M wikifacts
Welcome edit
|
July 2014 edit
Not how it works edit
"Nathan technically my edit stays up until a consensus is reached..not the other way around. The information previously listed was invalid/erroneous"
You added information and then you were reverted. What you do then is go to the talk page and ask for clarification to reach consensus. Instead you disruptively edited and just reverted the person before you. You say you want to reach consensus then please do so by joining the talk page instead of continuing your Edit War. You are not exempt from the rules. The current sourcing you use are primary and blogs/forums. They are not reliable in the slightest. Please find reliable secondary sources the next time you will be probably reverted again. Also read the warnings above. and read the welcome message and all the links within. You not have the consensus at the moment you have three editors that disagree with what you are saying. NathanWubs (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Let's Play (video gaming)#Origin of "Let's Plays" edit
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Let's Play (video gaming)#Origin of "Let's Plays". Thanks. APerson (talk!) 00:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
M wikifacts, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi M wikifacts! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
July 2014 edit
Your recent edits to Talk:Let's Play (video gaming) could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- This block is also for generally inappropriate conduct in the dispute you are involved in at Talk:Let's Play (video gaming), as well as violating policy by edit-warring on the article itself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
M wikifacts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is a clear abuse of administration. The users involved within the edit on the Talk page had me blocked to pass along their erroneous form of historical context without proper policy related to Consensus, of which I had to agree upon. They also, during the Consensus discussion, kept on editing the page without formal Consensus, and threatened 'Blocking' of access constantly when I provided formal accurate reason to not place their edits. Because this is currently my only resource to state the appropriate inaccuracies of their actions I will now dictate my final post that was meant for the Talk page. Well we can agree that I was wrong when I stated 2006, just now, was listed within the book on Page 62?UNIQ1c6c70b4d546b05e-nowiki-00000004-QINU?1?UNIQ1c6c70b4d546b05e-nowiki-00000005-QINU?, and my entire argument is not incorrect. Also, don't forget, you had stated it within your original edit Masem, and stated it as fact, of which I had to discuss with you in here to have you remove it. Your previous error of this date that we discussed caused confusion on my part. This is a perfect example of how poor editing towards referenced material can cause confusion. I hope you realize that. As for what was stated earlier on, the date is a very important factor in this History section. That is happenstance of the section of History. To ignore it and allow a resource that has a known falsehood is also acting in a blind manner. The 2007 date is seen as inaccurate by archives of not only Michael 'Slowbeef' Sawyer's blog entry?UNIQ1c6c70b4d546b05e-nowiki-00000007-QINU?2?UNIQ1c6c70b4d546b05e-nowiki-00000008-QINU?, of which we cannot trust directly due to our investigation earlier on within the formal server archives?UNIQ1c6c70b4d546b05e-nowiki-0000000A-QINU?3?UNIQ1c6c70b4d546b05e-nowiki-0000000B-QINU?, and the actual archive itself of 'Something Awful' which they mention dates to 2006, which is stated within the website itself, that we also cannot verify because it doesn't exist. We also have to negate the facts of the games in question as the investigated archive of Michael 'Slowbeef' Sawyer predates the magazines information. The magazine acts as a resource. We can agree on this. But there is nothing that is factual about it in regards to dates and the content. Just words and pictures. It's a blind publication that the columnist did not perform appropriate investigative research towards. We, as editors, cannot allow falsities towards historical context. That is manipulating facts. We cannot do that. Also, discussions are here. Not elsewhere. I don't admire offensive gossip. As for the collective accounts that have worked together to abuse policy on the Let's Play (video gaming) Article within the Talk section in regards to ignoring Consensus and constantly editing without Consensus approval, I can only say, from my observation, this action of ignoring and editing information without formal Consensus is being used as a promotional tool for the website 'Something Awful' and the individual Michael 'Slowbeef' Sawyer to legitimize themselves at this point in regards to a possible future patent, copyright, or trademark of the term 'Let's Play' and it's Origin that they wish to perform towards monetary gain and false legitimacy, that has been investigated upon within the Talk section, which has been proven to have no bearing of fact, but a mere rumor towards the term 'Let's Play'. I cannot stress enough how much this is a blatant disregard and manipulation, even before I was blocked, toward Historical context when we are dealing with a community resource such as Wikipedia. Even if I remain blocked, I request a neutral positioned Historical Editor, similar to that of myself, to approach this with a fine tooth comb. The actions being taken by these individuals is an adolescent and amateur action of editing. This cannot be ignored. We are dealing with Phrase ownership, with conflicting dates, conflicting information, conflicting facts, and of course manipulative editors. Irregardless of anything that I had posted previously within the Article, of which I had personally discounted for a proper rewrite as more resources are coming to light, still does not allow the action of these collective editors' entry to be valid. The data is incorrect as they have chosen to ignore my statements constantly in regards to that fact, which is against policy when Consensus is needed in the Talk section. I had stated where they were discussing myself in the Project section that we were beyond legal action. Which in turn meant, it was behind us, and problems were pushed aside as I believe headway was starting to occur towards them understanding and no longer them being accusatory in a false sense in the Consensus Discussion, which there was no need for them to be. It should be mentioned, civility was ignored on their part first when they laid claim to false accusations towards myself. There was no need for another editor to defame another in a Consensus Discussion. I should also mention that I was in the process of Reporting the Page and Consensus users as the page was constantly being abused outside of the Consensus Discussion, and even within it by Editors and Unknown Users. I propose the History section be completely removed, as well as having the Let's Play (video gaming) page completely locked to prevent obvious ongoing abuse. M wikifacts (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Even though I did read the above comments, I would really advise reading WP:TLDR. Without prejudice to other aspects of the block, you will not be unblocked while a legal threat stands. You said "Accusations into the matter will not be tolerated. You are approaching a legal matter at this point if these accusations are persistent. You have been warned." To Salvidrim's mind (and now mine too), that constitutes a threat of legal action or process, and under WP:NLT you are correctly blocked from editing. There can be no progress on other matters until that perceived threat is withdrawn or convincingly explained as not being in violation of NLT.Peridon (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
M wikifacts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The statement that was stated within the Talk page, was withdrawn on the wikiproject page? to prevent the blockage that was being accused on me. The statements are still withdrawn even though I know these rogue editors are choosing to ignore formal consensus. Also, why is it that within any 'Recreation', or 'Game' section, there is no formality or politeness towards a logical Consensus Discussion, to work together towards accuracy of historical context within group shared research anymore? I just came back, and I remember the days when we all used to work together for a few days, or a couple weeks, on several articles (not necessarily in this 'Game' section) to make sure no company can underhand a section or article like this, presumably for the courts. The moment I proposed working together to benefit each other to these editors, they called out to others to provoke me constantly and railroad me. I am all for working together, but I am incredibly speculative after these events of even looking at that article again from all the unknown accounts that arrived and became involved for both of those parties. I will say, that if you choose to unblock me, and if these editors choose to do this to me again in another section entirely, that has nothing to do with this particular topic or article, I will literally leave Wikipedia permanently and you all will be losing an asset. I am not paid (anymore). I donate my time these days. M wikifacts (talk) 3:06 pm, 31 July 2014, last Thursday (7 days ago) (UTC+1)
Decline reason:
Without a clear retractions of the threat of legal action (Woodroar, below, is correct: "We are beyond that now" does not constitute a retraction) you will not be unblocked. I am also concerned by the statement, "I am not paid (anymore)" - should we take this to indicate that you were previously receiving reimbursement for your edits here? I can't see any other interpretation. Yunshui 雲水 11:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
- (edit conflict)The statement "We are beyond that now" is not a clear withdrawal of a legal threat. The admins are looking for something like "I'm sorry, I do not intend to pursue any legal action either now or in the future, and will utilize proper dispute resolution procedures going forward" (in your own words, of course). Should an admin unblock you, redacting your legal threat at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Some help needed at Let's Play (video gaming) would be a further show of good faith. There is a thorough guide to appealing blocks that I would suggest reading if you intend to appeal again, such as apologizing for the actions that led to your block rather than commenting on other editors. I really do hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
M wikifacts (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Yunshui, in a previous account ages ago, when Wikipedia needed people like myself to get their website moving, I performed work for multiple companies for their Articles whom wanted to be noticed within Wikipedia before formal policies were even enacted. This was completely within policy then, and you know this, just like the other Editors and Administrators had done at the time back then. By you perpetrating to the allusion that I am accepting some sort of endorsement NOW for making an edit on a non-company page for this article is another act of defamation that I am really getting tired of and upset about. Sure, I withdraw my statements that I had made, as I always had, for the 3rd (or is it the 4th) time in a row now. But this adolescent behavior by the Administrators and Editors is, and I want this on the record, Ridiculous, and you know it. I edited within policy. The other editors/administrators didn't, especially when I stated as such within the Consensus discussion for them to stop and discuss Consensus before constantly changing the main article for public view, which they didn't, which kept bringing in more anonymous people to confuse and pollute the Talk section. There were even other editors in the Talk section whom stated, before I even arrived, earlier known works on previous dates from notable Publishers such as PC Gamer that recognized these two individuals, on specific dates even, which negates their article entries entirely and outs these Administrators and Editors as having a clear COI by ignoring these other Editors, even when they constantly threatened me with a block. This WHOLE thing is completely Ridiculous and offensive. Those other Editors that were stepped on kept their mouth shut every time these rogue Editors and Administrators brought up me being blocked, and I don't blame them. But this has to end now. This, as I have said, is Ridiculous and needs fixing. Those other Editors and Administrators, by pursuing this constant love affair with this Article for that company's website being acknowledged within it, along with that particular individual they constantly want to include all the time, by not even obeying policy for Consensus, nearly makes them suspect to some sort of endorsement when there is an obvious connection with a Published Magazine (Pc Gamer) in September 2004, with the individuals that the previous Editors mention. M wikifacts (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)