User talk:AureliusBP
Contacting me
[edit]I noticed today that you called me on my phone. While I understand that you may consider this an appropriate method of communication, I would appreciate it if you left messages on my Talk page or Talk:Beyond Protocol (video game). Thank you. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I think the phone is appropriate given that you have become so adversarial to the inclusion of the game in the wikipedia.
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. In addition to the legal threat, I am very disturbed that you contacted a user via telephone, and that you rejected his request not to do so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Our intent of the phone call was to provide a channel of conversation that could not be readily reviewed by others. The editor has made allegations that are untrue. Because Wyatt insisted that we communicate through this open medium, we did. Very simple. As for the legal threat itself, it is quite clear that Wyatt stated that we paid for our reviews. In the conversation, I made a clear explanation that our reviews were not purchased as most other games are reviewed with some consideration to their advertising relationships with such editorial.
Banning me from edits of the page is fine. It will further prove that no one affiliated with DSE is an editor. In each editor's case, the editor is not employed by DSE. AureliusBP (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I have redacted my comments regarding advertisements and reviews on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Protocol (video game) and also responded to some of your concerns. I see now that I was incorrect about the GameSpy review. I'm still murky about the other notable magazines, like PC Gamer, it read to me like you actually got reviews after paying for advertisements, but maybe those reviews were halted when you stopped advertising? I still don't believe the game is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, unless there are sources out there that haven't been brought to light. And even if the article is deleted, I would be more than happy to help with its recreation if reviews in more notable sources come out. Believe it or not, I'm a big fan of indie art/entertainment. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, currently, I am banned so responding any way other than this one...hopefully you will see it. I appreciate the clarification. To clarify the story, PC Gamer promised reviews of the game and stated that the advertising in no way affected the review process. Several months later and our advertising concluded, there was no review and no one talking to us any longer. After consistent messages from some very respected people in the game industry, the horror that most all reviews is a scratch and be scratched situation upset all involved.
For the record, we do have a very notable review set from Beckett's Massive Online Gamer magazine. One of their own editors, Eric Bloom was the critic. He was so impressed with the game that he wrote a four page article. At the end of the article, he stated he would return the following issue to unravel the rest of what he had discovered. He did...we didn't pay, nor did we ask. It was his review that actually put us on the map and led others to us.
The idea of notable citations is one where I think the evolution of the wikipedia needs to take a lesson from itself. It is the people, the guilds, the gamers that exist that make the best reviews. I actually write to and encourage publishers of reviews to get rid of the people who write but never play. Instead, find critical reviewers from within the game played. It creates more credible content. We have many reviews around the internet that are very "humbling". We have some that are very good. In the end, we want both. When we built this game, it was our desire to change the industry and remove the "developer controlled content" and truly strive for the holy grail of player created content. We succeeded. In the end, we have many reviews out there and many who have seen our game and put us into contact with real people in the industry that are not "scratchers" of the system. At 2008 GenCon, we were across from Jack Emmert. It will never happen that he would give our game his blessing because we are the competition. But I have pictures of me providing him a complete tour of the game. I can tell you that we have Eve Online Devs who love this game. Again, they can say nothing. Essentially, they lose their jobs if they do. The industry is nasty. Most are...wikipedia should be one that attempts to sever the chains of capitalism and gets us back to a place where creativity and the two guys can sit in a garage and build a dream like HP or Doom.
AureliusBP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wyatt and I discussed the issue as you can see above. The legal issue has been resolved.
Decline reason:
I agree with FQ. Your legal threat was on-wikipedia and quite clear, so your retraction needs to be equally open and clear. When you are ready to respond to FisherQueen, post a new unblock request. Mangojuicetalk 17:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
I can unblock you, but I need two things from you: (a) a clearer statement that you unconditionally withdraw the threat of legal action - i.e., that you aren't planning legal action now or in the future, no matter what happens with the article, and (b) that you agree not to contact Wyatt by phone again. (Other reviewing admins- I'm heading to work, so if this user meets these and I don't appear to be online, feel free to unblock with my blessing). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
AureliusBP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
WyattRiot has retracted his statements that were untrue. Therefore, we have no interest in pursuing legal action any further and will not contact him by phone again.
Decline reason:
It's not clear that you that you aren't planning legal action in the future, no matter what happens with the article. When you are ready to make such a statement, post a new unblock request. Toddst1 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
Mediation
[edit]I am willing to mediate this dispute. Please see this page.--- Raziel teatime 16:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)