User talk:Vertisis

February 2013

Hello, I'm 99.12.243.171. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 99.12.243.171 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 99.12.243.171. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Edge Games, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Edge Games, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. czar ♔ 18:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest

Hello. It'd help the conversation at Talk:Edge Games if you could explicitly clarify whether or not you have a conflict of interest with regards to the company, just so we know where we all stand. Having a connection to the company is fine, it just means you should follow WP:COIADVICE and largely avoid editing the article directly, although you'd still be welcome to remove material that "unambiguously violates the biography of living persons policy". --McGeddon (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate you answering this before making any more direct edits to the article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts.

Please sign any post you make on a talk page, it makes life for everyone else so much easier. If you need help, please read WP:SIGHOW which explains how to do it. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X201, Czar agreed to the proposed changes, and I believe you only asked for clarification of the three cites (being the same 3 already in the article) -- can I now make the changes or did you have a further comment to make? Vertisis (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Edge Games) for Edge Games.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Hello, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. Your every edit appears to be in regards to POV push views related to Edge. It doesn't really appear you're absorbing any of the advice or warnings given to you on our policies and guidelines related to sourcing, neutral writing, etc. It just looks like you're pushing a singular agenda without much subtlety.

Wikipedia is not the place to "Right Great Wrongs". It's not the place to settle grudges or whitewash history. And yet your every edit feels much more like that than someone interested in writing an encyclopedia.

So, I guess this is my way of saying "let's get this wrapped up". You're exhausting the community with all this, and you're not here for the right reasons. If you need to make a closing comment, great, but otherwise, it's time to move on to something else, as this is getting disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what you are referring to? I am an independent person not connected to EDGE Games who can see that the EDGE Games page is full of false statements and inaccurate statements. I have been presenting clear, well sourced, arguments as to why the page needs edits. In response, editors like ferret are refusing any edit even if it is supported -- as my proposed edits are -- by solid, reliable secondary sources. So why would I be blocked? Why am I being warned? I have no interest in a POV push. although those who edited the EDGE Games page some years ago clearly had a POV push to color EDGE and its CEO Langdell in a bad light, adding false statements to the page to make EDGE look bad. Trying to correct errors is an entirely legitimate exercise especially when, as with my suggestions, the proposed edits are backed by good cites. Indeed, as an admin, can you please help get this page back to its more neutral state it was in before it was hacked by POV persons in 2010? Vertisis (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, having initially refused to accept my proposed edit regarding when EDGE Games was founded, after many paragraphs of back and forth in talk ferret and the other editors finally took my point and made the change I was recommending.

So to reduce my suggested edits to being a POV push is unfair. I am just trying to get this page back to the neutral page it should be, before all the deliberately negative and false edits were made to it by those with POV push views. Vertisis (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, but you're clearly violating WP:IDHT all over the place. Please disengage, or yes, your account will be blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this violate WP:CANVASS too. Yet another reason to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are multiple, multi-paragraph responses throughout the day your idea of wrapping up and disengaging, or are you just flat out ignoring me now? Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock (re ferret); re Edge Games page

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vertisis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I corrected the date of formation of this company and was blocked. Discussion ensued in talk and the date was changed according to the information I drew editors attention to. There was thus no reason to block me. All we needed was a discussion in talk to agree the edit. Note that in 2014 I discussed edits to this same page and never did an edit others did not agree to. I was not blocked then as I acted in accord with guidelines at all times. I have acted in accord with editing guidelines at all times here since I explained and justified my edit. And eventually my edit was accepted in modified form Vertisis (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vertisis (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, there's a little history for you on this. We could not do partial blocks from pages back then, it was not a technical feature of the site yet. If the capability had existed for me to do so, I absolutely would have done one back then as well. -- ferret (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet as MrOllie noted when I first tried to edit the page at this time, what transpired in 2014 was, while contentious, an amicable exchange where we ended up agreeing on what edits would be done. All I was trying to do was correct errors noticed since 2014, not relitigate the same issues again. This is what MrOllie said:

"Note that the current version was heavily edited in 2014 at the prompting of Vertisis, a very long and contentious drafting process that resulted in a draft accepted by myself, Czar and Vertisis."

That does not sound like an incidence where it would have been remotely appropriate to block me editing, even if you had had that option back then, since we reached a draft accepted by all three of us. I note you were not involved in the final agreed edit in 2014, according to MrOllie. Vertisis (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never wrote anything of the sort. MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I copied and pasted without checking. The post was to MrOllie from Ferret:

Note that the current version was heavily edited in 2014 at the prompting of Vertisis, a very long and contentious drafting process that resulted in a draft accepted by myself, Czar and Vertisis. -- ferret (talk)

I thus amend what I said to clarify that having said this Ferret that does not reflect a member of 2014 where a reasonable consensus between you, Czar and me, following a lively discusssion, would have justified blocking me. Vertisis (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"..does not reflect a memory of 2014..." apologies for typo Vertisis (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal block all editing privileges (ScottishFinnishRadish)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vertisis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ScottishFinnishRadish did not give me any warning before blocking all my privileges (not just to a specific page). I have carefully followed guidelines on editing and never acted other than in accord. I have been having reasonable discussions in two pages' talk sections, and reasonable fact based discussion should not be blocked without good reason. There is no good reason here since open fact based discussion, with sources as I have been doing, should be encouraged not prevented. I did invite one other editor to join a discussion and it was not to encourage a specific view and I apologize if anyone thought that was what I was doing. I only wished a prior active editor on a page to rejoin the discussion should they wish to do so Vertisis (talk) 1:27 pm, 21 May 2023, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You had plenty of warnings that a block was coming. Please describe how your edits merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-- Deepfriedokra asked me to reply to him and the system tells me I can only do so by editing this appeal block. In reply to Deepfriedokra:

I was not blocked for editing anything as the record shows. I was blocked for having a discussion in "talk" about what future edits would be appropriate on two pages (EDGE GAMES and TRADEMARK TROLL). I was told my discussions of possible edits were being disruptive, but the discussions were entirely healthy exchanges of opinion, and in my case, at least, were supported by numerous secondary source cites to back my proposed changes. Nothing I was writing in the "talk" sections justified totally blocking me from writing in any talk section anywhere on Wikipedia. In the past we have had a number of editors join in "talk" and we only make an edit to the page when there is agreement to do so among the editors. We did this approach in 2014 for this same page. Other editors are currently being invited to join the discussion on these two pages "talk" sections and I see no justification for blocking me from taking part in the discussions given no edit would (or should) be made to either page without consensus of the editors discussing edits in "talk". Please reinstate me and let me continue the reasonable discussions. I was not doing edits when blocked and wasnt warned I'd be blocked because of edits I had made. I assure you I won't make edits to pages, I only wish to be part of the process of editors discussing potential future edits, which is a reasonable ask and not in any way contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Vertisis (talk)

Thanks, but I was not seeking a reply. Please make out a new unblock request. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Deepfriedokra I don't understand. You literally asked me to reply: "Please describe how your edits merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. Thanks."

Are you saying the only way I can give you that reply to your questions is to open a new unblock request? When I am being warned not to make numerous repeat unblock requests? This system doesn't make sense. Please clarify how I reply to your questions.Vertisis (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pings only work if they are done at the same time you signed your post, so DFO did not get your ping since you did not sign. That said, yes, that is exactly what you're being directed to do. The above unblock request is declined, so now you can open a new one heeding DFO's instructions to try again. I'll go ahead and give you a hint: You were asked to drop these topics repeatedly above by Sergecross, and did not. The fact you're not editing the articles (in fact, could not) and used the talk page does not lessen the disruption you were causing. Which is why 3 separate sysops have taken action against you or warned you of impending action against you. It's a good time to step back, before your next appeal, and ask yourself why it might be that everyone you're interacting with here hasn't accepted your sourcing or interpretations of them. Again, 3 sysops (Myself, Serge, and SFR) have warned and/or blocked you, and a fourth (DFO) has declined your first appeal because you fail to understand the nature of your warnings and block. -- ferret (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ferret Thank you for your response. I have now signed my prior entry and apologize for not doing so before. I will heed your advice and not appeal the block for the time being. However, deleting the perfectly good statement and cite that Langdell said he has only sued 2 people since 1990 was an unsupported edit that should be reversed. That was not a disagreement with my sourcing or interpretations, it was a simple fact that there is no source that shows the deleted statement was out of date and thus it should be put back in, in my opinion which I believe is neutral and unbiased.Vertisis (talk) .

Continuing to litigate the issue that got you blocked rather than making a proper appeal is unlikely to go in your favor. In regards to your claim though, it's simply wrong. The source made two statements: Edge Games also dismissed allegations that it's "lawsuit happy", stating that prior to 2009 it hadn't sued anyone other than Future. In fact, Edge Games itself was sued twice, once by Velocity Micro and once by Cybernet Systems.. It never said "Edge has only sued 2 people since 1990". So not only was the statement out of date, it was also unsourced and failed verification. -- ferret (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ferret Sorry but I cannot allow a clear error like that go uncommented on. Read further down the deleted cite and you will see it says: ""Edge does not make a habit of taking legal action over the Edge mark: in the past 20 years Edge has only ever taken only two legal actions: one against Future Publishing (in 1994) and a second against EA (in 2010) - and the latter was because Future required them to do so." So Langdell did state that it had only sued two people in the past 20 years. The deleted edit was entirely correct, WAS SUPPORTED by the cite (was sourced) and there is no reason to believe it is out of date since there is no more recent source mentioning any new lawsuits since 2011 when the source article was published. The deleted text and delete source should be put back. And if you are critical of my responding then you really do need to think about how you are editing pages since my recommendation was entirely reasonable and accurate and is not deserving of any rebuke. Vertisis (talk)

You're right on one part. I searched the article for "sue", not "legal action". My bad. However, these are still Langdell's direct personal claims, and ultimately irrelevant. The number of exact lawsuits is unimportant in that many many many sources document continual threats of lawsuits, with the Trademark dispute section noting more than 8 such cases. But none of this helps you appeal your block. -- ferret (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting involved in this, but I just want to point out how bad you're making yourself look from the viewpoint of a Wikipedia Admin.

I gave you a final warning about WP:IDHT and disengaging because your discussions were becoming disruptive.
You ignored me complete and kept going.
A second admin noticed your behavior as well, and independently came to the conclusion that your conduct was inappropriate, and blocked you.
You've been blocked for a few days and you're still not disengaging in the dispute.

I know it may not be intuitive to you, but from the "Wikipedia culture" perspective, this is a very bad sequence of events. Its hard to imagine a worse attempt to getting unblocked. I know you probably won't listen, but I can't help but tell you that you're not even close to being on the right track. If you want to get unblocked, there's all sorts of guidance at WP:UNBLOCK. What you're doing here is absolutely not the way though. Good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vertisis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sincerely sorry for not properly following guidelines and rules. If unblocked I will diligently follow all guidelines and rules going forward Vertisis (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is better, but please be more specific. Which rules did you violate? What will you change in the future? Many people say they will observe the rules and then go back to doing the exact same thing they were blocked for. To ensure that you understand the issues here, we need to see a specific reply. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request to remove block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vertisis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sincerely sorry for not properly following guidelines and rules. If unblocked I will diligently follow all guidelines and rules going forward. More specifically, I acknowledge that it appeared I was responding from a POV and trying to push an agenda, for which I deeply apologize and assure that I will not do it again. I also acknowledge that I had warnings about disengaging because it was perceived my posts were being disruptive, and that I made the gross error of not immediately disengaging and instead spending time trying to justify what I did which I now realize was very wrong of me. I will not do that again and while I sincerely do not believe any posts I would do in future would be considered disruptive, or POV/pushing an agenda, should I ever be asked to disengage I shall do so immediately when asked. Again, I deeply apologize and if reinstated will not commit any of these offences again.

Decline reason:

You're a COI only/spam only account. Even if you were sorry for the past problems, the risk of unblocking you at this point is greater than the potential benefits. Basically the only way you can be unblocked is by saying you'd only edit things completely unrelated to past edits such as the history of medieval European kale consumption (a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vertisis (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vertisis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sincerely sorry for not properly following guidelines and rules. If unblocked I will diligently follow all guidelines and rules going forward. More specifically, I acknowledge that it appeared I was responding from a POV and trying to push an agenda, for which I deeply apologize and assure that I will not do it again. I also acknowledge that I had warnings about disengaging because it was perceived my posts were being disruptive, and that I made the gross error of not immediately disengaging and instead spending time trying to justify what I did which I now realize was very wrong of me. I will not do that again and while I sincerely do not believe any posts I would do in future would be considered disruptive, or POV/pushing an agenda, should I ever be asked to disengage I shall do so immediately when asked. Again, I deeply apologize and if reinstated will not commit any of these offences again. And, responding to @TonyBallioni I commit to not editing the pages I was editing when I was blocked. In future I will edit other pages that I believe require editing, or will (more likely) make suggestions as to edits in the page's talk, seeking agreement from others before an edit is made in the main page itself. I cannot, though, commit to editing pages dealing with kale, that is too much to ask of me. Vertisis (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close due to non-response to my question below. User may open a new unblock request upon their return. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've already reviewed your appeal once. Another admin will review this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vertisis, if unblocked, what articles do you plan on editing? Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]