User talk:Tessmage

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks)

I notice that you and another user disagree about the best version of

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Have you read

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you continue to make

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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