User talk:Jetblack500

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Otto4711 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Hello, Jetblack500, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --IllaZilla (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 1

Magic Tramps

Given their pioneer status in the NYC glam and punk scenes there should surely be an article on the Magic Tramps. Should we give it a go? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Jetblack500 21:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. JD554 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind comment and reminder. I know about marking certain edits as minor, but it sometimes slips my mind. Jetblack500 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reverting

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Bowie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --McGeddon (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted a well-sourced fact that has been changed or removed a few times. I had reached a compromise with the first editors, after which grunge6910 reverted it, with the comment "really not necessary; also the ref says Kemp is a mime, not Bowie", which made obvious the fact that he hadn't even read the reference. I'm the one who was following wiki protocol. He was not. The new excuse for reverting it is that, in the opinion of the editor, "Bowie is not widely known for his mime work", when actually, it had a profound effect on his work and I can provide numerous other sources for that assertion. I intend to reinsert it, with several sources. I hope that the last editor, as well as others, will read the sources, weigh the evidence and be more circumspect before deleting such well-sourced material, which I've taken the time, energy and care to put in the article, in good faith. Do you think that reverting a well-sourced edit without reading the source is "good faith"? I don't. I think it's flouting the rules. I hope you've left similar posts on their talk pages, as it takes two or more to have an "edit-war".

There is a phenomenon (I'm sure there's some wiki name for it) where certain individuals latch onto specific articles, which they then act like they own. They've often contributed to the article. They hover around, just waiting for someone to come along and make a perfectly good edit, in good faith, so they can revert it. These people are obsessed. No matter how well one sources an edit, no matter how strong the evidence for it, they will continue reverting, against all reason. This is especially common with articles pertaining to rock music, and much of the time, it's driven by personal bias. It's hard to argue with someone who idolizes a rock musician to the extent that anything one adds may disturb their inflated, biased, overly idealized perspectives. Why anyone would have any trouble with the fact that David Bowie was a mime puzzles me. I've explained it as best I could in the notes, which usually suffices and all I've gotten in return is thoughtless comments and lazy editors who would rather revert an edit than take five minutes to read a reference. How is anyone supposed to improve upon these articles, under such conditions? Jetblack500 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]