→Try to Avoid Destructive Editing: new section |
No edit summary |
||
Line 281: | Line 281: | ||
I am not going to name names but everyone should try to avoid further destructive or disparaging editing of others work. Destructive editing is systematically undoing or deleting someone else’s contributions in bad faith without discussion or a consensus of all editors involved. We should all follow the editing rules. Also try to avoid attacking other editors and avoid use weasel words. Remember no one editor owns any article and let’s try to work together without having to being Admins involved.--[[User:8bitJake|8bitJake]] ([[User talk:8bitJake|talk]]) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
I am not going to name names but everyone should try to avoid further destructive or disparaging editing of others work. Destructive editing is systematically undoing or deleting someone else’s contributions in bad faith without discussion or a consensus of all editors involved. We should all follow the editing rules. Also try to avoid attacking other editors and avoid use weasel words. Remember no one editor owns any article and let’s try to work together without having to being Admins involved.--[[User:8bitJake|8bitJake]] ([[User talk:8bitJake|talk]]) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Try to Avoid Using Wikipedia for the Purpose of Self- |
|||
I am not going to name names, but everyone should try and avoid exploiting Wikipedia to drive traffic to your personally owned websites, and to use Wikipedia to establish credibility for your personal websites. |
|||
Please follow the editing rules, no new research is permitted, and to maintain a neutral-point of view. And, to link only to credible, verifiable sources. |
|||
[[User:Wageslave|Wageslave]] ([[User talk:Wageslave|talk]]) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:57, 12 March 2008
![]() | Video games Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||
|
What about cracked discs?
I had to buy a 2nd copy of halo 3 due to a crack in the disc. Seriously, by the time the Ltd. warranty expired, my 360 thought H3 was a DVD, and then it stopped reading it. So if scratches are an addressed problem, then what am i left with? (besides a $120 hole in my wallet) 69.67.91.18 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
RROD Solution
Take 3 pennies (canadian money, google it), wrap them in electrical tape and put them under the heatsink, thereby allocating more space for the heatsink to cool off. That worked for me to get rid of the 3 ring RROD. This may not be the most elegant solution for all, so unless you know what you're doing, don't attempt this. 69.156.176.163 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Changing title of c't article "Jede dritte stirbt den Hitzetod"
Some well meaning but mistaken people are changing the quotation "Jede dritte stirbt den Hitzetod", to "Jeder dritte stirbt der Hitze". Well that -might- debatably be more correct german, but that is not the point, the point is that the original quote is literally letter for letter the -title- of the c't article! See [1] this is the c't web-page which previews the article litterally as "Jede dritte stirbt den Hitzetod", as you can read on the linked page.
C't is one of the most respected German computer magazines, and it is in itself therefore very unlikely that this is "bad German", but that in itself is not relevant either, as this is a literal -title- of the referenced article. So whoever changes this, for whatever reason, please do not! I have reverted this change twice, and cannot do it a third time in 24 hours, (as Wikipedia:Three-revert rule prevents me from doing so) but this -should- be reverted. So please anybody who agrees with me that this is a bad idea, revert this for me! Mahjongg (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Red Ring of Death unofficial website
A website has been created to help users learn more about the Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death website. It has helped hundreds of people worldwide with their own RROD problem as well as helping some people decide whether or not they want to buy an Xbox 360 console. It is basically a collection of ideas and facts from all over the Internet, all put into a single website to save people time and effort.
The URL is www.xboxredringofdeath.com.
Fatfroggenius (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, see WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:LINKSPAM, also, but that's just my opinion, telling users to try the "towel trick" is a very bad idea indeed as they are liable to FUBAR their system, and lose their guarantee at the same time in one and the same stupid action. Actually even your message here should be removed, as the talk page is not mean for this, only for improving the article. Then there is this to consider, if some user FUBAR's his xbox 360 he can validly say that Wikipedia endorses the practice that has caused him to lose his guarantee and his system, by pointing at this site, and he might want to sue Wikipedia too. Microsoft will repair all general failure error damaged systems for free, so there is also absolutely no point in taking such risks. this is why all these editors remove this link if anybody puts it back. Mahjongg (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't the website say that the towel trick should not be done, as it voids the warranty? It explains possible solutions found across the web and explains the risks and benefits of each. It states "We do not recommend this fix, as it can damage the interior of the console and may even void your warranty if it damages anything."
- I've never used a talk page and am quite new to Wikipedia. I put this post up here because I was told that I should explain here why the site is valid and may benefit the users of the page, which I think it would (and seems to have done so far). I do understand that Wikipedia has a responsibility to disallow anything that may cause them legal problems, but I think the site sufficiently explains both pros and cons of the solutions and doesn't urge anyone to do anything illegal, but instead warns them that what they see on the Internet may void their warranty (something that a lot of people haven't realised until they visit the website).
- Fatfroggenius (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The website could be linked to in a citation. That is unless a better source for the same information could be found, then the link would be replaced with the better source. --Decompiled (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most Wikipedia rules and guidelines, etc, seem to say that certain exceptions can be made in some situations. Although the Red Ring of Death website doesn't offer citable evidence, it does enhance the reader's knowledge and helps to protect them against a major technical failure that many consoles face. I, as well as many others, believe the website should be allowed on Wikipedia, as it offers further reading as well as safety warnings for false claims made on other websites throughout the net, cautioning the user before they screw up their console with stupid "quick fixes". I'm not sure what it usually takes for a website to become an exception to the guidelines, but I think in this case that this RROD website is helpful enough to warrant such an exception. Fatfroggenius (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, and how does this site "helps to protect them against a major technical failure that many consoles face", it does no such thing. Instead, it gives credibility to "alternative solutions", even while issuing warnings, while actually none of these solutions are necessary, as Microsoft guarantees the fix the problem for them, for free. Any involvement from the user to then try an "alternate solution" that per definition carries a risk is then per definition a bad idea. The -only- valid suggestion the site should give, is "take no risk, send it to Microsoft to be fixed". It can give "background information", but should not encourage "alternate solutions", and now it does. Mahjongg (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. if you are still under the impression that this site is only about "warning users not to use alternative solutions" then read this, its at the end of the page listing all the "tricks", it "warns" against.
Mahjongg (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)"If you are still not too sure what you want to do to fix your Xbox 360 console, we recommend taking a look in our Discussion Forum, where other Xbox 360 users can talk to you about how they solved their Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death problem."
- P.S. if you are still under the impression that this site is only about "warning users not to use alternative solutions" then read this, its at the end of the page listing all the "tricks", it "warns" against.
- The website has been updated and the discussion forum link removed. The Discussion Forum was meant to be to help users see the problems that trying to fix it would achieve through the stories of people who have tried it, but it never really got under way.
- Each alternate solution now clearly explains that they're not recommended at all, warning readers not to attempt them. The Prevention section explains ways of avoiding the RROD which is important to people who haven't heard much about the problem and who are interested in purchasing the console.
- I am more than happy to edit the website to comply with policies Wikipedia has, as I think the website is important and people need to read it before or while they are experiencing the RROD so they know what to expect and where they can go if they experience the problem.
- Let me know if there's anything else that should be changed, for both Wikipedia and the public's sake.
- Fatfroggenius (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, for one, you could put the solutions you are referring to between quotes, so that it's more obvious that you are quoting another source instead of presenting it as your "solution". Then I should think the first introductory sentence should warn -against- using any of the fixes described at your side, so it is more immediately clear that you are trying to -warn- against trying to implement them! Although I can see now that you trying to protect people from doing something stupid, I am afraid there is still a problem, because of WP:NOT (not a source of indiscriminate links) and the fact that WP does not generally link to "how-to" sites, and your site still gives the impression it's a how-to site. Actually, my resistance to incorporating your link has diminished conciderably, but that does not mean others might reason the same. Mahjongg (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've now put the bad 'solutions' in quotations, and have changed the wording for almost every paragraph on the page to encourage people to stick with the warranty. In the introductory paragraphs it now explains which 'solutions' should not be attempted. I think the purpose of the page is shown a lot more clearly now.
- I'm happy that you're a bit more accepting of the link. Do many others feel the same? Can anyone else offer any suggestions to help fix the content on the site to clear up the confusion?
- Also, what can I do to make my website less of a how-to site? I think I've fixed that up a little bit today but I'd like to know if there's anything else that can be done.
- Thanks, Fatfroggenius (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to do with wikipeda, just a tip, in the paragraph "The More Technical Cause" you print "....on the inside of the console was the wrong type,", that should be "...on the inside of the console is of the wrong type, ". Just a tip.
By the way, the solder they used is indeed of the wrong type, but not because of what you claim, but because they chose a type that gets too brittle after being exposed to elevated temperatures for a long time, and it won't melt as you claim, because it needs temperatures around 300 degrees Celsius to melt! Those are temperatures not even reached when you do the towel trick. Note there are components inside the box that can only handle temperatures as high as 85 degree Celsius, (elco's for example) raising the temperature to anywhere the melting point of lead-free solder is a therefore a -very- bad idea, but I think it's not even possible to reach temperatures anywhere near the melting point of solder using the towel trick, and that is a good thing too because if it did all the solder-balls that connect the GPU/CPU to the PCB would become flattened, and flow into each other to create a small "pool" of solder, shorting every pin with every other pin. But long before that the insides of the 360 would have started to burn! The real problem is not shorts, but interruptions cause by brittle solder balls that develop electrically isolating hair-cracks because of the mechanical stresses put on them by the fact that the CPU expands/contracts faster than the PCB due to fast temperature variations, such as happen when the CPU/GPU suddenly has much more/much less work to do.
Back to the main issue. In the same chapter you have a header "The Solutions for the Problem...", make that "Are there solutions for these problems", that is less suggesting you should try a "homebrew solution". An on the home page, you print "How can I fix my Xbox 360 Console?" better is "Can I fix my Xbox 360 Console myself?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongg (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think I have done everything you said. I actually paraphrased the information you just gave me, I hope that's okay, let me know if it's not. I've corrected the typos and have changed those headings to make them less suggesting about the homebrew solutions. The information on the site was a collection of theories presented by the many many websites I've investigated, I apoligize for anything that was incorrect.
- Thanks for your help. Fatfroggenius (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Any other ideas for the site? What else is holding it back from being put on Wikipedia? Fatfroggenius (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, I appreciate it. I've put it back up so if anyone takes it down could they please come here to explain why and I'll see what I can do to fix the problem. Fatfroggenius (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Link removed. I would have left the link in, but Xbox.com is obviously a more reliable source for anybody seeking help with their RROD issue. See Wikipedia:SOURCES --Decompiled (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- My website isn't a source for solutions, we've already discussed that above. It's more of a 'watch out for the so-called solutions on the internet' sort of site, which Xbox.com has no information about. I titled the link incorrectly, it should have read something like "Myths about the Xbox Red Ring of Death Revealed", which is a link I think still has a place here.
- Just out of curiousity, what allows the External Link to the "Xbox360 Ring of Light error codes explained (unofficial)" to be on Wikipedia, while mine isn't? Xbox.com would be a more reliable source than that site, yet its still important because it offers important information to viewers, right?
- The Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death Website does provide information that isn't available from either Wikipedia or the Xbox site. People need the site to explain the myths before they make mistakes that might cost their console. Fatfroggenius (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The 'Xbox360 Ring of Light error codes explained (unofficial)' is a valuable resource because it describes what the error codes mean in plain English. But in reference to the repair myths of the RROD, I am not convinced that the article needs a section that describes ineffectual tricks and myth solutions. However if someone was to add a section to the article titled as such, I wouldn't be opposed. What I am opposed to is the placement of a self-promoting external link on the matter. --Decompiled (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see how the website being my own would degrade its importance. Whether or not its submitted by me or others wouldn't change what Wikipedia is linking to. If we've agreed that the subject matter and content is worthy of being spread then why would we ignore it just because I'm submitting it myself? I designed the site when I heard about the problem and did quite a bit of research about it all. I think people need to see the website, and I'm sure others out there would feel the same, and the fact that I designed it doesn't change that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatfroggenius (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because then it still fails the Wikipedia:SOURCES test. Specifically:
- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."
- Ayocee (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because then it still fails the Wikipedia:SOURCES test. Specifically:
- But that's my point. I'm not claiming to be an expert and am therefore not trying to teach anything. What I'm trying to do, which we've already explained above, is to try to guide people to make the right decision for their own sake. And by 'largely not acceptable', doesn't that mean that sometimes exceptions can be made? Most of the guidelines on Wikipedia allow for leway and I think this is a situation that calls for it.
- Fatfroggenius (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are some exceptions, such as when the author of the self-published material is a recognized expert who's already been published in reliable third party publications, or when a self-published website is used in an article about the author of the material. I don't believe any of those exceptions would apply to the link under discussion. - Ehheh (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- But the point of having a recognized expert as the author is to determine that the information they present on their website is legitimate. We've seen here that the information presented on the website is helpful, so why would it matter who the author is? The information is the same whether it was written by an expert or not...
- Fatfroggenius (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) The website cannot be included in external links per Wikipedia:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Sorry. xenocidic (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Support for 33% or '1 in 3 fail' claims
There has never been any credible source for this number. Currently, to my knowledge, there has never been a "on the record" or reputable number other than the 3-5% claim from MS originally. Now, the 3-5% claim may or may not be accurate, but any other claim requires evidence.
There are two places where this number seems to have originated 1) Was a story in a the blogosphere in mid-2007 that claimed "an unidentified manager in a retailer in Australia" and 2) "the8bitblog" who claims to have a "inside source" close to the Xbox team, this second source began these claims late in 2007 or early this eyar.
The claim that 33% of Xbox 360's fail is a unsupported claim, that has turned into "popular internet urban legend". Until something CREDIBLE is used as a source or evidence, that number or allusions to it "1 in 3" should not be present in Wikipedia.
70.178.97.83 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are probably new to Wikipedia, that is not how things work here!. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.".
- The reader should determine if the information made available by the reliable source (in this case c't) is "true" or not. But suppressing the availability of this information is non NPOV. Mahjongg (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- We cannot read the article. Further, can *any* claim made on the internet be included? Simply making a claim is not enough. I believe "Verifiable" can not possibly mean what you think it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- -You- cannot read it, don't say -we-! This is an English language encyclopaedia, but that does not mean that nobody who uses this wiki can read it. -I- can, thousands of others who come here can, and then if you are so paranoid to believe it's not true, use a translating service to read it like bable fish. But in fact it does not matter at all that you can't read it! It only matters that the webiste in question is a "reliable source", not a self-published blog or something like that. You are clearly new here, so please before you do anything else here, read some of the guiding principles of Wikipedia, like WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Verifiability. All articles here have links to websites to "prove" verifiability, again, Wikipedia:Verifiability, it's how Wikipedia works. This all has been discussed many times before, bad luck for you if you don't like it... Mahjongg (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- We cannot read the article. Further, can *any* claim made on the internet be included? Simply making a claim is not enough. I believe "Verifiable" can not possibly mean what you think it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources you should read about non-english sources. They are unverifiable. Further, the idea that 33% fail is CLEARLY a Wikipedia:Fringe theories that requires a higher level of verification.
Your citation for a Fringe Theory is a non-english source.
Sorry, I will be removing that claim shortly. If you restore it again, I believe we should move to a disupte resolution and if that fails, appeal to an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:V states "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality", in this case the source is a well respected German magazine, of the article "jede dritte... " there is no English translation available, so whatever may be "preferred" in this case is irrelevant, If an article is written about something that happened in Japan, and on the web there is only a japanse article, then that -can- be used as a source, WP:V only states that English sources are preferred, not that non English sources are forbidden. Where in the article things are discussed that are not demonstrable truths, but rather are for example "rumours", then in the article they are clearly identified as such. We then do not claim that what is said is true, but merely that these rumors exist, and that reliable sources report they exist. What is in the German article is not presented as indisputable facts, but the article merely states that a reputable magazine wrote such and such, and a reliable source backs the claim up that this article exists, and what it is saying. Again, read Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The article is written, which is a verifiable truth, the content of the article can be checked by anybody who want to bother. Oh, and the "high level of failure" that is disputed to exist by you, is not a "fringe theory", as there is overwhelming anecdotical evidence, and so its a very widely hold belief, not a "fringe theory" , That the Failure rate is high is an accepted fact by anybody who cares to research the matter. Only there are no hard facts about the actual percentage of the failure rate, (as Microsoft refuses to publish them) but this article does not claim there are. Mahjongg (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, if you need a German speaking wikipedian, to check what "Jede dritte stirbt den Hitzetod" means, you can find a few hundred here: [2]. You can also let him read and check the the article itself, it can be downloaded from the c't site, for a price of 30 eurocent, here: [3] Mahjongg (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Added POV Tag
I believe the text in this article has a negative bias. The article makes claims from unidentifiable sources. Many of the citations are simply Questionable sources, Self-published sources and Non-English sources.
The tone is clearly negative. There are numerous non sequitors who's false conclusions are universally negative.
Wikipedia is being used to falsely establish inaccurate information.
70.178.97.83 (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Its completely irrelevant that you think this article has a "negative bias", it simply mirrors the negative bias about the Xbox 360's reliability that exists in the real world, and it uses links to reliable sources to prove that this "negative bias" exists out there. That is all. It does not "make claims", it documents that these claims exist. Wikipedia is not "being used to falsely establish inaccurate information", , it simply documents the information there is outside wikipedia,about these "negative feelings", because that is what the article is -for-! And it is using reliable sources to do it. Wikipedia does not create, it documents!
- In rare cases (actually for this article in just one case) sources are not from English speaking territories, the Xbox 360 is a worldwide phenomenon, so it stands to reason that there can be some sources that are from other parts of the world than English speaking parts, which for the article is irrelevant, as long as the source is reliable. In this case the source is a -very- reliable major technical computer magazine, which happens to be German. The world does not end at the borders of the US, the high failure rate problem o the Xbox 360 is an issue in Germany too. This magazine felt obliged to investigate it, and with German thoroughness they went further than most other magazines would do. Mahjongg (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- "it simply mirrors the negative bias about the Xbox 360's reliability that exists in the real world
Your maintaining this article to reenforce that false idea. The source you quoted is unreliable. It is an agenda driven periodical with limited circulation.
- "The world does not end at the borders of the US, the high failure rate problem o the Xbox 360 is an issue in Germany too. This magazine felt obliged to investigate it, and with German thoroughness" Your xenophobia and jingoism shines through.
- Perhaps that is what motivates you to police this article and assure the most ridiculous and unrealistic claims?
- Wikipedia is not a venue for salacious claims and ridiculous assertions. There are knooks and cranies on this internet -- and in print -- that bear agendas that do not reflect a neutral point of view.
- What is happening here is the equivalent of this: A racist cites all all manner of unverified sources, then delivers a non sequitur conclusion. Why? Because there is a desire to establish the a false worldview.
- The notion that their is a "33%" heat failure rate for this hardware is laughable. Just ridiculous. And, the only reason that falsehood is reflected here is because of an agenda. I dont have the time or motivation to do public relations on behalf of Xbox.
- This article has your agenda written all over it. And this discussion page reveals your motivation in many thousands of words.
- This article definately needs a lot of work, but subverting notable, verifiable sources that point out the problems with the 360 (and there are problems, as much as I love the system, she ain't perfect) would be unencyclopaedic. It's ironic that you call Mahjongg xenophobic when you are the one who is refuting non-english sources. xenocidic (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- As an Xbox 360 owner who got about 60 hours(at best) out of a $650 purchase(including accessories), wasted over an hour on two occasions on the phone with their worthless representatives, and has gone through three separate replacement consoles with each failing within the first few weeks, I concur with this article completely. I have since given up on trying to get a working console from Microsoft. Whether the wording is considered POV or not, I feel the article's content is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.70.168 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a person who has purchased 5 units, 3 as gifts and 2 for my home, I can assure the claims in this article are not accurate. There, now we have to personal testimonials.
- The Article is rife with less-than trustworthy assertions, NPOV and statments of fact (that frankly) would never be allowed virtually anywhere on wikipedia.
- This article needs to be pruned-back to remove the un-wikipedia quality statements herein.
Turnaround time?
I called the support line today and the time to fix it was quoted as 3-4 weeks, not the 2-3 as mentioned in the article. This did not include the time it would take to ship it there and back, or to be provided with the shipping box and materials, so I'm guessing 4-5 weeks would be more accurate. This waiting time may only be affecting my region (northeast, usa), or it could be that they are further backed up with repair requests than they were when the 2-3 week wait time was announced. Either way, it might be necessary to redetermine the figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.173.89 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try and find a published source for this, and we can change it. Right now the citation that it uses doesn't even say 2-3 weeks anyway, so I'm sure that no one would have a problem with you making the change. xenocidic (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This article cites a 13 day turn around time; http://kotaku.com/gaming/xbox-360/xbox-360-back-in-the-house-230317.php
Microsoft quotes 2-3 weeks, but, sometimes it is less. I recommend you change the article to say so.
70.178.97.83 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wholesale misrepresentation in 2nd Paragraph
This paragraph is inaccurate:
"According to several sources, including a Wired blog, an Xbox 360 production "insider" has come out suggesting that units that fail early in their life are related to poor construction and inadequate testing prior to the console's release.[1][2][3] Other web-sites claim the insider's authenticity has been confirmed.[4]"
Firstly, the first sentance: "According to several sources, including a Wired blog, an Xbox 360 production "insider" has come out suggesting..."
Is inaccurate. The Wired Blog is not a source of this information. The Wired Blog is repeating the story. Wired is not the source. Saying "wired is the source" serves to give the speculation validity that it is not due.
The second source, is actually a "readers blog". A "readers blog" where the ORIGINAL article has simply been copied into nwsource.com's user-blog system.
At the bottom of that page you find this: "Posted by 8bitjoystick at January 19, 2008 12:18 p.m."
This is a re-printing of the original post from a weblog "8bitjoystick"
So, a wired blog is bringing attention to a 8bitjoystick blog that has been inserted into nwsource.com's user-submit blog system.
The paragraph is written with far more confidence and authority than the story warrants.
The paragraph should be written with language that reflects this very-low credibility story and source.
- You have a point there, I have re-written the paragraph to better reflect what we actually know, and is verifyable. Mahjongg (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify. I write for both my own blog 8bitjoystick.com and the Seattle PI reader Blog Digital Joystick that is a self syndication of 8bitjoystick.com - Jake Metcalf --8bitJake (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah. check this out Photographic Proof Of Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death Insider's Authenticity My source inside Microsoft was one of the origional designers of the Xbox one. --8bitJake (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Posting a picture of an award is not "proof" of your actually speaking to a source. If I posted a picture of Trump Towers does that mean I prove Donald Trump is my source? That picture could be from anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The photo was of a custom "SHIP IT" award that is only given to key people on the Xbox team. That is the equivalent of a seal in wax. Microsoft knows who my source is. --8bitJake (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Utter nonsense. It is a photo, a photo that could be obtained anywhere. It doesnt prove your source at all. And, further, you are here claiming that MSFT knows your source. What are you going to do to prove that? Show us a picture of the sign at MSFT WHQ?
There is no other high resolution photographic record of an Xbox Ship It award on the web. Go ask Microsoft, it's real and more important there is a consensus on other video game websites that it's proof of my confidential source. --8bitJake (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
problem with tense, and accuracy in 2nd & 3rd paragraphs
The 2nd & 3rd paragraphs speak as if the reports were from the present. The reports are from the past, prior to any revisions, and are no longer relevant or current.
The language has a NPOV. The language is misleading and inaccurate.
Wageslave (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I reported from a confidential source from inside Microsoft and never hid that and I don't think that your language casting my reporting in a false light is NPOV. --8bitJake (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Also the reports are still relevant since there are millions of Xbox 360s that are potentially affected and the current hardware generations still have major reliability problems. --8bitJake (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh I think it's more their fans than their employees but all good Wiki articles should be looked at objectivly for NPOV.--8bitJake (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft is watching this article!
Be careful people from redmond is watching close this article [4]
Actually those edits were from months ago. But yes Microsoft does read websites and articles about them. --8bitJake (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would *LOVE* everyone to read what Jake's posting on 8bitjoystick.com says. Clearly, Jake has an agenda, and that is Anti-MSFT trolling.
- You come here and edit this article yourself, but then write drivel like that (removed link to not provide traffic for this blogtroll)
- Your making ridiculous, over-the-top claims, then come here and argue that they should be included in Wikipedia. You're gaming the system, clearly have a NPOV bias.
- There is nothing wrong with the edits that MSFT made. There is no rule against it here on Wikipedia. But you are taking it as an opportunity to suggest a negative intent from MSFT. Now you're here to try and establish your blog as a credible source of analysis on the matter?
Man Wageslave.. Fanboy post much.--8bitJake (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
. I don't feel like your insults and calling me a "Blogtroll" is NPOV. Should we open a moderation review on you, I don't feel like your editing in good faith, try not to be so obsessive about this article, we are all equal editors. I am not anti-Microsoft and in fact I have several freinds that work there. That is why my reporting is considered to be a reputable source by Joystiq.com, Kotaku.com, Newsweek and the Seattle PI and many more. My claims are based on information that comes from inside the Xbox team actually. The video game industry already regards my work as credible, thats why it gets reported. Wageslave you really should try and reach a consensus through discussion before engaging in any further destructive editing. --8bitJake (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is clear by reading your Blog what your perspective is. You're blog post about MSFT editing wikipedia clearly reveals the quality of your "reporting".
- As for your accusations of making "destructive editing", I see you've taken the "best defence is a good offence" method of deflecting your *own* agenda.
- Using Wikipedia to drive traffic to your blog, and establish it as credible is a clear violation of Wikipedia's purpose.
- Wageslave (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually if you go back and read the review and articles that I’ve written over the years about Xbox 360 you will see that I have plenty of good things to say about the system. You are not my headshrink and shouldn’t knee jerk assume what others think about the topic at hand. Again there are many editors on Wikipedia and no single editor *owns* any article.
Actually I don’t need any traffic and traffic from Wikipedia is way less than 0.5% of my referral traffic. I’ve gotten several hundred times the traffic from Digg, Joystiq, Kotaku, Engadget. But it's a moot point since I've allready been established as a credible source on this topic by other media sources such as Joystiq.
Destructive editing is systematically undoing or deleting someone else’s contributions in bad faith without discussion or a consensus of all editors involved.
My edits are based on the facts that I know, not opinions but facts.--8bitJake (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Note from Jake Metcalf of 8bitjoystick.com
I am thinking about going over this article and clarifying some points. If you have any questions about my reporting or my source on this topic let me know. --8bitJake (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree I should have put it at the bottom. --8bitJake (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Try to Avoid Destructive Editing
I am not going to name names but everyone should try to avoid further destructive or disparaging editing of others work. Destructive editing is systematically undoing or deleting someone else’s contributions in bad faith without discussion or a consensus of all editors involved. We should all follow the editing rules. Also try to avoid attacking other editors and avoid use weasel words. Remember no one editor owns any article and let’s try to work together without having to being Admins involved.--8bitJake (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
== Try to Avoid Using Wikipedia for the Purpose of Self-
I am not going to name names, but everyone should try and avoid exploiting Wikipedia to drive traffic to your personally owned websites, and to use Wikipedia to establish credibility for your personal websites.
Please follow the editing rules, no new research is permitted, and to maintain a neutral-point of view. And, to link only to credible, verifiable sources.
Wageslave (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Arendt, Susan (2008-01-22). "Rumor: Insider Reveals Truth About 360 Failure Rates". Wired. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ [Inside Source Reveal the Truth About Xbox 360 "Red Ring of Death" Failures]
- ^ Insider blames overheating GPU for Xbox 360 failures
- ^ Proof of Xbox 360 RRoD Insider's Authenticity