User talk:Wesp5

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, Wesp5, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

VtMB patch

Hi, I'm curious about something. Do you think it would be fair to say that the unnoficial patch's gameplay changes are, regardless of people's personal opinions; originally intended to restore balance as well as for "consistency"? I know this seems like a non Wikipedia related question but it's regarding the article Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. --86.135.81.217 18:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was indeed the intention for some of the changes as well. Wesp5 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, only add links to Wikipedia that meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. I appreciate that your web site is probably very useful to players of this game, but since Wikipedia is not a game guide but an encyclopedia, you should only add links that meet Wikipedia's external links criteria, and leave it to the game guides to add links to fan-created content. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but The Patches Scrolls is not my web-site. You can get the patches from several places now, The Patches Scrolls is only the most reliable that I know. Wesp5 (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Wikipedia's verifiability policy is very clear- only information that can be verified from reliable independent sources can be used in an article, in order to keep Wikipedia as reliable as possible. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game guide: its articles answer the question "What is Bloodlines?" not "How can I play Bloodlines?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Patches Scrolls is a reliable independent source in my opinion and I'm not affiliated at all with it, besides that it hosts my patches like thousands of others. Wesp5 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read the reliable source guidelines yet, I take it? What's needed isn't a site that hosts patches, but some sort of published source that writes about them- a game magazine, for example, or a book. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read the discussion yet, I take it? Because the western game magazines haven't even acknowledged that the game was released at all. So how should there be an article about it's patches? I give up. I hope you are glad you were able to withold important information for anyone actually interested in the game because it isn't mainstream enough for western game magazines. I always thought Wikipedia was supposed to avoid such a censorship by ignorance of the majorty...

There's no censorship, but the verification policy is one of the basic rules of Wikipedia, and I don't have the authority to make it go away. It is, however, acceptable to use sources from other countries. What language are the available sources in? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All available sources are in Russian which the other guy always deleting my editions doesn't accept as well. Of course you won't find the English translation patch mentioned there because why should the Russians bother? Do you see my dilemma? I know the game exists, I created the patch myself but as long as the western game magazines ignore the game, Wikipedia ignores it too because of the likes of you. Some Russian sources are: http://www.russobit-m.ru/catalogue/item/predtechi/ and http://www.ag.ru/reviews/precursors.

If none of the available sources discuss the patch, then there's no reason for Wikipedia to discuss the patch, and that's okay. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is simply to explain what the game is, not to provide technical support for it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are contradicting yourself. If there would be a reliable source discussing the patch it would suddenly be okay for Wikipedia, right? Any info about the patch would show that it is possible to play the game in English even though it wasn't released in that language. This is a very important information regarding the game itself which you are withholding right now! Wesp5 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if a reliable source discusses the patch, then that would meet Wikipedia's verifiability rule. Of course, even then it would be better if you didn't add it, since you are the creator of the patch, and have a conflict of interest regarding it. As you can see, your close connection to the patch causes you to put writing about it ahead of following Wikipedia's rules- that's why we all try to avoid writing about subjects in which we have a personal interest- it can be really upsetting when others disagree with us about such subjects. Better to just let someone who doesn't have any personal connection to the patch read about it in a reliable source, and write about it based on what's in that source. Then you can focus your attention on writing about subjects that you are able to write about in a neutral way. I can see that you never got the friendly welcoming message that has the helpful links to these rules, so if you didn't go looking for them yourself, I can see why you're unfamiliar with them, I'll put the welcome message here now, so you'll have easy access to the most important rules you should know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I am the only reliable source about the patch right now, so thanks very much. Wesp5 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome- feel free to ask if there are any other questions about Wikipedia policy. I don't know everything, but I know a lot, and I know where to ask about what I don't know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that was irony... Wesp5 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still true. I'm completely happy to help you understand and follow Wikipedia's rules. If that isn't what you want, I'm completely happy to enforce Wikipedia's rules fairly. That's really all I can do; if you think Wikipedia's rules should be changed, that has to happen through community discussion and be universally applied, not just changed this once because you want to talk about your own work on one specific article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have problems with the Wikipedia rules but with your interpretation of them. The rules ask for reliable sources but you decide which these are supposed to be in your own discretion. Also the whole plot/gameplay/factions section have no reliable sources other than the game itself, still all of you accept it. Wesp5 (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Precursors (video game), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thanks!

Sources

Right, you seem to have learned nothing from the various talk page discussions. A link to a download page is not a reliable source. I'm just about to run out the door, so I don't have time to write a big comment, so in the meantime please read the entire verifiability article and the entire reliable sources article. Also, you can assume for the moment if the source isn't on this page, then it's not reliable (it may be, even if it's not listed, but use that page as a guide). You also appear to have completely ignored the conflict of interest warning I posted above, so you should probably read that article too. Thanks! Fin ©™ 11:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I still have problems to judge which sources are considered reliable so the list you provided is a big help. Blues News is on it, so I have added it's link to the article. Is that okay? I'm aware of the conflict of interest, but I can't help it that I made this patch myself and I earn nothing whatsoever by publishing it. Wesp5 (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]