to find another (and less scholarly) source that supported your original mistaken interpretation. And I have to say that your use of that source in the Momentum article is also tendentious and strictly goes beyond what the source says.

As for "assum[ing] bad faith", I am trying my utmost to assume good faith in your work here, though I am finding it harder and harder to do so. If you are indeed using sources here without having sufficient access to them to see what they are saying, I have to agree with Steve McCluskey that such a casual attitude is itself problematic and thus gives me no reason to change my attitude towards your work here.

So once more: please take more care than this in future.—Syncategoremata (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Momentum article, I tried to make the wording almost exactly match the source I cited, so I just don't see how what I wrote "strictly goes beyond what the source says" if the wording is almost identical? Also, that edit I made to the Momentum article is probably the last edit I made to any science/technology related article, with the exception of the Moon article (and several related articles) following Iridia's request above. Other than that, I've hardly edited any science articles for more than a week. In other words, I was taking a break from science/technology related articles, mainly because they're usually the most time-consuming. Seeing as how several editors (and you probably know who they are) had a problem with my involvement in science/technology articles in the first place, I find it quite ironic that you're now criticizing me this time for my lack of edits to a few science articles. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now edited five other articles (I highly doubt there are "nearly twenty other pages" as you claimed) that repeat the statement regarding momentum. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if you feel I was accusing you unfairly. I do feel that if you are aware that you have added incorrect information to some articles and have changed it in one place, it is very odd to leave that same information elsewhere. It was not as if you have taken a break from editing here in the meantime. But I do accept that editing science/technology articles is time-consuming and understand that you might have wanted to take a break from it.

As for your "strictly go[ing] beyond what the source says" in the Inertia article, the text in Nasr & Razavi (1996) doesn't claim that Avicenna had any actual theory of a quantitative relation but that it was this idea that did so; the source does not claim, as your edit appears to, that Buridan derived his theory from Avicenna, as it is not clear that the relevant portions of Avicenna's work was even available to Buridan. I accept that I am probably nit-picking here, for which please forgive me.

My main worry about your change is that you have ignored a good scholarly source, which you admit having read, in favour of a tertiary source by a writer who has been criticized before for his grasp on such issues (see, for example, King, David A. (1978). "Islamic Mathematics and Astronomy: The chapters on mathematics and astronomy in Islamic Science: An Illustrated Study, S. H. Nasr (1976)". Journal for the History of Astronomy. 9: 212–219.).

As for the "twenty other articles", the material seems to be still on at least Scientific Revolution, Force, Science in the Middle Ages, Conatus, and Science in medieval Islam. My apologies for over-estimating the number of pages involved; I had thought that all of the references to that article here were used to make the same claim.

As for your contributions to the Moon article, I will just point out that the citation you added (here) has failed verification (see my comment here), which is unfortunate for an article currently going through Wikipedia:Featured article review.

—Syncategoremata (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. When I do become more involved in science/technology articles again, I'll keep your advice in mind. As for the other articles you've pointed out, I'll try edit them as well sometime. As for the Moon article, I think it's just a case of being more specific with the dates, so I've fixed the date regarding the Babylonians. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm now pretty much done updating the five other articles you linked to. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Case in point

I second that, Syncategoremata. I particularly remember a series of edits by which Jagged restored two times material which flatly contradicted the source he claimed it would support his text. Apparently, he was fooled by the article title which goes The Egyptian Drill and the Origin of the Crank into thinking that the authors make a case for the existence of cranks in Pharaonic Egypt. However, in reality, the opposite is the case (p. 165). Evidently, Jagged had never read the source, although he seemed to know well to which effect it had to be "interpreted".

• Revision by Jagged 85 as of 21:07, 3 October 2009
• Revision by Gun Powder Ma as of 01:49, 4 October 2009
• Revision by Jagged 85 as of 02:54, 4 October 2009
• Revision by Gun Powder Ma as of 00:52, 5 October 2009
• Revision by Jagged 85 as of 22:52, 9 October 2009
• Revision by Gun Powder Ma as of 15:50, 10 October 2009

I mean what's the point of all this? I store the diffs. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the source contradicted what I said at all. I didn't make any conclusive claims about its origins in Egypt, but merely that there is some evidence for its origins in Egypt. If there wasn't any, then there wouldn't be a hypothesis about it in the first place. I think your "interpretation" of my edit is a bit off. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your smoking gun theory is more than a bit off. Let's take a look into what the article actually says: Richard S. Hartenberg; John Schmidt, Jr.: The Egyptian Drill and the Origin of the Crank, Technology and Culture, Vol. 10, No. 2. (Apr., 1969), pp. 155-165 [165]:

On the basis of our analysis and actual operating experience with a simulated artifact, we conclude that the Egyptian drill was not a crankdriven device at all but one of considerably more complexity, with a modern counterpart in an ill-equipped glass shop. This Egyptian drill, then, does not provide the first crank in machine or tool as has been surmised from time to time.

So, again, why did you revert me two times, ignoring my comment on talk page in the process, even though you evidently had absolutely no idea about what you were pretending to cite? On what mission are you? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the talk page was only referring to the crank & connecting rod mechanism, not the crank drill. I was only reverting your edit regarding the crank drill, which your comment on the talk page mentioned nothing about. And again, you missed my point that I did not even make any conclusive claim regarding this, but merely pointed out that there is some evidence for it, nothing more and nothing less. So what kind of mission you are on? Should I assume you are on some kind of smear campaign? I understand that we have had quite a few disagreements, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to take this so personally? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Err, Jagged 85 - in this case you have an article criticizing a theory, and instead you cite the criticized theory as if there is evidence for the theory without mentioning the criticism? And you're trying to defend this use of the reference? I'm sorry, no. You should apologize and say that you understand how that is misleading. I can understand defensiveness when you feel like you're under attack, but you need to overcome the pride. The fact is that none of us have any agenda but to have an encyclopedia which does not contain misinformation. That's our mission. II | (t - c) 03:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but that is not what Gunpowder was criticizing me for. He claimed that what I wrote contradicted the source, and I was pointing out that it did not contradict it. He then implies I'm on some kind of "mission". If I find criticisms/accusations like these to be untrue, then I will defend myself against them. I agree with your point that it can be misleading to only mention one point of view and not the other, and this is something that appears to be quite common among Wiki editors. I can accept certain criticisms such as this, as I did fall into the same trap myself quite a few times, but that does not mean I should accept any criticism even if they are untrue. Nevertheless, I do usually take any criticism I find into consideration and take mental notes of what to avoid. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

.Obviously, we are disagreeing more than a bit about how to work with scholarly sources. Since this case was in my eyes a crystal-clear and presumably even deliberate misinterpretation, I don't see any point in continuing the discussion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in your opinion, but I strongly disagree (for the reasons I've already given above). Nevertheless, you're entitled to hold on to whatever opinions you have about me. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another case in point

A little more than two years ago I removed the following text:

'In the 10th century, the Brethren of Purity published the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, in which a heliocentric view of the universe is expressed in a section on cosmology:

"God has placed the Sun at the center of the Universe just as the capital of a country is placed in its middle and the ruler's palace at the center of the city." '

from the Heliocentrism article because it is flatly contradicted by the source supplied (viz. Seyyed Hossein Nasr's An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Docrines, p.77)—as I explained on the article's talk page at the time. Some eight or nine months later I pointed out to you on the Astronomy in medieval Islam talk page that the same claim in that article would disqualify it from becoming a featured article, and you subsequently removed the claim from that article.

However, earlier this year, within the space of one minute, you readded the following modified version of the text:

'In the tenth century, the Brethren of Purity followed the traditional geocentric scheme of placing the Earth at the centre. In their Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, however, they described an Islamic cosmology that placed the "Sun at the center of the Universe":

"God has placed the Sun at the center of the Universe just as the capital of a country is placed in its middle and the ruler's palace at the center of the city." '

to the articles Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, Astronomy in medieval Islam and Islamic Cosmology, with a citation to the same source, but without providing any justification for doing so on any of those articles' talk pages. On any natural reading of this text, taken in isolation, it is still flatly contradicted by the source.

It is no good your claiming that the text can be interpreted as saying "no more than what's in the source", because the word "however" near the start of the second sentence quite clearly makes it imply that the cosmology described in the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity differed from the "traditional geocentric scheme" mentioned in the preceding sentence.

But the context from which you have plucked your quotation, even just on p.77, shows unequivocally that that is not the case.

About 25 minutes after you made these changes, this time within the space of four minutes, you altered the text in those three articles to read (with some minor variations between the different articles):

'In the tenth century, the Brethren of Purity wrote the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, in which some verses have been interpreted as implying a heliocentric model, particularly a verse in the Rasa'il (II, 30) which states:

"God has placed the Sun at the center of the Universe just as the capital of a country is placed in its middle and the ruler's palace at the center of the city, in so far as the sun is to the heavens what the king is to his kingdom and the planets are to it what soldiers, auxiliaries, and subjects generally are to the king, and the spheres are like regions and the constellations like countries and the degrees and minutes like towns, it was enjoined by divine wisdom that it should be located at the center of the universe."

here, here, and here, added it to the article Heliocentrism, and replaced the original source with a citation to this article in the Theosophical magazine Sunrise by someone called Eloise Hart. This magazine is hardly a scholarly source, and as far as I have been able to determine Eloise Hart is an author who writes on all sorts of Theosophical claptrap and has no relevant qualifications or reputation whatever.

This text is therefore hardly any better than that which it has replaced. It at least violates Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy. But even if the article were to include an accurate account of the mainstream view represented by Nasr's book, it seems likely to me that the inclusion of Eloise Hart's opinion would still be according it undue weight. To show otherwise you will need to demonstrate that she enjoys some some standing as a scholar respected by the appropriate community of historians.

I will be removing this text from these articles. Please do not readd it, or anything like it, until you have found a decent source which supports it.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so your argument here is that you consider the source I used (Eloise Hart) to be unreliable? However, that's something completely different to what the others above have been accusing me of (that they believe I have been misrepresenting the sources I used). If you already acknowledge that I have indeed represented the source I used here correctly, then I don't see how this is "another case in point", because it's really just another point altogether. Also, like I said above, I'm taking a break from editing history of science/technology articles, so I have no intention of engaging in disputes regarding these articles anytime soon. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jagged85:

"Okay, so your argument here is that you consider the source I used (Eloise Hart) to be unreliable? However, that's something completely different to what the others above have been accusing me of (that they believe I have been misrepresenting the sources I used)"

Well, if you coose to ignore the remaining 75% of what I wrote, you will of course not have noticed that I explained in some detail why these, three edits constituted a blatant misrepresentation of the source which they cited (viz. Nasr's book)—though I did not consider it necessary to have to say so explicitly in precisely those terms.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The first edit did not contradict the page I cited, but then you pointed out that one of the pages before it contradicts it, so then I agreed to remove it. As for the other two edits, they do not imply heliocentrism, but merely quotes what they said. Either way, you already acknowledged that I undid the edit within 25 minutes of adding the material anyway, so to call this "blatant misrepresentation of the source" seems really petty to me. So no, I still don't see the relevance here. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. The attitude that allows you to not "see the relevance here" would appear to be the major source of the problems with many of your edits.

• "The first edit did not contradict the page I cited, but then you pointed out that one of the pages before it contradicts it, ... "

No, I'm afraid that's poppycock. I presume by "first edit" here you must mean this one, which I did not mention explicitly in my comments above. When I objected to the claim that the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity expressed a "heliocentric view of the universe" it was not "one of the pages before" the page cited (viz. page 77) which I pointed out as flatly contradicting the claim, it was "[t]he material on page 77 [i.e. the page cited—emphasis added] and subsequent pages". And, as I have already pointed out above, there is already sufficient material on page 77 itself to establish that the claim is balderdash.

Although you may not have bothered to read anything beyond page 77, did you bother to read the sentence immediately preceding the quotation you gave? This reads: "In the cosmos described by the Ikhwān, the Sun plays a central role." If so, did that not suggest to you that perhaps "centre" in the subsequent quotation might mean something other than the geometrical centre of the universe?

Did you bother to read the sentence immediately following the quotation you gave? This reads: "Below it [i.e. the Sun] stand Venus, Mercury, Moon, the sphere of air, and above it there are another five spheres, those of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the fixed stars, and the Muḥīṭ." Did that not suggest to you that the system described in the Brethren of Purity's Encyclopedia was not heliocentric?

Did you bother to read footnote 10 at the bottom of the page? This reads: "The motion of the Sun in the middle of the heavens gives the spirit of life (ruḥ al-ḥayāt) to the heavens above and below it". Did that not suggest to you that the system being described was not heliocentric?

• "As for the other two edits, they do not imply heliocentrism, but merely quotes what they said."

As I have already pointed out above in anticipation of this flimsy defence, the wording of those edits is still contradicted by the source cited, regardless of whether they "imply heliocentrism" or not (note that I was quite careful to not, in fact, claim that they did imply heliocentrism, although I do think that most people reading them would take them as doing so).

• "Either way, you already acknowledged that I undid the edit within 25 minutes of adding the material anyway, so to call this "blatant misrepresentation of the source" seems really petty to me."

I see. So, in your view, it's petty to object to a blatant misrepresentation being added to Wikipedia for a short time, provided it has later been replaced with a blatant violation of its policy on neutral point-of-view?

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that your criticisms are not valid. In fact, I already agreed that I did make a few mistakes which I overlooked at the time (i.e. initially implying heliocentrism without understanding that there could be an alternative explanation for that quote, and for neglecting to mention Nasr's opposing view in the last edit). The only thing I don't agree with is your claim that those edits were "a blatant misrepresentation of the source", a claim that is entirely based on an incomplete provisional edit (the second one you mentioned) that I soon updated 25 minutes later. I don't understand how you can make such an accusation based on an incomplete provisional edit that was not even the final version? It was never intended as a final cut, hence why it was updated in a matter of minutes. As for your accusation that the last edit is a "blatant violation of its policy on neutral point-of-view", I can understand how it might appear that way. I will concede that it was rushed and I'm actually quite surprised myself how I could have left out Nasr's viewpoint which I had previously added in the provisional version 25 minutes earlier. I will admit that I should have been more careful there and proof-checked it rather than rushing it back then. All I can say is that I'll try to be more careful next time and proof-check a lot more to avoid mishaps like that happening again in future. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for at least acknowledging that you "did make a few mistakes". However, your "provisional version" of 25 minutes earlier was not, as you imply here, an accurate account of Nasr's viewpoint. I have already pointed this out to you twice. The wording of those edits very clearly implies that the 'Islamic cosmology that placed the "Sun at the center of the Universe" ' was a different system from the "traditional geocentric scheme" which placed "the Earth at the centre." There is no other reasonable way of reading the text of those edits than as saying that at one time in the tenth century the Brethren of Purity subscribed to a traditional geocentric cosmology, but that at the time when they wrote their Encyclopedia they had adopted a different cosmology which placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe. I stand by my assertion that that is a blatant misrepresentation of Nasr's view.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can understand why it might appear that way to you, based on the obviously rushed nature of those last two edits, though like I mentioned above, the earlier edit was never really intended to be anything more than a provisional edit. Nevertheless, like I said above, I'll try to be a lot more careful in future, though I'll probably be taking a backseat from actively contributing to Wikipedia for now. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Presentism in history of science

Hi Jagged,

Let me draw your attention, once again, to this comment at the Advances in the History of Psychology blog about your writing on Alhazen's contributions to Psychology. It raises much the same issue about Presentism that I raised several years ago and about which you are well aware.

I share the blog's conclusion, which applies not only to scholarly work but to writing serious encyclopedia articles:

...few serious historians of science are going to be convinced that the aim of “spreading the word” about, e.g., non-Western science trumps the imperative to carefully situate historical events in their relevant historical contexts, rather than uprooting and distorting them for political ends.

Please take these concerns under consideration in your future edits. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'm not on any particular "mission" of any kind. I just edit articles related to topics that I find interesting. And yes, I do remember that blog article quite well and have adjusted the writing style I use in science articles since then (i.e. I've attempted to tone-down anything I add to science articles and tried to stick more closely to the wording used in the original sources). Nevertheless, I'll try to be even more careful in future. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since many commentators on your work recognize your mission or agenda, I find your denial that you have such a mission to be disingenuous and unbelievable. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I already said, I tend to focus more on subjects that are of interest to me, in this case the medieval Islamic civilization (and sometimes the ancient Near-Eastern and Asian civilizations), and I never denied this. I only tend to focus more on this particular subject because that just happens to be what I find interesting, in the same way many other users find Western civilization more interesting and thus tend to focus more on Western science. What I am denying is the way in which some users equate this to some kind of political "mission" or "agenda". If I did have a "mission", it was simply to expand the articles related to those subjects (which were previously under-developed) and briefly include those subjects in the more general science articles. I just don't see anything "political" about it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see the point about your interests, but you don't see mine. The agenda I'm referring to involves searching in the literature to find medieval anticipations of modern discoveries and inventions. Combining this with judging and presenting medieval science as if it were more modern than it is — as if medieval scholars were asking (and answering) the same question as moderns were — reflects a presentist point of view that has no place in serious historical writing. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, so that's what you meant. In that case, like I already said, I have largely attempted to avoid making claims about medieval scholars that go beyond what the sources suggest. However, at the same time, I am more familiar with modern scientific concepts (since that's what I was educated in) than I am with specifically medieval concepts that have no modern equivalents (which I have only been learning from independent research). While I have attempted to document many of those specifically medieval aspects and concerns in quite a few articles (especially those related to astronomy), I do admit that I have tended to focus more on the modern-sounding concepts that I find easier to grasp. I see your point about how this might be misleading, as it might not give the whole picture of what medieval scholars were really thinking. I'll try to keep this in mind when making future edits to science/technology history articles, though I'll probably be taking an extended break from them for quite some time. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The word agenda might be a bit misleading here. It is an agenda, but it's almost certainly an unconscious one - historians have to work very hard to avoid such things, and it's entirely understandable that you've been editing with a bad case of presentism without realising it. The important thing is that now it's been brought up, you need to keep an eye out for it in the future. A large sub-discipline of historiography is devoted to avoiding this kind of bias, by the way. Orpheus (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For Baccano! Reception

WikiThanks

Thanks for starting a reception section on Baccano! Now I'm a lot more motivated to add the remaining sea of reviews! ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 19:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The sources you listed in the talk page made it quite a bit easier for me to create a Reception section. Feel free to expand the section some more using the other sources you listed. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Rename of Muslim Agricultural Revolution

Hi Jagged 85,

I have proposed renaming an article you created and have made a number of edits on, Muslim Agricultural Revolution. The discussion is here: Talk:Muslim_Agricultural_Revolution#Proposed Rename of this Article. My reasons for proposing the change are detailed on that talk page. Given your contributions to the article, it would be valuable to get your input on the proposed change. Dialectric (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Clannad Mediation Case

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-21/Clannad is closing up, and I have requested final views. Please have a look at the page soon if you are still interested. Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Jagged 85)

Hello, Jagged 85. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85, where you may want to participate. Syncategoremata (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See my response at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your responses to this RfC/U Jagged. And many thanks also for your reasonable and calm replies; I cannot pretend to think that this can be anything but an unpleasant and unwelcome situation for you.

One point: given your acceptance of much of our cause for concern, it has been suggested by a couple of editors (such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Outside view by Hammersoft) that we move to an early close of the RfC/U by mutual agreement. As per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing#Closing by agreement, this requires us to come to a consensus, on the talk page, on a closing summary for the RfC/U. There has been some conversation there already about your responses: if you had anything to add to these, we would value your input.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I really appreciate that you've remained mostly neutral during the discussion. It feels good to know there are still a few users willing to give the benefit of the doubt rather than assume bad faith. By the way, just to let you know, I've added a few comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I can't imagine anyone spending such an immense amount of time and effort as you have done on something, only to have been doing it with a deliberate intention to deceive. Once I stopped being angry about the situation (and at one point I was incandescent with anger), and once you so clearly accepted the main points of what we were asking (which in itself is evidence of good faith), there is nothing left to do but to be thankful that the matter has been resolved. Now we just have the task ahead of us all to clean up what we have.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request(Coalition Casualties Update)

1,733 killed(US:1047, UK: 281, Others: 405)

9,967+ wounded(US: 5,629, UK: 3,608, Canada : +400, Germany: 166, Australia: 120, Romania: 44)

Please update war in Afghanistan(2001-present) article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

119.152.61.170 (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of an RFC now, so I don't think it's a good idea for me to be editing articles right now. I might update the infobox sometime later though. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U closed by agreement

Hello, Jagged 85. The RFC/USER discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 has been closed.

The outcome was: The RfC/U was closed by agreement. Many thanks for your helpful attitude towards this unpleasant process. All my best wishes.

-- Syncategoremata (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by

I am very happy you stopped by today to comment on human rights changes going on in the Sharia article. There are a lot of changes going on right now and I am very concerned about how it is going to turn out. Feel free to come by any time. Or every time. Aquib (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note of encouragement

Hi Jagged 85 - just dropping a note to say how glad I am that you were reasonable at that latest RfC/U. I hope you find the energy to review your contributions and understand these topics at a deeper level. I imagine it was a rough experience and I hope it doesn't get you too down. II | (t - c) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Is this [2] you? If yes, may I ask why you edited using an IP rather than your account? Athenean (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That IP address is used by several users, including myself. I'll be honest and admit that a sizable portion of the edits from that IP address have come from myself, especially many of the edits that came after my RfC, beginning with my somewhat controversial edit to the Forced conversion article on 24 April 2010. Although I figured it would be controversial, it's an edit I felt was necessary at the time, as it felt to me that the new user User:Raylahs was simply using my recent RfC as an excuse to promote his/her own misrepresentation of the sources. I cross-checked the sources quite extensively and was certain that the sources do not make the claim made in the article. As I could no longer make controversial edits with my normal user account User:Jagged 85 following the RfC, I resorted to using my IP address out of fear that my user account Jagged 85 could face a ban for breaking one of the RfC conditions. I wasn't really sure what other way I could confront the issue, as my user account had lost much of its credibility after the RfC.

After this, I continued using my IP address to make various trivial edits and intentionally avoided making any edits that could be deemed controversial, though I didn't anticipate my edit to the reciprocating engine article being controversial since I didn't see it (and still fail to see it) contradicting the article or the source in any way. While I could have continued making trivial edits with my user account Jagged 85, I instead used my IP address out of fear that I could trip-up and make a controversial edit without even realizing it (as I had often done in the past), and have my account banned as a result. In other words, User:Amalthea's "Avoidance of scrutiny" claim is somewhat accurate, hence I didn't dispute the decision. I realize that this kind of behaviour (which some might call cowardly) may be considered a form of sock-puppetry and can have severe consequences (possibly leading to a ban), but I'm not going to bother making any excuses now, as I'll probably only be digging a deeper hole for myself if I try to justify my behaviour any further. To be honest, I've already gotten over my fear of a ban a while ago, so a ban (whether its my user account or local IP address) is the last thing I'm worried about right now. As uncomfortable as it is to see my Wiki-editing career end in shame despite all the positive contributions I've made to Wikipedia (now largely overshadowed by the relatively smaller number of controversial edits I've made), what would be more troublesome is the possibility of my privacy or anonymity no longer being intact, hence I'd like to avoid a CheckUser investigation if possible.

Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. The problem with the edit by the IP address 93.97.55.135 is a straighforward one: The cited source does not deal with any crank-driven sakia, hence the claim is unsupported. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I was referring specifically to the reciprocating piston pump, but forgot the crank-driven sakia is also mentioned in that edit. That should have had a seperate source of its own, which I forgot to provide. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I can see why it's a controversial edit. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at David Wilson's SPI draft and noticed that one user thinks I'm using other IP addresses. If that were the case, then there would have been other IP addresses with "Jagged-like" behaviour as well, but the fact is that only one IP exhibits such behaviour and that's the one I've admitted to using. The only possible way for me to use other IP addresses is through proxy servers, which can easily be detected and banned. In other words, there is no possible way for me to use any other IP address unless I change my ISP, which I have no intention of doing as I'm more than happy with my current ISP (because it's faster than other ISPs and has no bandwidth limits). While I appreciate David Wilson for taking the time to make the SPI draft and for giving me the benefit of the doubt by pointing that I'm not the only one editing from this IP (it is indeed shared with several other users who share somewhat similar interests, though they don't edit as often as I do), I'd like to request that, if possible, the SPI investigation not be put forward, as I'd prefer to remain anonymous. I apologize for any controversies I may have caused over the years and for, more recently, my cowardly behaviour in hiding behind an IP address (though I never abused it and still held up the RfC condition that I'd try my best to avoid making controversial edits, even when hiding), but I'm not one to tell outright lies and am not lying now either: I am not hiding behind any other IP addresses. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are a liar.

And you clearly do know that proxy servers "can easily be detected and banned": Special:Contributions/193.164.132.6.

–Syncategoremata (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If I was a "liar", why would I even bother mentioning that the "only possible way for me to use other IP addresses is through proxy servers, which can easily be detected and banned"? I'm the one who admitted to using a proxy right here in this very talk page (days before User:Cuchullain had even "discovered" which proxy it is) and yet you're calling me a liar for it? I don't understand your reasoning behind this accusation. Like I've said before, the only IP address I've been using is the IP address 93.97.55.135 and the only possible way for me to use any other IP is through a proxy server (which as I've already mentioned, can easily be "detected and banned", so it's pointless trying). Like I said before, I'm not one to tell outright lies and am not lying now either: I am not hiding behind any other IP addresses (and I can 100% guarantee you that you won't find any other IP even if you did carry out an SPI invetigation). Therefore, I will not agree to having my privacy invaded through an SPI investigation under any circumstances. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This reply is clearly disingenuous. Your earlier and recent statements that the only IP address you have been using is 93.97.55.135 is most reasonably read as a denial of that you were using a proxy server to generate another IP. It comes nowhere close to being an admission of using the proxy that had been discovered by Cuchullain. Since you now seem to admit that you did use a proxy server to further conceal your edits, we will have to consider what further action is appropriate. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but I would not consider that a reasonable interpretation, but I would rather call it taking a statement out of context. I immediately followed-up that sentence by pointing out that the only other option for me was using a proxy which can easily be detected and banned, which I would not have known if I had not tried it. However, it looks like this part of my statement was ignored just so it can be easier to scrutanize me and make me look like a "liar", thus making a stronger case for an SPI investigation. Since I am so against an SPI investigation, does this mean that I am hiding more IP addresses? No, I would have nothing against an SPI investigation as I can 100% guarantee you won't find any other IP, but am against it because I would not want my privacy invaded (and considering how infamous and controversial my user account Jagged 85 has become, I would not want to associate it with my real-life self in any way). If there is some guarantee that my privacy will remain intact, then I will be more than happy to go through with an SPI investigation. Otherwise, I cannot accept an SPI investigation under any circumstances. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I will only say that I understood Jagged's phrase in the sense SteveMcCluskey has pointed out and I am actually a bit surprised that there may be another reading to it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jagged, the paragraph where you first mentioned proxy servers is clearly a denial of editing here except thru your IP or your account. It is not a claim that you were also doing so via a proxy and to attempt to claim that it was, now that your further deception has been uncovered, is ludicrous.

Further, and as far as I understand it, you have no right to privacy here after acting in a forbidden and disruptive manner. That said, and by looking at the information recorded in previous WP:SPIs, if you have indeed edited in the way you claim to have done then there would be no more information revealed about your identity than there has already been, and the filing of an SPI is simply one of the administrative steps taken to deal with the behaviour that you have admitted to here.
–Syncategoremata (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jagged's statement is clearly *not* an admission of using a proxy. At the same time I too don't think he needs to be lashed over that. We need to remember that editors have pride, and it's quite understandable that one would be hesitant to admit to doing something like this. He shouldn't be expected to flagellate himself for not being up front with it.

What I would like to believe is this: Jagged left his registered account and started editing anonymously for the reasons he gave above. After his IP was blocked last week he tried using a proxy to continue editing, but that too was blocked. This naive attempt to keep editing Wikipedia was his only one, and he has not edited under other IPs or registered sockpuppet accounts. Is this accurate, Jagged?

If this is the case CheckUser should not uncover anything beyond what we've already got. My understanding is that information is only released in order to deal with IPs and sockpuppet accounts that are discovered, and if there are no more there will be nothing left to find. However at this stage there's no getting around running the check. There is simply too much evidence of inappropriate behavior.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This summary expresses my understanding of the situation better than I have managed. It is also rather more polite and rational than I have been on occasion.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuchullain's guess is surprisingly accurate. My only attempt at using a proxy ended in failure (it screwed up the text, so that only made it more obvious), so there's no reason for me to try pull that stunt again. I'm pretty much blocked from all sides, whether it's my local IP (blocked for six months), the proxy I tried using (blocked after my failed attempt), or my user account (which will probably also face a block). Bottom line: there is no possible way for me to edit Wikipedia. Isn't everyone happy yet? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Syncategoremata: Likewise, I think it's ludicrous for you to call me a "liar" when I was the one who mentioned the use of a proxy in the first place. Maybe I wasn't explicit enough, but I was the one who first mentioned it. Also, I believe I do have a right to privacy according to Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser and privacy policy, as I clearly have not been "vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way" under the IP (nor did I even try creating multiple user accounts). The reason User:Amalthea had given for blocking my IP was "avoidance of scrutiny", not "persistent disruptive editing" or "vandalism". This is not reason enough to merit a breach of the privacy policy. However, if, as you say, no more information will be revealed other than what is already known (provided that I have no other IP), then I don't have a problem with an SPI investigation. I couldn't care less how many users here think I'm guilty until proven innocent, nor do I expect any kind of sympathy (as even I believe what I've done is unacceptable), but like I said above, I'm absolutely confident that the charge brought against me regarding more hidden IPs/accounts is false: you won't find any other IP or account, other than my local IP and my failed attempt at using a proxy. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, Jagged: I should not have written what I did above.

But, I was outraged that you should write that you are "not one to tell outright lies" when you had just been exposed as having deliberately deceived all of us during the RfC/U by continuing to edit via your IP; especially given your insistence there that you were never "deliberately attempting to deceive" anyone.

I tried very hard to assume and maintain good faith during that process, but it now feels as though you just spat in my face.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you were one of the few users to defend me during the RfC and I really appreciate it. Like I said above, even I believe what I did is unacceptable this time and you have every right to be angry about it. I don't want to make excuses to justify it, other than that I was unable to handle the scrutiny. I am willing to accept a much harsher punishment this time to make up for it. My only request is that I do not want any personal details being publically revealed, that's all. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• As we made clear in that RfC/U, the best way for you to redeem yourself is to help us clean up the issues. The offer is still (perhaps) on the table, but now it's looking as if your assistance in this effort could just make things more difficult. I've opened a new thread at your RfC/U page to discuss the cleanup issue: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Cleaning_up_the_problem. II | (t - c) 06:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer and I hope I will one day get around to cleaning-up my previous articles as agreed upon in the RfC. But I don't think everyone would be happy with such a solution now that it's been discovered that I had hid behind an IP to avoid responsibility and scrutiny (though once again, it's important to point out that I never abused the IP and almost completely avoided articles related to Islam and the history of science/technology under the IP), so I would suggest that I at least get some form of punishment for sockpuppetry (whatever the usual punishment is, like a temporary block or something). Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:IndiaGuptaEmpire.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:IndiaGuptaEmpire.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this image was uploaded some four years ago, I do not actually remember where I originally obtained the image from. It would also now be difficult to track down the original source, since the image on online sites could have been replicated from this encyclopedia. Although I would very much like to permit re-use of the image, I am not the original creator of the image so I don't believe I have that authority. I'll leave it to your discretion regarding what should be done with the image. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the best idea here is to send an email to the guy hosting it. II | (t - c) 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

List of regions by past GDP (PPP)

Hello. Since you have been the main contributor, could you tell me from which work exactly by Maddison (+ table and page) you got the numbers from? Thanks Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The main work I drew from is already listed in the Bibliography section (Angus Maddison, 2001, The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective). If you're looking for the specific page/table, then I think it was page 261, table B-18. If there are any figures that do not match, then it might be because I also incorporated some of Maddison's updated statistics from his home page: http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/ Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look it up. Btw the man has recently died. Sad. He was a great economic historian. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was definately a truly great economic historian. Much of my own views on economic history were inspired by his work, in fact. Rest in peace, Mr. Maddison. Jagged 85 (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've compared Maddison's numbers on the Roman GDP with other recent estimates, at Roman economy, in case you are interested. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Added the sister page: List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

International Freedom Alliance

see Talk:International Freedom Alliance. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Mughal.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mughal.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Astronomy in medieval Islam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

AfD nomination of List of battles by casualties

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of battles by casualties, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions discussion

Please see WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Recent edits by Jagged 85 where a discussion concerning possible sanctions to your editing rights has started. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages

Hello. You are invited to take part in the discussion on Science in the Middle Ages. The question is should we keep or remove the section on the Islamic world. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'd rather not get involved. I'll leave it to the community to decide what to do with it. Jagged 85 (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth Merger Discussion

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

References in Al-Andalus

Hi, in 2008 you added the references to Farmer 1988 and Saliba 1981 to Al-Andalus, but it's unclear what books they actually are. Could you add the full references to the article? Thanks. Svick (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the references in question probably refer to:

• Farmer, Henry George (1978). Historical facts for the Arabian musical influence. Ayer Publishing. ISBN 9780405084966. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Saliba, George; Sezgin, F. (1981), "Review: Geschichte des arabischen Schriftiums. Band VI: Astronomie bis ca. 430 H by F. Sezgin", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 101 (2), Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 101, No. 2: 219–221, doi:10.2307/601763

Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Svick (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Science in medieval Islam

Could you please comment on Talk:Science in medieval Islam. A large chunk of the article has been deleted and there is discussion underway on how to re-write.

I don't have any doubt that at least some of the material you contributed meets wiki standards and should not be deleted. Your input would be valuable, and would help everyone in recycling the material that meets wiki standards back into the article.Bless sins (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you are put into preserving this article and other Islamic articles, so I've written a rather lengthy response at Talk:Science in medieval Islam#Misuse of sources. I hope this can be of assistance to you in your efforts. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

You said that you edited at a very high speed, often spending seconds on edits.

So presumably all of your sources must have come from online. Yet I'm having trouble accessing many of the books you quoted in Google Books. How did you access these books without going to the library?

Please let me know. You can e-mail me any texts you may have downloaded.Bless sins (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of my sources were from online, many of which are accessible through Google Books or Google Scholar. For the journal sources, you'll need to be part of an organization, like an educational institution, that is subscribed to the journals. For the book sources, you should be able to access many of them from Google Books, though if that's not possible, then you should be able to find them at a university library, if not a local library. If there are any sources you cannot access, then feel free to message me on this talk page or e-mail me here. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Rfc is not a trial and the comments do not set policy, no matter how they stack up. What's done is done. You have accepted responsibility, and I support you for having done so. Now, the Islamic portal seems to have sprung a hemorrhage. If policies are being abused or changed, then you have a duty to take it to ArbCom. No one else can act effectively on your behalf in this matter. Lay it out for them, let them make the call. Once you have cleared up this situation, you can go back to Wikifying, or expend your enormous energy as you like. Perhaps try some gardening.

Aquib (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this comment a response to the last comment I wrote at Talk:Science in medieval Islam two months ago? I don't really know too much about ArbCom, and I'm probably eight months too late to be clearing the charges laid against against me anyway. To clear those charges, it would take a long time and a lot of dedication, something which I'm unable to do. Like you said, what's happened has happened. It doesn't really bother me much anymore, and I'm pretty much done with editing Wikipedia anyway. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling you'll come back someday. And when you do, please take a look at the Science in medieval Islam article. Your expertise is sorely needed there.

Meanwhile, I expect you will find teaching mathematics to be a rewarding endeavor. I can't help but reflect on some of the similarities between teaching and editing. There are the vandals and bullies. The cliques and the peer pressures. The intractable problems and the smothering bureaucracy. And there is the potential to perhaps somehow leave the world a little better place.

-Aquib (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be busy with teacher training so I won't be be back any time soon, but I'll hopefully be back sometime in the near future. And yeah, there are quite a few similarities between editing and teaching, since both generally revolve around education. There will be quite a few nuisances in my new profession, but I'm sure I'll get used to it eventually. Thanks for the kind words though. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Military History Article

Hello Jagged85: I am brand new to Wikipedia and am trying to figure out how to edit correctly and format an article titled "John W. Flores" and wonder if you might be able to assist in this. Wikipedia is a wilderness of arcane terms and procedures for the unfamiliar person as myself. This author has written extensively about military history and has garnered several top awards and citations and commendations in recent years and seems to warrant inclusion as an article.

Thank you

CK

Christine2901 (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Islamic law section of Common Law

At least two of the folks that have been instrumental in managing the Common Law article are skeptical of the value of the "Islamic law" section -- could you take a look and comment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Common_law Boundlessly (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

TopTenReviews

Hey, first off, thanks for going through and adding more reviews to various game articles. Second, though, you've been adding links to TopTenReviews- per WP:VG/RS, it's not considered a reliable source and shouldn't be used; doubly so if other metasites like gamereviews/metacritic are available for that game. I'm going through and pulling it from the articles you've added it to; if you disagree with the "unreliable" characterization please take it up with WT:VG (the /RS subpage doesn't get as many viewers. In the meantime though, please don't add that site to any other articles. I personally wouldn't add GameStats if the article already had 2 metareview sites, but it's listed as an RS and I'm not going to bother with that. Thanks! --PresN 07:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing it out. I found that source being used for Zelda: Ocarina of Time, which is a featured article, so I assumed it must be reliable. But now that you've shown otherwise, I'll stop using that source from now on and remove it if I see it anywhere else. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)