User talk:M wikifacts
Welcome
|
July 2014
Not how it works
"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"
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)Template:Z48
M wikifacts, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
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
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:
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) 14:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The statement that was stated within the Talk page (1 Legal provoked threat which has been miscounted, I presume deliberately), was withdrawn on the wikiproject page[1] 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. [[User:M wikifacts|M wikifacts]] ([[User talk:M wikifacts#top|talk]]) 14:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=The statement that was stated within the Talk page (1 Legal provoked threat which has been miscounted, I presume deliberately), was withdrawn on the wikiproject page[1] 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. [[User:M wikifacts|M wikifacts]] ([[User talk:M wikifacts#top|talk]]) 14:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=The statement that was stated within the Talk page (1 Legal provoked threat which has been miscounted, I presume deliberately), was withdrawn on the wikiproject page[1] 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. [[User:M wikifacts|M wikifacts]] ([[User talk:M wikifacts#top|talk]]) 14:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}