User talk:JollyRoger556

Welcome!

Hi JollyRoger556! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! JollyRoger556 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told. Thank you. Isi96 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Good day to you Isi96. I appreciate your concern, and respect your follow through with this. I first have to ask the simple question have you seen this film? The whole film in it's entirety. The reason I ask that question is that I happen to be a certified historian and study mostly World War II archives and literature, all angles, allies and axis. The film is recent and is not propaganda, it is indeed a story about Adolf Hitler’s life, a story of one’s life usually isn’t filled with all the bad, but simply a story of the persons life, trials, tribulations. It even goes into detail about the atrocities that happened at the death camps. Maybe that’s propaganda to you as well?

Maybe you’ve seen the film, maybe you haven’t. But my description was accurate. Here at Wikipedia we strive to collect accurate data by means of contribution do we not?

Though you might feel strongly about this subject (which I can appreciate) you mustn’t let your feelings or emotions take the wheel. That would be the opposite of our goal here at Wiki, emotions don’t matter when it comes to accurate narrative.

I’d kindly ask you to lift my ban so I can continue editing and contributing. JollyRoger556 (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NONAZIS 208.87.236.202 (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I expected a more mature response. Why don’t you just delete the whole page then? If you don’t want an accurate description of the film that you haven’t even seen. This has nothing to do with history or how you feel about it, when you produce a narrative of a film it has to be an actual narrative of the film, factual. So should I just assume that every page that I plan on contributing to that’s in relation to World War II that my efforts will just get removed and I’ll just get banned for no reason? I though my years of schooling would provide an appreciation amongst everyone but apparently you’re part of a regime that wants to erase and re-write history. I’ve heard of your group, and you’re going to give Wikipedia a bad name by doing what you guys are doing. JollyRoger556 (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the “No Nazis” essay (very well written by the way), has little to do with Nazis though, I think the description of Nazis in this essay fits the term Racists more than Nazis. I’ll lend you some history books if you’d like, maybe read about Jesse Owens, amazing athlete, one of the first African Americans to compete in the Olympics. He participated in the 1936 Olympic Games in Munich and was met with much applause and support from Hitler *fact not propaganda*.

Also read the book The Boys in the Boat. Great read. I think you’d love it. JollyRoger556 (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Isi96, can we talk more in depth about my reason for being banned please? I haven’t received any correspondence from you at all. All I see is your other talk page where you label me as being a Nazi, which is far from the truth.

I simply want to bounce this off of you so to speak, for my own knowledge, because I think there might have been a fair bit of confusion. And I always try to stay within the guidelines, because I never intend on breaking them, I actually haven’t even edited any other WW2 topics, just assisting with editing other topics and contributing my time for the greater good. This film just came across my desk so to speak, and I remembered watching it in school. That was my only reason for editing it.

The part that I am hung up on (if I may) is that a narrative or title description of a film, any film, should be 100% information gathered from the film. Nowhere in this film does it state that it’s a propaganda film. So wouldn’t stating it as a propaganda film be considered false editing and that that in itself may be punishable by ban since the film doesn’t state that it’s propaganda? Or is there certain topics that you’re eligible to post opinions or even (it’s known to be a propaganda film) would still be exempt because “it’s known”? Known by who? Which classifies the phrase as a matter of one’s perspective opinion… And I’ve read that opinions don’t matter when editing, relative truth does.

If you could please shed some light on that thought I would much appreciate it. JollyRoger556 (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you joking? You think we should only post statements which support what the makers of the film claim about it? In other words you think Wikipedia should become a medium for promoting what businesses, people, and organisations want people to believe about them? If you really honestly think that then you are free to set up a website that serves that function, but it's about as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia as anything could possibly be. Wikipedia's aim is to reflect what independent sources say about a subject. JBW (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know how you’ve come to that conclusion, but maybe you should read and take in what I’ve written instead of skimming over it.

I don’t think statements should be posted at all actually, that would be contradicting the purpose of a viable narrative. As statements are considered expression and not factual definition of the topic.

So to recap my question that you didn’t seem to understand in meaning.

If someone gives a title explanation or narrative of a film, any film for that matter (Bambi, Wizard of Oz, etc.).

The content contributed by the editor/poster should be 100% relative to the film itself and nothing more, am I correct?

Furthermore, nowhere in the film does it say or state that it is propaganda. Sure, to some it may be considered propaganda. But we can’t go filling Wikipedia with considerations and opinions can we. JollyRoger556 (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether you really don't understand the point, or whether you are trolling, but in case it's the first of those two possibilities, here is my last attempt to help clarify things for you. Wikipedia does not seek to repeat what subjects of articles claim about themselves: it seeks to report what independent, third party, reliable published sources say about them. If a person says that they did not commit a murder, but every reliable published source says that they did, then Wikipedia says that they did. If a film does not say that it is neo-nazi propaganda, full of lies, but every reliable published source says that it is, then Wikipedia says that it is. That is Wikipedia policy. We don't seek to report things about people or organisations in the way they like to be seen, we seek to report them as they are seen by independent reliable sources. As for your saying that you "don’t know how [I’ve] come to that conclusion" about what Wikipedia policy on the matter is, perhaps I just may have picked up a few impressions of what policies could be in the course of working as a Wikipedia administrator for somewhat more than thirteen years. Perhaps I even had a fair idea of Wikipedia policy before that, as otherwise I probably wouldn't have become an administrator. JBW (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

They were blocked for adding pro-Hitler content to the article: [1], so it's safe to say they're not here in good faith. Isi96 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Isi96, I hope you’re doing well.. The film itself is pro-Hitler content, all I did was put it in the form of a summary. JollyRoger556 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Also the ban you’re referring to was 2 months ago and it was lifted rather quickly because it was considered to be relative content. JollyRoger556 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is false; you have only been blocked once and it rightly has not been lifted. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Innisfree987 my IP address was banned in February… And then shortly after a brief explanation to a sensible individual the ban was revoked as it rightly rightfully should have been. Because the content was relative and accurate. JollyRoger556 (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Any feedback Innisfree987? You’re a reliable source of information on Wikipedia (and I admire your work, it gives me much inspiration actually). Is it considered wrong to create a summary of a film? At least to me a summary means as the dictionary states it to be “a brief statement or account of the main points of something.” So if you don’t mind shedding some light on the subject, where did I go wrong? JollyRoger556 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Innisfree987. Just circling back around to see if you care to shed some light on my previous response please, as you’ve not responded. If we can’t resolve things here I guess I’ll have to contact someone that can help. But as far as I can see, in a literal sense, I did no wrong. I summarized the film accurately. JollyRoger556 (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings JBW, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify. I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t understand your first responses and I apologize for that, I was a little hurt by your responses to my questions actually (which was finally answered in a way that I can understand) previously when you said things like “Are you joking me?” And make fun of me for actually trying to understand why what I did was against guidelines.

This whole Talk page I’ve been transparently asking for dialogue from someone as to the reason for the ban, now I know. Maybe it wasn’t worded right, maybe I just didn’t understand, whichever.

I thought that a description of a film had to be A Description of a Film. Not what sources say about it, just pure definition of watching the film.

I had good intent in mind, just a little confused I guess. Thank you for your feedback. JollyRoger556 (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Good morning JBW or (Just Be White) kind of an odd username don’t you think. But you’ve covered your bases quite well with your statements of it being easier to type, I get that. But I’ve gathered other info from your social media which shed much light on your intentions.

Which is probably why you’re giving me much grief for posting an accurate summary.

What summary would you rather have for the film?

-This is a practice that we do in my line of work to help create summaries for historic literature, novels, short stories and films.

It’s common in my industry as a form of brainstorming but better yet it helps to collectively form a summary, in its best and most accurate way.

looking foreword to your summary champ! JollyRoger556 (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Whatever may be common in your "line of work", it is not what Wikipedia is about. Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and many of us (including myself) start out with quite mistaken ideas about how Wikipedia works and what it is for. However, I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe that you still don't understand, after all the information you have been given. If you keep posting these messages which are completely miss the point, and which are not related to your block, you are likely to have your talk page access removed. Either you really don't understand, in which case you lack the competence to contribute to Wikipedia, or you do understand, in which case you are trolling; in neither case is letting you keep posting here likely to contribute to the encyclopaedia. JBW (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Newslinger talk 22:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #88236 has been declined. JBW (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)