User talk:Jpheonix

June 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Dungeon Siege III, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. So Why 12:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC) I gave a reliable a source but there were complaints that it was related to piracy, and the user keeps reverting my changes so what do you suggest, is there some kind of supervisor that can hear me out?--Jpheonix (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source was not reliable, so the removal was correct. Instead of edit-warring about this, you should use the talk page to discuss this information first. Wikipedia is built upon consensus and that means that there are no "supervisors". There are admins, such as myself, however, who have the ability to block you from editing or lock the page down if you insist to edit-war, so I advise you to stop your behavior now or you will not be able to contribute to the article anymore before long. Sometimes in life you just have to accept that your opinion is not shared by others or that your actions violate the rules. If you don't, it will have consequences, on Wikipedia just as in real life. Regards So Why 14:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dungeon Siege III. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. So Why 14:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, i have hundreds of sources of proof for what i wrote but you dont like what i wrote so you will try and silence me, rest assured Mr. Admin this was not the way Wikipedia was meant to function and you do not have the right to censor and threaten the contributors in this way. I find it is you who is abusing the rules and your power instead of helping my contribution by using it against me - i have no choice but to reach out the the apropriate channels, good day.--Jpheonix (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dungeon Siege III leaks Rehevkor ✉ 16:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it, you will not win by simply abusing the system, that information deserves to be on that page I suggest you think outside your box for a moment--Jpheonix (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is you that is 'abusing the system': WP:3RR is policy, as are multiple other considerations here. As for 'thinking outside the box', why should we - you provide no reason why we should. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a game-pirate's blog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you not feel that the first release of the game is encyclopedically correct? I think you mean because it happens to be from a leaked source that it is controversial--Jpheonix (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —DoRD (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

In addition, please see WP:NOTNEWS for another reason the edits are inappropriate. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD I don't see how you can call that news, on any game page release information is given, if it happens to be early because of a leak does that mean we should sensor it? if that is a reason you ae against my addition i challenge you to a small debate on the subject.--Jpheonix (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it meet WP:EVENT? Even if so, Wikipedia is not a guide to instruct people how to steal someone's intellectual property. —DoRD (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? If an Admin is going to be so close minded about a subject like this I dont know but arbitration might be down the line, at no point did i facilitate anyone stealing intellectual property and not only that but you have no proof of that you are just speculating or giving a biased opinion nothing more, i gave no link or directed anyone to that. It is like writing about a gunshot murder with a colt .45 and someone goes and buys it, you accuse that writer of promoting colt .45 murders just by giving them the idea. Im sorry but your argument is fallacious.--Jpheonix (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those that care to help i have an example "(Redacted)" which provides a source but also is very detailed and provides links to users on how to get a torrent, finding a source without any link whatsoever may be possible but its very difficult, is there a way to bypass so that no links are given.--Jpheonix (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source is not usable, not only does it not appear to be a reliable source by our guidelines, it makes no mention of a leak, never mind an early one, and it provides links to the game, which violates WP:COPYLINK. Ideally, we need a source from a reputable gaming publication. Sites that actually release these games are not acceptable in any way. It's starting to seem that no usable sources for this exist, perhaps it's time to drop the stick and at the very least wait for these sources too appear. Rehevkor ✉ 17:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes perhaps, the thing is I have seen the type of sites that report this kind of this that would be acceptable but as you say it might take time, I just didnt want the community to miss out on pertinent information.--Jpheonix (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all "pertinent" information is appropriate for inclusion here, this an encyclopaedia not a news/community outlet, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 17:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reh I have read all that I understand, what information I am providing is new to these game pages but it does belong there, with an open mind.. as you can see though change never comes easy--Jpheonix (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be under the impression this is something new to me, I don't think there's much more I can say to assure you it's not :P Rehevkor ✉ 18:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to cite a credible reference proving the similarity :P --Jpheonix (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I think i should be unblocked for the 24hour block because I am working in the talk page (Dungeon siege III) with the consensus to provide an adequate source that does not offend anyone, as i am working with them and not against them i think it is premature to block at this point Jpheonix (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't appear to be working with them at all. This is clearly edit warring, and you were well aware of the policy. Kuru (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

To see how I am being treated unfairly by the above admin, please review the talk page of "Dungeon Siege III" where at the time i was being blocked i was working with users who the above admin did not take the time to review.Jpheonix (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 08:08, 12 June 2011 (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.