User talk:M wikifacts

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). Thanks. APerson (talk!) 00:34, 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)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. 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!   ·  &#9993;  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!   ·  &#9993;  02:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 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)