Non-Disc Record - JackIsScience

Summary:

misleading feedback, unnecessary edits

JackIsScience

Zyn 11 Dec 2015 03:20

Noting for records-keeping, as most of this activity is on pages slated for deletion, and I believe there's been some activity from this user on pages that are now deleted. Someone can and should check me on that.

New user JackIsScience does not match any existing user name has been leaving some incoherent and somewhat-misleading comments on low-rated articles:

In response to someone asking for examples of experimental logs for formatting: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1473724/scp-2176#post-2420870

+ show block

I have good ones in mind for examples to you. SCP-299, SCP-914 and SCP-504. I might as well include this as well for good measure… SCP-682

And when two people pointed out that Series I logs aren't really what we're aiming for nowadays, quality-wise:

This may sound strange but I like the "let's throw a bunch of stuff at it and see what happens" cliche, all the SCPs I referenced fit in to that category, they're are just the typical SCPs I think of when it comes to experiments on this site but I think you're right mostly but the SCPs I referenced need a dose of that cliche to be honest. 682's got me hooked and 299's really worked and helped explain the activity of it very well. But for the most part I think that this cliche is considered some sort of joyride by the writers now mainly due to originality measures on the foundation being bled dry. I'm rambling on here but I think your examples are best fit for authors nowadays to be truthful.

Kalinin replied and said it best: "I'm having trouble following what you're trying to say, in no small part because your writing is fairly unclear. That's problematic if you're offering criticism."

On a piece at -18 with multiple simple grammar errors, including inconsistency of verb tense: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1473653/mondays#post-2420769

+ show block

I actually quite liked this tale to be honest, I think I like the style of it and how typical it feels as a Monday, relatable, to say. Even though it wasn't completely amazing it was quite nice to read and wasn't far too complex like some tales seemingly have to be. It could be better in some ways with a better tone to it maybe describing the cold floor and sudden uncomfort due to lack of Sunday night sleep you know? Just not enough detail and not that much effort. You're new to the site meaning I should tell you that you shouldn't rush any tale or SCP and always put it on critique forum before posting it. Hope this was somewhat helpful, I'm not exactly a veteran here.

No Vote For Now

Don't Self Upvote Please! This will get you more downvotes and is against site rules!

Also noting they've made a few somewhat-problematic edits on others' articles:

• SCP-2828, changed mnestic to amnestic. Deci fixed and added a note.
• SCP-2176, (currently in the negatives) made some formatting fixes with edit comment "Added a tonne of formatting fixes for you Zack." Of note, the image block was incorrectly placed, bolding on experimental logs wasn't complete, capitalization in titles wasn't fixed, and the bolded titles did not immediately precede text. The effort is appreciated, but I think it might be better to encourage the guy to let someone more familiar with the formatting help fix it?

Of note, they left this comment when the author of the article they helped with formatting for thanked them:

+ show block

Yeah no problem, I didn't want you to get instant floods of downvotes just because of certain formatting errors such as forgetting to bold main titles. I'd recommend having more looks at this to get better at formatting your SCP, using bold letters, italics, making the rating module right and other minor - possibly major things.

To add information I think the experiments are strange and don't go into anywhere near enough information on them and seem kind of pointless to be there to be honest and don't add much but make the reader sigh, but I think the idea has somewhat potential and originality. I should be saying this on the forums to be honest, you can easily PM (private message) a moderator or veteran of the site to give you critique which you needed more of. You can even PM people like myself to give you some advice on your SCP but it isn't ready, be patient and gather the information to make it a success, it's a challenge that requires attention and effort but most of all patience. It's of the essence.

By the way, a tip of advice is to use ALT-219 (Numbers on numpad) to create █ instead of just expunging or redacting small text and it shouldn't be [data expunged]/[redacted] but [DATA EXPUNGED]/[REDACTED]

I'm betting that this is just another case of overexuberance (also, note their profile says "I am Jack, skilled in history/science and first person shooters are a taste of mine. On SCP Foundation wiki.") and possibly ESL? Either way, keep an eye on. I don't think they'd need much more than a nudge, but I'm not too sure about them giving feedback in PMs.

Last edited on 11 Dec 2015 03:22 by Zyn Show more

Re: JackIsScience

MrWrong 22 Dec 2015 01:15

Posting this at request of Zyn (and this was the assignment she gave me)…

A list of the forum posts by JackIsScience that have resulted in another user (both staff or regular member) needing to correct them:

Post	Corrected by	Details
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1483262/new-and-first-scp#post-2427747	MrWrong	Tried to correct 'mnestics' when it should 'amnestics' (the draft involved anti-memes, so my response highlighted that 'mnestics' should be correct) and suggested to OP to PM a moderator to validate if a draft is "up to standard for posting"; I corrected these two points; JackIsScience edited their post and removed the issues I have raised.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1481226/scp-j#post-2425727	Dr Hysteria	Directed OP to the Site Rules to their draft; Hysteria apparently finds it out-of-context since it does not pertain to SCP writing directly and the draft in question have no gore or porn or no signs of outright plagiarism.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1474515/the-unreasonable-dr-bosch#post-2421576	Kalinin	Suggested to OP to write about an anomalous clothing/furniture instead of an anomalous researcher as a solution to make the SCP less "uninteresting; Kalinin highlighted it as "nonsensical advice"; JackIsScience later removed that bit via edit.

Regarding the user's behaviour (after reading his forum comments and O5 thread), I will take note of apparent cluelessness on his part, based on his confusion of 'amnestics' and 'mnestics' and advice to have mods critique drafts. That said, 'amnestics' and 'mnestics' tend to be confused easily as seen in other articles that use the latter.

Quoting from the second collapsible:

you can easily PM (private message) a moderator or veteran of the site to give you critique which you needed more of.

And his later post which I had corrected:

I'd recommend private messaging a mod to read and verify that it's to standard for posting

Comparing the two, the first is not wrong (as in, one can PM a mod/staff for draft critique, although mods and veterans are not obligated to reply calls of draft critiques). The second implies the need for mods to check if SCP drafts are fit for posting. Although mods can be PMed to look through drafts, I find fault with JackIsScience's specific mention of "mod" which could be misleading to another user.

Overall, I find JackIsScience to be somewhat clueless. They seem to be conscientious of the things that needed others to correct them for, as noted by the edits to some of the posts above. However, they also seem to suffer from "not learning from past mishaps" and repeated his misconceptions (re: 'amnestics'-'mnestics' and 'request mod for draft review').

I don't feel a cease-and-desist is high priority for JackIsScience for now, although if they show that they really don't learn from past mistakes again, cease-and-desist may happen.