Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines/Archive 4

Page protected
Due to edit warring on both sides over the inclusion of certain external links, I've fully protected the page. I'll keep an eye on the discussion here to see what, if anything, gets agreed upon while the page is protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but why did you replace the disputed links prior to locking the page? Do you honestly feel that this is acceptable behavior on your part? Can you now see why a growing number of people, myself included, are strongly beginning to suspect that Tessera's claims of bias on the part of the Wikipedia staff are indeed justified? This is highly irregular, to say the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 11:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see that in the history? As far as I can tell he locked the article on it's last current edit - which is standard practice. So I'm not sure what is 'irregular' about his actions? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? He knew that those citations were in dispute. By now half of the world probably knows it, after all of this ongoing debate about it. And still, the overriding issue has not been properly addressed, nor has it been remedied. We have the approval of FisherQueen, a Wikipedia staff member, to include the citations which refer to Tessera's patch. We have highly specific citations in fact, which are indeed superior to those being used to justify the inclusion of Wesp's patch. We have unimpeachable sources and plenty of valid links. So why does this issue continue to be left unresolved by the Wikipedia staff? Anyone who is reading this would conclude that one patch does indeed seem to be getting shut out of the article, for reasons unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 11:28, 25 August 2010


 * As the large grey banner on the article says, protection of a particular revision is not an endorsement of said revision. We have to protect some revision, and it's alway The Wrong Version to someone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He stated that he was locking the article until this issue had been resolved, did he not? Thus he has made it clear that he is aware of the dispute and the reasons which underlie it. To lock the page with the disputed material intact is a clear case of breach of trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

When an admin protects a page due to edit-warring, the standard action is to protect it at the last version and let people settle the dispute on the talkpage. That's what Thumperward has done - if he had reverted to an earlier version that would have been taking sides and that's not permitted for an admin in that context. His actions were in line with policy. Your suggested action would have left him open to accusations of taking sides. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He is taking sides by not including the UGO citation which has already been acknowledged. Why does this issue continue to be ignored? You can keep telling people that black is white all day long, if you want to. But each time that you have been asked -why- the UGO reference for the True Patch, as well as a pertinent download link have not been added to the article in question, you continue to deflect the issue with rhetoric. Why?

It's not rhetoric - the protecting administrator cannot take sides by choicing one version over another, he or she is suppose to protect whatever version of the article exists when they arrive at the article. What is difficult to understand about this? if your version of the article was the last version when Thumperward had got here, that is the version he should have protected. This is standard procedure - how is it taking sides to follow our standard procedures in such situations? I do not think I can make this any clearer or simpler to understand - the protecting admin should protect whatever version exists when he gets there, nothing more, nothing less. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The part which I do not understand is the part where the prevailing party continues to be catered to, and the other party continues to be shut out. The proper course of action would be to remove -all- of the items which are in dispute, until an equitable solution has been reached. That's the way mature and responsible people do things in this world... unless they are operating with some sort of biased agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talk • contribs) 12:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think this is an exceptional situation. We protect pages every day in the middle of disputes, and every single time it happens someone screams that we have protected The Wrong Version (go and have a read of the page, which was written precisely because this is so common). Quite what agenda Wikipedia is supposed to have here is not clear, even if Wikipedia's admins really were being given instructions on the matter: from a look through some of the stuff written about it, apparently Wikipedia is in collusion with Activision to ensure that Bloodlines players never get to really enjoy the game... because this somehow makes Activision money? Or because the guy who wrote the other patch is slipping up brown envelopes full of money? Anyway, all we're doing here is following a protection policy which was drawn up to be impartial and perfected over far more important disputes than a bug-ridden video game. That's not going to change based on anything said here, so it would be better to concentrate on the actual substance of the dispute. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, first you say, "you must have a reliable source", then when someone cites a very reliable source http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EEZZFFVuVuJxmJgfss.php you say "not good enough" then protect the article. Make up your damn minds, which is it, the game banshee site is just as reliable a source as anything that Wesp5 has posted, and the PC Gamer sources are nothing but foot notes not full articles I say you should remove the patches scrolls link as well, then watch the feathers fly Schu2 (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So Wesp, now you are dictating on what or how, we can use as "reliable sources", Are you a moderator here now. Seem to me you are. Now to all the "True Moderators", just say so, instead of beating around the bush. Are 'THEY' of are they 'NOT' reliable, I want to here it ALL of you, not just ONE. Yea or Nae, Yes or NO. Which is it. Let me know if they are not. Because, I WILL give more sources, 'NO', I will bombard you with every "bit" of "info" that I have found so far. I will be waiting for your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perez007usa (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a moderator here nor can I dictate what "reliable sources" are. In fact my own patch links got removed here and elsewhere by the same people, because I didn't know enough about Wikipedia protocols. I'm learning the hard way and so should you. Wesp5 (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To Wesp5;I quest your in the same boat as we are, "If the shoe fits"... I still haven't heard from the Wiki people about the sources. Two says yes, others says no. Which is it? Oh! by the way, my Encyclopedia Britannia has footnotes all over the place. I will be waiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perez007usa (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tessmage links
I have entered Tessmage.com into the patches. ALL sabotage and drama seems to come from the Unofficial Patch camp and Wesp5's crew. As someone who's tried and likes BOTH camps, I feel the article should show BOTH patches in the essence of fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BazYat (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sabotage? Please, assume good faith. I'd really not repeat the crap that is above, but consensus should be gained on a particular link before it is added to the article. This is exactly how drama is avoided, we call it the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, got reverted, now it should be discussed. I believe the patches-scrolls site was linked as a compromise, as it contains links to various patches and mods and is independent of them. Tessmage.com is mostly porn. Bad porn. What little information that was there was deleted after the operator threw a wobbly over this Wikipedia page and the free advertising they were denied. LxRv (a.ka. Rehevkor) 21:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Tessmage.com is mostly porn. Bad porn."

I beg your pardon..? Where exactly is this "porn" of which you speak..? Are you inferring that Tessera's nude artwork, produced entirely by hand, should universally be regarded as "porn..?" Despite the fact that the very same artwork has been recognized and published within a major European gaming publication..? Because if that is indeed your attitude (as it clearly seems to be), then I would advise you to stay out of art museums. They frequently feature nude paintings and sculptures, some of which are inferior to the quality of the artwork which can be seen on tessmage.com. But let's just get this issue out into the open once and for all, shall we..? Because you have just revealed the underlying reason for why there has been such an obvious level of bias and hostility being displayed here, against the True Patch and its authors. The fact of the matter is: you do not wish to see any references and links to an external site which features nudity, due to innate feelings which have arisen out of your own rather sad case of sexual repression. Do not bother to deny it, any of you... because your consistently irrational behavior throughout this entire conflict has made it quite clear that my assessment is essentially correct. And of course, it also makes it quite clear that acting in "good faith" is the last thing on your minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.44.165 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For all the reasons in previous discussions, no. They're in the archives, please read through them and respond to the points made there.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 02:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One person's artwork is other's porn. Go figure. That's just one person's opinion, but consensus is still against including the link regardless. Also, until you retract that curious personal attack I have nothing more to say to you.  Я ehevkor ✉  12:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note - Editor BazYat is engaging in meatpuppetry here, and the IP 68.199.44.165 is the banned editor Tessmage, the author of the patch they want to include mention of. Eik Corell (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * *Yawn* Usual crap from Tessmage who whines because everyone doesn't kowtow to him and he can't get his way.  RBI the whole mess.  They know damn well the criteria.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6SZCPhuaB?url=https://www.gamestakers.com/interviews/david-mullich to https://www.gamestakers.com/interviews/david-mullich
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129122658/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=169683 to http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=169961
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6XoiNJP9e?url=http://www.pcgamer.com/the-pc-gamer-top-100/ to http://www.pcgamer.com/best-pc-horror-games/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcgamer.com/best-pc-horror-games/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150727230730/http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/07/27/best-horror-games/3/ to http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/07/27/best-horror-games/3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Grünfeld Bach
I have edited this part, because at no point in the entire game it is disclosed where exactly Grünfeld Bach originates from. Please keep in mind that there are several Countries in Europe where german is spoken; For instance, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, etc. Judging from the accent alone, it is not clear if German is his first language anyway, he might be as well dutch, swedish, etc. Furthermore it isn't disclosed whether he's catholic either, although it's fairly obvious that the cult is based on catholic christian values. I've kept that part, since it's already ambigious as it is.

Please, try not to jump unto conclusions here too much, and research these little things before adding them. Wheatstack (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Image in Development section is too small to see anything
In the section on Development, there is a picture showing the changes that occurred in the development process. However, it's too small to make out anything, especially in the upper part, since the maximum size is 219 × 350 pixels. I see that the images in the citation are much larger. Is there some reason why we can't use a larger version? -Thunderforge (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about minimal extent? If so, then is it still minimal extent if you can't see anything in it? I can't see anything in Jeanette's face in the upper part. I think it needs to be a bit bigger to convey the information. Not a whole lot, but big enough to at least see the whites of her eyes. -Thunderforge (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)