Wikipedia Needs To FAIL

[BazYat]

Fixed.

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines at Activision.com
Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines at MobyGames
Unofficial Patch at The Patches Scrolls
True Patch Gold at Tessmage.com

[Tessera]

Thank you, sir.  

And you can fully expect that Wesp and/or one of his acolytes will delete
your addition to the Wikipedia as soon as it comes to their attention.

It is what they have -always- done. And they will keep doing it, because
they feel very threatened by the existence of the TPG. They know that
we have a better patch than theirs... and they don't want anyone else
to know it. I realize how idiotic that sounds... but we are in fact talking
about a community of idiots, who have absolutely no sense of ethics.
Wesp can't beat us in quality... so he's been trying to beat us with a
bunch of false propaganda and malicious bullying instead.

...that makes it sound like Tess is hosting Wesp's patch. Which is somewhat less likely than being struck by lightning deep inside a cave.

The only thing I wanna host is some photographs of Wesp being anally raped
with an un-greased bowling pin, whilst simultaneously having his hair soaked
in lighter fluid and set on fire. But I'm not bitter -- really, I'm not.

 

[BazYat]

Already 'fixed'. May just keep on reverting it. Then launch off on a bias rant if it's changed.

[Tessera]

Let me warn you that there is a Wikipedia user named "Eik Corell" who happens to be a Wesp acolyte. He was a catalyst in the huge war that erupted on Wikipedia a couple of years ago and he will no doubt be responsible for starting it up again.

Just wanted to give you a heads-up... because they don't fight fair over there. Not at all. I appreciate your efforts... but you may end up deciding that it simply is not worth the hassle. That dickhead will constantly keep reverting any changes that you make. And eventually, he'll pull in the mods and if they follow the same pattern as they did once before, then they will end up siding with Wesp's camp and banning you from making any more edits.

But there are other ways to publicize the TPG. Simply mentioning it on as many VTMB-related gaming boards as possible is a good way. Sure, there are some nitwits who will try to turn it into a fight with you, but they can be ignored. Just post the facts... and then leave. Word-of-mouth will take care of the rest.

Incidentally, if you would REALLY like to know why the Wikipedia people are showing such bias and hostility towards our patch, then just look at the bottom of the Discussion page for their Bloodlines article.

You can see the -real- reason right there:


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

~ LxRv (a.ka. Rehevkor) 21:52, 28 December 2011


Once again, sexual repression rears its ugly head. "Rehevkor" used to be a moderator on Wikipedia. I don't know whether or not he is still a moderator, but I think his attitude is crystal clear. They don't want links to our site on the Wikipedia, because they do not wish to be hassled about providing links to a site which features nudity. Not even CGI nudity... which is rather hilarious to me.

Incidentally, when did nude video game characters become "porn..?" The mind boggles...  

My response to him... which will no doubt be edited out by those assholes soon after they see it...

"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)

[Ratcatcher]

What i find "funny" is that they say that "The Patches Scroll" was chosen as a compromise.
Then "someone" proceeded to get rid of any mention of the TPG from there.
 

[Tessera]

Well anyway, I have no interest in getting into another prolonged battle with the dipshits at Wikipedia. It serves no purpose, other than to infuriate me.

That entire organization is facing financial hardship right now, and I for one am delighted. I would like nothing better than to see them go bankrupt and disappear. Not just because of their conflict with me, but also because on the whole, the Wikipedia is simply a seriously flawed concept. So long as it is possible for anybody and everybody to run around making arbitrary edits to a supposed online encyclopedia, the integrity of the entire Wikipedia is in serious doubt.

I find it ironic that the Wikipedia staff keep insisting upon "credible references," when their entire web site has almost no real credibility at all. As a source of information, the Wikipedia is often biased, inconsistent and unreliable. The idea that an academic entity would be left open to arbitrary public edits is absolutely idiotic.

Wikipedia needs to fail, and then be replaced by some other online encyclopedia which is far better researched, verified and maintained. And it should NEVER be open to public editing of any kind.

I think that I will put up a post in our public chat section soon, urging people NOT to make monetary donations to the Wikipedia. And I will cite all of the things that I have said here (and more) as my reasons.

[Cat]

Well anyway, I have no interest in getting into another prolonged battle with the dipshits at Wikipedia. It serves no purpose, other than to infuriate me.

That entire organization is facing financial hardship right now, and I for one am delighted. I would like nothing better than to see them go bankrupt and disappear. Not just because of their conflict with me, but also because on the whole, the Wikipedia is simply a seriously flawed concept. So long as it is possible for anybody and everybody to run around making arbitrary edits to a supposed online encyclopedia, the integrity of the entire Wikipedia is in serious doubt.

I find it ironic that the Wikipedia staff keep insisting upon "credible references," when their entire web site has almost no real credibility at all. As a source of information, the Wikipedia is often biased, inconsistent and unreliable. The idea that an academic entity would be left open to arbitrary public edits is absolutely idiotic.

Wikipedia needs to fail, and then be replaced by some other online encyclopedia which is far better researched, verified and maintained. And it should NEVER be open to public editing of any kind.

I think that I will put up a post in our public chat section soon, urging people NOT to make monetary donations to the Wikipedia. And I will cite all of the things that I have said here (and more) as my reasons.

Also here been cases of inaccurate or outright false data being on the site for a long time.

[perez007usa]

We have done a lot  on that Wiki, gave them all we know and all.

 By the way here's something about web information of Tessmage

 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tessmage.com

  Like I said to those brain dead fucks at wiki, I have a whole slew of info for them, but I guest they are turning a deaf ear to it.

  To me, they are not a true a encyclopedia. My Britannica has both creation and evolution in it, cause they don't what to be bias on it. So way can't Wiki do it.   

[Tessera]

By the way here's something about web information of Tessmage

 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tessmage.com

Yes, this is a well-established web site. And we tried to explain that fact to the dictatorial and downright irrational Wikipedia moderators a couple of years ago. I claimed that our web site qualifies as a "reliable source" in and of itself, since it is one of the primary web sites for anyone seeking information about Bloodlines. The vast majority of "hits" that we receive here at tessmage.com are VTMB-related. For the past six years, we have received thousands of such hits every single month -- primarily from people seeking information about Bloodlines and the True Patch.

Their response was that tessmage.com does not qualify as a "reliable source." And when I pressed them as to WHY they do not consider us to be a reliable source, it eventually came down to us not being a big, commercial web site. And also, I detected some hostility towards us in general, due to the nude artwork which is featured on this site.

So basically, their criteria for what is or is not a "reliable source," according to the dreadfully misguided Wikipedia staff, is whether or not a particular web site makes lots of money. It doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate the source in question might be... just so long as it makes lots of money for its owners. This is an interesting stance for them to have adopted, considering the fact that the Wikipedia itself is a non-profit web site... the same as tessmage.com.

Oh and of course, the "reliable source" in question can not show any pictures of women's nipples, either. Nipples are dangerous. Everybody knows that.  

The fact of the matter is that there is at least ten times more useful information about Bloodlines on this web site than there is almost anywhere else... with the single exception of Planet Vampire. Ironically, we have featured far more factual information about Bloodlines than the Wikipedia article does. And yet, according to the imbeciles who are in charge of the Wikipedia, we are not considered to be a "reliable source" for information about Bloodlines and the various patches and mods which are available for it.

So it comes back to what I have already accused them of: the real reason that they do not wish to allow us to be referenced anywhere on the Wikipedia is because this is an adult web site which features nudity. And also, because we are not a big, corporate web site which has tons of annoying advertisements splashed all over every page.

Simple as that. So then what is the best response for the internet community to take..? Not just regarding the Bloodlines article, but towards the entire Wikipedia in general..?

WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO FAIL

My conclusion is that instead of campaigning (once again) to make changes in the Wikipedia article, it might be better to campaign against the entire Wikipedia itself. That entire web site needs to fail. It is a seriously flawed source of information. It is also terribly mismanaged and its moderators are, quite often, displaying policies and behavior which are quite clearly the result of personal bias and personal agendas. And as if that were not bad enough, the owner of Wikipedia... Jimmy Wales... has been accused several times of skimming Wikipedia money off the top for his own use. He has also been accused of allowing his girlfriend to alter various Wikipedia articles to suit her... regardless of how accurate or inaccurate her edits have been. In short, the entire Wikipedia site is a big shitty mess... run by freaks, fascists and fools.

WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO FAIL, people. So do not, under any circumstances, make any monetary donations to that web site. They are not worthy of your support. They really aren't.

[perez007usa]

There were times where I needed fast info on some things, and it was all wrong. I pointed it out them, and they said mine my own beeswax. Now and I go to see whats up,,, its the same old shit.

[Schu]

Wikipedia it self, is not a reliable source of information. As many have pointed out on this site and others, the information listed there is not complete, can be misleading or even out right lies. There is a reason why educational institution's don't allow information gained from Wikipedia to be used. It is not a true encyclopedia, and yet those who work there, or moderate it, seem to think it is.  A true encyclopedia will allow any and all pertinent information to be inserted on a subject, if it is found to be accurate. Wikipedia can't say that, because it can be altered by the general public on a whim.

Wikipedia is a site that is used to gain relatively current information that may not be accurate, it is not an encyclopedia. So I'm with you, let it fail and die so someone else can pick up the pieces and build a better information network/site.

[beetle]

A buddy of mine told me several years ago about how a particular celebrity (I forget which one he said) tried to correct some factual information on the wiki page about them and how it was soon reverted back to the incorrect information.

[dr1tz]

OK as of now the WIKI is back with the True Patch Gold version linking to this site   and i really could care less if they change it back I will just add it back in if necessary just though it would be fun to tweak their noses a little.