User talk:Tessmage

How to disagree

I notice that you and another user disagree about the best version of Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. Rather than repeatedly reverting each other, the next step is to stop and discuss your difference of opinion on the article's talk page, come to a consensus on what the best version of the article should say, and then make the changes you agree on together. Repeatedly reverting another user's edits is not a good substitute for discussion and consensus. Also, please don't use the term 'vandalism' to describe edits that are made in good faith to improve the article, even if you disagree with them. 'Vandalism' is when he replaces the article with a large picture of a penis. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

The user in question "Eik Corell," has a history of roaming all over the Wikipedia and deleting numerous references that he finds related to fan-made content for PC games. He is in fact an adolescent, who seems to be engaged in a one-man war against the proper dissemination of information. These are the same sorts of people who like to burn books. In the case of Bloodlines, this particular game happens to be UNPLAYABLE without the addition of a fan-made patch, due to the unfinished, buggy and downright broken state of the game upon its release. Furthermore, the publisher of Bloodlines (ActiVision) has totally failed to offer any official support of any kind whatsoever, aside from a modest patch which did nothing to fix the most critical bugs in the game. Therefore, the information regarding "unofficial patches" represents CRITICAL INFORMATION for Bloodlines players. It is not optional or unrelated... it is integral to the article itself. To omit that information would mean that the article would be INCOMPLETE in every sense of that term. Which in turn means that my usage of the term "vandalism" was accurate and I shall continue to reverse that vandalism if and as I discover it. No matter what. And so will the hundreds of members of my web site. Is that clear..? We will not permit the arbitrary censorship of information which is vital to all Bloodlines players.Tessmage (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the article's talk page. How is it that you are familiar with another user's history, when today is your first day on Wikipedia? In any case, the question is not whether these fan-made contents are good, but whether they are notable. Any user who sees discussion of fan-made content in an article that isn't accompanies by a reference to significant coverage of that content in a published source (like a review of the content in a gaming magazine) is quite right to remove it. Again, Wikipedia has a rule that requires civil behavior from everyone- you break that rule when you call someone a 'vandal' for correctly removing unsourced information. It is not helpful to send hundreds of members of your web site to add unsourced information to the article- just one person can add information to an article, with a source, and ten thousand cannot add unsourced information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

I have been using this Wikipedia since it was created. I did not start an account in my name until yesterday, however. I am a grown man, not a child. Now then... the information is notable because as I have told you twice, the game WILL NOT PLAY AT ALL without the addition of a fan-=made patch. Thus the patches are not only "nice and good," but are actually REQUIRED. They have become a part of the game itself and the original developers have acknowledged as much in interviews. Please educate yourself as to the specifics before you take it upon yourself to censor vital information from the public. And as I have just told you: every time one of you people tries to censor that article, me and my people will work together to restore it. No matter what. No matter how many times we need to reverse your vandalism. Because we know how important it is to preserve that info... where as you apparently do not. Period. Tessmage (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide or a how-to guide. Such web sites exist, and I agree with you that information that's necessary to play the game is important there. If this information is truly essential to playing this game, you need merely to find discussion of it in a reliable source, and add that source to the link you add (and, of course, to only add those links which can be so sourced.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

I -AM- THE RELIABLE SOURCE. I am the creator of the most critically required unofficial patch on this planet. It is not a "fun little add-on," or anything else of that nature. It is a vital and integral part of the game itself. Now please just find some other sandbox to play in. You will not be permitted to censor vital information from Bloodlines players, no matter what. If you need to play silly 'undo' wars, then let's have at it. We've been protecting that Wikipedia article ever since 2007 and we are not about to stop protecting it for ANY reason. In fact, I'm going to go post a call to arms right on the main page of my web site, right after I post this response. I hope you enjoy spending he next five weeks clicking your mouse until your chubby little fingers fall off, because that is exactly what you will end up doing if you keep sabotaging the information within that article.

Have you read Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources yet? You are not the source, but if, as you say, the game's creators have discussed this patch in published interviews, that would be a reliable source that would solve the problem. I don't know where those interviews are, but it sounds like you do- in the amount of time you've spent insulting me, threatening Wikipedia, and edit-warring, you could have added the necessary source that would solve the problem completely. This is why we have the civility rule - because rudeness does not solve any problem within an article, and often makes people so angry that they forget to do the simple things that could solve problems. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

Your censorship and vandalism has succeeded in angering 70,000 people today. And those troops are on the way, Sweet Pea. Soon you'll have a plethora of sources shoved right up your fat, incompetent ass. I hope carpal tunnel is something that you enjoy, you book burning little bastard.

If even one of those 70,000 people is willing to add a reliable source to the edit in question, then the information you want to add will be welcome in the article. I did burn a book once, but it was a very stupid book, and I needed kindling for my campfire. And I only burned the table of contents. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Final warning

If you continue to make personal attacks against other users, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on editors, and keep your comments polite. Avoid such terms as 'vandalism' and 'censor,' except in such cases when actual vandalism and censorship are occurring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

Fuck you, you sabotaging little pile of shit. Pray that we never meet.

This is all so pointless. You've already said that you have the reliable source that is needed to add information on your patch to Wikipedia. If you'll just tell me what it is, I'd cheerfully add the information to the article myself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Block requested

I have the ability to block you from editing myself, but I have asked for an uninvolved administrator to block you from editing, just to be sure that I'm being entirely fair. The discussion is here if you'd like to see it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Increased to indefinite, and talk page access removed, for threat of physical violence above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)