User talk:Sergecross73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Vandalism pt2[edit]

Vandalism pt3[edit]

Vandalism pt4[edit]

  • Its hard to justify blocking it with the edits happening so infrequently, and them being the childish sort of things that gets caught by editors or bots right away. Still, they are clearly bad faith stupid edits. I left a final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Devin.1125 Thinking this user should be blocked again. He's repeating the same behavior on Sonic related articles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up. I saw him return from the last block and make edits that, weren't great, but weren't outright against I had just blocked him for, but rather just "bad decisions". I hadn't noticed he had returned to his old habits today. Re-blocked. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Falongen is back,...[edit]

See User_talk:Falongen. Sigh. I really don't know what they're getting out of this! Mabalu (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again. Let me know if you catch him again a month. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hullo - I spotted the ISP: [] popped up, went straight to Emperor of Europe for example, and moved it right back to Falongen's dodgy redirect. Looking at their contribution history is VERY suggestive - you may want to compare and contrast. I'm also seeing the same predilection for weird redirects/similar subjects. If this ISP has been active during any of Falongen's block periods, then it implies someone was block-evading - making it even more likely that they know exactly what they're doing. Looks like User:Smuckola may finally have grounds for requesting a sock investigation into this user. Mabalu (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I really don't get this guy. I'll intervene though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted quite a lot of their edits/redirect moves. It's got to be the same person - in the middle of their edits was a random redirect of "pencil dress" to "pencil skirt" - as if all the Falongen-sque "empirical" redirects weren't enough of a giveaway. They clearly set up this sock account in order to evade the permanent ban. Sigh. I don't get this guy either. Mabalu (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If he doesn't answer me soon I'm going to indef both accounts, considering his original account was at his final warning, and the new one is pretty clearly him. Refusing to address me would confirm a DUCK situation to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
He removed my warning without any discussion, so they're both blocked until they show any ounce of effort in explaining their actions. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73, Mabalu: This is totally insane. People like this do much deranged damage. Aside from the analysis you guys said here, they also plagiarize redundant content between articles and inject lots of OR. It seems to me, between the evaluation of the contributions and the final banning, that all contributions should be undone. I went through just the two latest articles they'd butchered, and it took a lot of time and effort to research and undo it. WTF. WP:FAILSmuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it really puzzles me too. What a strange, passive-aggressive way to attack the project. Go figure. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73, Mabalu: Is there a way to automatically revert all of one user's edits? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I usually just go to their contribs page, and click "rollback" over and over again. There might be better ways of doing it though, I'm not sure. Perhaps a (talk page stalker) will know. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What about all their redirect creations too? Mabalu (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to respond to this. If there's ones that meet speedy deletion criteria, I can delete them (though I may need a bit of explanation because I'm familiar with all the things we wrote about.) There's WP:RFD for less obvious ones. There's also just fixing them or leaving them be if they don't especially seem to be detrimental. Going forward, since both accounts are indef blocked, if its obviously Falongen again, we can just revert them on the grounds of block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Fireball24fire has uploaded a new image and, like nearly every other image he's uploaded, is completely useless, which he used to replace an existing image on the Lakitu article. I've just asked him to justify his upload on his talk page, so we'll see what he says, but I want to give you the heads up that he's at it again. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, if I could topic ban him from images, I would. Thanks for the heads up. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't his previous account (dragon22someting) blocked for stupidity when it came to images? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Something like that, I think. I don't know if he ever officially confirmed it, but both usernames edit extremely similarly. (Bad image choices, constantly tinkering with minor changes that don't really offer any benefit, but don't really hurt things either.) He stopped editing through the other account, and wasn't block evading, so I don't think it was ever really pursued...(EDIT: Never was blocked, but same kind of edits.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Fireball's edits outside of images are typically what another editor had referred to as "pecking." While not disruptive per se, it's frustrating to have such minor edits like repeatedly changing "six" to "6" and back again spam my watch list. Fireball (and 22dragon22burn) used to be an editor at Super Mario Wiki (blocked indefinitely from there too, I believe, but I don't know the reason), where they allow endless images for purely decorative purposes, and it seems he's never learned the fact Wikipedia has different policies. He's just not competent as an editor. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I always found his "pecking" to be annoying/pointless too, but there's really no policy against it, so I couldn't really do anything about it. I didn't realize he was blocked at SMWiki too. Interesting. Yes, I do agree that WP:COMPETENCE may be an issue. I don't mean it as a personal attack or anything, it just seems like he has a very hard time communicating or understanding what we're trying to say to him. Even his block reasons are always "I'll never do it again" rather than any sort of defense or rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Think it's time to revoke talk page access? He's on his third unblock request and it's exactly the same as the others. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I do, and I did after the first one...but I do like the idea of him being able to try again in 6 months, which he couldn't do if the talk page is revoked. Unless it was restored later on...but I wouldn't want to forgot about that either... Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I think now it's time to remove talk page access. He's removed his declined unblock requests again, just after I left my simple instruction to not do so. It's obvious he's not going to ever improve; any attempt to communicate will just go ignored. He's reached that point of no return, so I think it's time to end it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. Let me know if you ever catch him socking. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, thank you. His editing patterns are extremely distinctive and he favors Lakitu and Mario Kart related articles, so socks should be extremely easy to catch. In that regard, should 22dragon22burn be blocked as it is technically a sock, even though it's been inactive for nearly a year? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure we'll see his edits from a mile away. As for Dragon22whatever, I say we wait until/if it becomes active again, and either send to SPI, or block, as soon as the first edit from the account happens (depending on how obvious the edit is actually Fireballwhatever.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just FYI Serge, most editors who lose talk page access due to abuse of unblock requests end up going through UTRS (or BASC for bans). Most UTRS requests, especially after a few months since the last on-wiki event, are treated with significant efforts to try and find a solution to allow the user to come back on-wiki, sometimes/often with strict conditions. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, as I imagine you know, I don't really work much on that side of things. But yeah, if he manages to persuade someone that he's ready to come back, then by all means, I'd welcome it. Most of my indef blocks are disruptive, bad-faith editors who seem to purposely want to cause trouble to content or editors. He seems more like a good-faith editor who He just can't seem to wrap his head around the image policy or copyright (or take our word for it to just stop.) If he ever gets his act together, it'd be fine if he came back. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

only 3 months?[edit]

Previously this was banned [1] along with the Technotopia account, since its the same guy editing at the same time. Why not make it infinite also? Mentioned in a sockpuppet investigation before, although its obvious since they only ever edit together the same article. Since he does keep coming back again, having started this with an IP address 11 months ago, and regularly reemerging, might as well make the IP address only he uses infinite block as well, or else we'll have to see him again. See how many times its been blocked in the past? Dream Focus 17:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact link, but somewhere in the blocking policy, I'm pretty sure it says that we're basically not allowed to permanently block IPs, since IPs can be redistributed to unrelated people. It probably could be extended to 6 months or longer though, that's true. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It's strongly discouraged to indef IPs (other than proxies), but it's a trend that seems to be catching on. If it is a static IP over a significant length of time, then the block can be long (years), but I generally avoid indefinite IP blocks. In any case, indef'ing the master with autoblock should also prevent contributions from the IP, if indeed it is being used by the editor behind the account. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I checked and it looks like I marked the "autoblock" box when I blocked Technotopia. So we should be set. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflicts[edit]

Hi. Long time no see, right? Now... I would like to ask you this question since my edits on Machine Shop Recordings were swapped back to the way they were after fixing Golu's mistakes that he had made on this website: What is with the edit conflicts when I tried to save the edits on any articles that I edit? I don't really like to complain about this, but this is becoming a problem to me. What is with that? Skylar3214 8:00, 24 October 2014

Hi Skylar. Glad to see you're around and doing well.
  • In regards to edit conflicts in general, see WP:EDITCONFLICT
  • Usually edit conflicts happen when one person makes an edit to a page right before you do, so your edit isn't changed because the first one made is taken. But it looks like, according to your contributions, you were the only one editing MSR when it happened, right? The only thing I can think of is, I occasionally "edit conflict with myself" on a page when I click submit, then page loads for a while and I get impatient and click submit again, and it says there was an edit conflict. But when that happens, even though it says "edit conflict", since I was essentially trying to make the same change twice, in the end, it still works, because it just accepts the first edit, which was the same as the second edit. So, if that's what's happening with you, then despite the message, your intended change still would have been made. Does that make sense? Is that what's happening with you? Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Xeno series[edit]

Hi! I split Xeno series because there is a Template:Xenogears, it is also a part of Xeno series but did so. Also, the template is for whole Xeno series, but row head "Media" links List of Xenosaga media rather than List of Xeno series media, that's oddly IMO. And last , a reader for Xenoblade would not expect to read Xenosaga anime, so I believe split is acceptable.

That's why I split. If keep in one remain, I hope do something like Template:Final Fantasy series or merge Template:Xenogears into here. Link Xenosaga's music but not Xenogears' is strange. Regards. Blank090 (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, after I undid your change, I noticed that, but honestly, I think the Xenogears one should be merged into the main one too. There's only like 4-5 entries. We don't need all these little templates when there's probably less than 20 entries throughout all of the Xeno series. There's just not all that many articles out there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. I also feel Template:Xenogears is too small. Blank090 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. I've adding the Xenogears info to the series template. Feel free to add anything else to it that I may be missing... Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

He was asking for a talk[edit]

... and he will just remove it simultaneously with the rest..(Removing stupid IP edits.) I don't know what he is up to. If he has no respect I would suggest that he will be fired. And don't wait for another victim he will be victimizing. (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter, you still need to attempt to notify him. You did not, so I have for you.
  • While he could probably stand to be a little bit nicer to you,
  1. Your edit here didn't show up right in the article, and you did not provide a source, so he was right to remove your information.
  2. Based on a lot of your comments, I don't believe you understand much about Wikipedia or what it takes to get blocked from editing, so I really think you ought to take a step back, slow down, and do some reading first, before calling someone to be banned... Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I reverted everything as whole because someone kept vandalizing my talk page constantly. But your comment doesn't mention anything about ANI report either. So you are saying that this edit is constructive? You have understand that the content you added won't be displayed even if I didn't revert it. Because you made changes to a infobox template not to the article--Chamith (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC) (talk)Serge- I wrote a message , it was saved in his talk page and it was just removed... i know he has the power to that but I find it so unprofessional124.104.182.35 (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, he could have been a bit nicer. But that is nowhere near needing a ban, block, or even a formal warning. As you admit, policy allows him to do this much, so I don't understand how you could possibly expect him to be banned for such an action... Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
And I didn't mean you when saying stupid ip user. There were 2 IP users who were constantly vandalizing my talk page. I got so annoyed because they made their edits one by one, individually. Your comment was posted in between their edits. So I didn't notice it when reverting. Please check my talk page history.--Chamith (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I will take it. Next time don't be so rush. Serge simultaneous annoying comments usually are observed. I just hope it was not sent by the person being annoyed so as to further protect himself and make an issue of blocking people. (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

No, I wasn't. (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize then, but surely you can see how one would come to that conclusion? You've jumped into a lot of the same conversations with rather similar stances. Its an awful big coincidence. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nu metal[edit]

Many sources mixed up nu metal with alternative metal as if they were the same genre, which they weren't. There's significantly more sources for alternative metal than nu metal. Please stop re-adding nu-metal in spite of evidence against it. (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not your observation to make. We go by what can be verified by reliable sources say. It's how the website works. Your personal conclusion that they've made a mistake, especially on something subjective like music genre, is not a valid approach. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Evidence collected from reliable sources suggests against the band being nu-metal. Sorry. (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That still doesn't make any sense. Just because some sources call them other genre, doesn't prove that they're not nu metal. That's a logical fallacy. If a article doesn't mention that baseball is a sport, does it cease to be a sport? Of course not. An absence of information does not prove a negative. I'm not suggesting nu metal is their only genre, I'm suggesting its one of them. There are prominent music sources that back this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You're basing this on opinion, not sources. Look at the sources. A small minority of sources does not justify a categorization that is on its face preposterous. (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Its two major, prominent music sources. Rolling Stone (magazine) is one of the biggest music magazines there is. Revolver (magazine) is a large, print magazine as well. Both prominent sources that have strong consensus that they are reliable. I'm sure there's more out there, but 2 big ones like this are plenty. I don't know what else to tell you, other than maybe spend more time figuring out policy and how things work around here. You're off-base here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I'm seeing fairly significant sources for nu metal, if you're asking for this to be ignored you'll need a consensus to do so. Do you have a consensus? I can't seem to locate one, nor have I seen any convincing arguments against nu metal. As Sergecross73 suggests, it appears you are acting based on opinion. Яehevkor 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, since you are being daft, every source is right no matter what the evidence tells you. That means that every band that has ever been called nu metal is automatically nu metal whether the whole of the sources reflect that. According to your rules, the minority rules. I'm going to prove that you're acting based on opinion by adding nu metal to every band where this is debated, and see which one pisses you off the most and causes you to insist that it's a minority opinion. Then you'll be revealed as an opinion-pusher, not an objective editor. (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  •, Serge doesn't specifically favor the minority, but when a few major sources that happen to make up fewer than 50 percent of the total source body mention a genre, it's probably worth adding. Think of it this way: it's probably true that a minority of sources used in the Thailand article mention that Thai is the official language. Now, it's true that if other reliable sources dispute that Thai is the official language (though I can't imagine how that'd happen) then those should be included for balance, but that's also true with genres - not mentioning a genre is not evidence of discontent. Does that mean this shouldn't be in the article? As for "every source is right no matter what the evidence tells you"... well, that's not terribly far off base. Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. It's not anyone's fault for enforcing that. Tezero (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Video game consoles[edit]

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Please note that currently video game console-related articles in WP are already in a VERY inconsistent state which needs to be fixed, as I mentioned in that page. --Cartakes (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that you need to discuss when your changes are opposed, and then only reinstate them if there is consensus to do so. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the result of the discussion at WT:VG. There is obviously no objection for solving the inconsistencies any more. I have already waited for 3 days and no more message, so I think I can safely assume the discussion is already over by now. --Cartakes (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

See, this is why I'm telling you to slow down and learn how the website works. What you want to get is consensus. I don't see that there. No one really took a stance, it was still just you and Ferret arguing. I don't see a consensus for change there, and when there's no consensus, there's no change. In this instance, this would mean your change would not be implemented. You need to discuss further, especially when, again, its something as important as the foundation of how video games are defined and organized. I'm thinking you should stop and not make these changes again unless you literally get the go-ahead from an uninvolved party, like myself. Refusing to follow these protocols could conversely, get you blocked from editing. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not refusing to following any protocols, but certainly I am going to stop now when I am told this is the right thing to do under such protocols. Thanks for telling me about how the protocol (or website) works. But I think there is already a consensus there are inconsistencies. The remaining things may be how to resolve them (I didn't see any objection from that discussion though). --Cartakes (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping. Please just wait a bit longer, to get a consensus on how it should be fixed - if your approach is the right approach. I've notified a few people usually more active in these sorts of discussions, lets see what they have to say. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
So I have waited for another day. Can I consider there is already a consensus on a fix for inconsistencies? Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Are there discrepancies between what you're proposing to do, and the things that Tezero, PresN, Masem, etc, are all saying? Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Not really. What User:PresN's said is almost exactly what I was trying to do in the very first place. The only thing I am *currently* not doing is re-implementing separate templates for each generation of different kinds of video game consoles (but I wish I can (re)do that too, if that point of User:PresN's comment becomes the consensus of everyone). Apart from that I think everyone is 100% agree with my approach so far. --Cartakes (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
PresN started discussing it with him. Get on the same page as him, and as long as you don't any more opposition after that, I'd say go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Certification on The Marshall Mathers LP 2[edit]

There's a problem on the Certifications section for The Marshall Mathers LP 2 by using this link: [2] Skylar3214 11:31, 3 November 2014

Sorry Skylar, I looked it over, and couldn't quite see what the problem was. While I am usually pretty good with all the Wiki-formatting, that chart is a lot more intense than I'm used to. (The type of albums I typically work on aren't the type that receive certifications from 10 different countries, haha.) Maybe a passerby will help? Or you could say something over at WP:ALBUMS or something too... Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, whoever did that messed up on it big time. Skylar3214 11:46, 6 November 2014

Xenoblade X[edit]

Yo, I have no idea how you message people on here, it's so damn complicated. But anyway, don't you think it'd be a good idea to add the fly over shot of New Los Angeles in Xenoblade X to its Wikipedia page? Just a suggestion, Serge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really deal with images on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't do it, but I won't object to anyone else doing it. If you to go through with finding an image and uploading it properly, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 06:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You can argue with Andrzejbanas now[edit]

Since you like debating when someone removes "nu metal" from articles Andrzejbanas did it here. -- (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't sourced. But hoo boy anon, what an agenda you have. ;)Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, removing unsourced genre with an appropriate edit summary isn't a problem, it's encouraged behavior. IP, you just got off your block for disruptive editing. Stirring up trouble like this is going to get you blocked again. I again recommend you slow down and read up on how Wikipedia works. This is about as bad as your three rejected unblock requests. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I wonder is user allowed to copy massive chunks of information to article, which is not directly related to city ? I'm asking this due in Ganja, Azerbaijan article, "Changing of historical landmarks in Ganja" section doesn't directly related to the city and contains information from source which obviously is not well established. Xoncha (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this subject matter isn't exactly my specialty, and there's a lot of potential variables at play here, so it might be easier for me to help you if you can give me some exact examples/links of the edits in question. Sergecross73 msg me 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Basically, I want to remove that section due source is completely biased and completely copyedit information, but I'm worried I can get warning due section blanking.Xoncha (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking it over, I see what you mean - it's just a giant copy/paste job from its source. I've removed it myself on those grounds - people should not just rip entire paragraphs and put them in the article word for word, even if they provide the source. If someone re-adds it exactly like this, it should be removed. If someone re-adds it and properly paraphrased and sourced it, then this should probably be discussed further, as I have no idea if the content is neutral or reliably sourced - I'm not especially knowledgeable on this subject. But anyways, its okay to remove entire sections if there is something wrong with them, and you leave an edit summary explaining why you removed it. But, if someone disagrees with that action, rather than removing it, you should probably discuss it on the talk page instead of reverting again. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. I will note that for myself. -Xoncha (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters-related[edit]

Hi. I understood that you were the one who reverted the List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. The voice actor info was placed there because not all of them have pages on this website. If we can't put them there, where else should we put them? The respectful video game pages? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • If they have their own article, it should go there. (Sonic, Tails, etc.)
  • If they don't have their own articles, but its about video game VAs, the list of characters.
  • If they don't have their own articles, and its in regards to other media (TV, movie, music, whatever) - that respective article. (So if you're talking about someones VA from Sonic X, that only needs to be at that article.)
So basically, the only additions being made to the list of characters articles, is info on video game VAs for characters that don't have their own article. (If that really is necessary to add, I mean, we're talking about minor roles probably at this point...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Settling the "Xeno vs. Xenoblade" debate[edit]

We're both civil editors who only want the Smash-related articles to be as good as they can be, so rather than continue with the endless back and forth, here's my definitive arguments for why I really think we should be using Xenoblade Chronicles as Shulk's series/title of origin rather than Xeno as a whole:

1) It doesn't make sense to reference Xeno as a whole in the context of Super Smash Bros.-related articles, as only Xenoblade Chronicles is referenced in any capacity in-game while Xenogears and Xenosaga are not. It's no different from how KOS-MOS is referred to as a Xenosaga character in articles like Project X Zone instead of a Xeno character.

2) You say Xenoblade Chronicles isn't a series and therefore Xeno should be used in its place. However, with XBCX coming out (hopefully) next year, Xenoblade IS a series now. The only difference is that there's no article for the subseries as a whole, so linking to the original game's article (i.e. the one that Shulk originates from anyway) is more appropriate in this context.

3) MOST IMPORTANTLY: You've previously made the argument that Xeno is the series because Iwata designated it as such in the Iwata Asks for Xenoblade Chronicles. However, please take a look at this image I captured from SSB 3DS. You'll note that the trophies are listed under the "Xenoblade Chronicles" heading, not "Xeno", further emphasized by the use of the Monado (an item exclusive to XBC and not the other two Xenos) as the series icon. This is clear evidence that Nintendo treats Xenoblade as its own entity, independent of past Xeno titles. Furthermore, precedent has already established that, if they are treated separately by the Smash Bros. titles, we list characters who have spun off into their own subseries under those banners rather than their parent. Hence why Yoshi and Wario are not listed as Mario characters, but Ike is not a "Tellius Series" character.

To put it simply, when it comes to Smash, Nintendo's word takes precedence, and as such, we should be using their standards when it comes to categorizing this information, as we have in previous edits made up to this point. If you're still insistent on the Xeno banner, however...well, I have no stronger evidence then that, so I suppose there's no changing some minds. -- (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Nintendo says he comes from that game. That chart is labeled "series/franchise", so I feel Xeno is more appropriate. Xenoblade Chronicles itself is not a series, nor does it have a series article. I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here, its a minor detail that people are going to understand either way - the series article, and the template on anything Xeno related, show very easily the relationships here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but can't the same be said for yourself? I mean, let's look at things: Nintendo is treating Xenoblade as a series in the context of Smash Bros. (and again, Xenoblade IS a series, even if it doesn't have a series article). There is precedent for using Nintendo's official designation as the same one we use in articles (I'll remind you that you initially argued in favor of Yoshi and Wario as Mario characters until users presented the same counterarguments I have here). Also, multiple users have attempted to change the listing to Xenoblade, and the only one continually reverting it or arguing for Xeno is yourself. Does it really make sense that your own personal opinion should trump all that? -- (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you keep reminding me of that other conversation, and I do not know why. There, much like here, my general was was "Why are we still arguing about this? Why does this matter?" Then I stopped arguing because a very small WP:LOCALCONSENSUS had formed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
So if it doesn't matter, then why do you keep reverting it every single time someone tries to change it or asks for it to be changed? Why concede that time and not this time when the argument is literally the exact same? Doesn't the fact that multiple users have attempted to change it and you're the only one changing it back not indicate a near-consensus on the part of the pro-blade crowd? I keep bringing it up because I seriously don't understand the discrepancy. -- (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If it doesn't matter, I don't see why it needs to be tinkered with. Also, who are these legions of people who are taking issue with Shulk being listed as being part of Xeno. No one else has bothered to say a word to me about it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking back at the history. Between all the Smash articles, I've seen at least four or five different people change it to Blade or ask it to be changed to Blade. Either way, though, we're just arguing in circles, and it's not like I could make the change if I wanted to anyway. The only thing that can definitively settle this at this point is the input of a neutral third party, but like you said, it's probably not a big enough deal to justify calling in someone else to weigh in. All I'm saying, though, is that Nintendo is treating Xenoblade, not Xeno, as a series in the context of Smash Bros., and the article should reflect that. But I suppose my opinion doesn't count for much, so whatever; do what you will. -- (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Tales of Rebirth[edit]

I know you have an interest in the Tales series, and wanted to share something about Tales of Rebirth. As incredible as it seems, I'm planning some major editing work to get it into something approaching a descent state. I've found roughly thirty references that I could use for things like gameplay, development and reception (and the characters, I guess), but I don't feel like tackling writing the story section. I know there are subtitled walkthroughs floating around youtube, but there's nothing like a story summery or a cutscene collection hanging around. Could you help with this bit of things if you're not too busy? Obviously, this could take ages and be hanging around on my end as I've got two GAs, an unfinished FAC (wish someone would do a source review for it, then I'd be easier in my mind) and the reception section of Hearts to see to. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ProtoDrake - I'm not all that big into writing story sections, so I don't think I'd be a good candidate for that part, but I will definitely help with cleaning up the article in general. I had actually planned on cleaning it up years ago, when they announced a fan-translation for it, but that project seems to have lost steam, and thus, my interest in it did as well. But I'll definitely help with it some. Also, very nice work with Hearts and Type 0, both of those are looking really good these days! Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Rewrite done. I actually managed to flesh out the reception section quite a bit. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you really got right to that! It looks good too, especially for JP-only release. (Though I think this got more attention from English sources than most JP-only games, since it was close to Symphonia, which was big, and people thought this would be coming over too...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Update for this and future Tales projects. I've found a Bandai Namco-published magazine called NOURS/B-NOURS which appears to be archived in Bandai Namdo's site in PDF form and contains contemporary development information on Tales titles. And I found information on both Rebirth in its PS2 and PSP forms. This article may just make it to... dare I say it... GA! And those magazines could be a mine of information. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
ProtoDrake - That's awesome! It looks like its in Japanese only though? Still, good info. I'm sorry I haven't been as active in the Tales articles as I once was. I lost a bit of interest when majority of the titles were announced for platforms other than what I typically use. Hopefully Tales of Hearts will get me back into it at some point. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Completely unrelated, but is it just me or does the ToR cover art look like absolute shit? Like, a 6 years old's drawing. I dunno, it just struck me. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Especially if you compare it to contemporary titles like Symphonia, Abyss or Legendia... ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, though there is a reason for that. They were pumping out so many Tales games at that time, that they had several different teams working on different entries. Symphonia, Abyss, and Legendia were all made by different teams. Rebirth was made by "Team Destiny", who utilized that crappier style of cover. (Like Tales of Destiny and Tales of Destiny 2 too.) (*Feels like a nerd for knowing all of this.*) Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It's early Mutsumi Inomata (who has been doing the 2D titles since Destiny). Her style took a while to mature. Not like Fujisaka or Okumura (still find the latter's Corpse Shell design for Xillia 2 somewhat hypnotic). But I do agree to a degree, the cover is not the best in the Tales series so far (that goes to Zestiria without a doubt). --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, Zestiria is looking good. Salvidrim I hope you're reading this fascinating stuff!! haha Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of a shame I never really got into a Tales game... I only ever really played Phantasia (on GBA). Are there any released in NA on PS4? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
No, they haven't made the move to next gen yet, still on PS3. PS3 to PS4 remasters are big these days though, and their next one, Tales of Zestiria, is coming out for PS3 pretty late in the life cycle, so you never know though. They have hinted that's the next platform they're going to though, since the series sells best on Sony Home Consoles it seems. That's what always bums me out though: so many of the handheld one don't end up being translated to English, and that's where I do the vast majority of my gaming. (or Off TV Play). Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Genre warring[edit]

Binksternet has been removing sourced genres from the article Deftones, claiming genres should "aim for generality" and not quantity as his reasoning. I seem to remember you saying that there's no such thing as too many genres if there are sources, so go after him. -- (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All I see is you edit warring. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
More accurately, they should aim for representativeness. Sure, "rock" is more general than "nu metal", but Linkin Park's first two main albums, their demos, and all of their supplementary material from before Minutes to Midnight fit into nu metal, so it'd be silly not to include that. Sometimes it gets to be a problem when there are, like, ten genres, even if sourced, there's often no clear line as to what should and shouldn't be included, which is why talk pages exist. Tezero (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Slime Mori Mori Dragon Quest 3[edit]

I found out about this game while stalking your contributions (I don't think that's even stigmatized now, to be honest) and was curious about it, so I found a few sources: GameSpot, TechnoBuffalo, VG247, Nintendo World Report, Destructoid, and Kotaku. Strangely, none of them are reviews or seem to be covering the game in-depth - was it ever released outside Japan? I'll consider creating a page if you don't want to, assuming these sources are enough, though I still haven't gotten around to playing a Dragon Quest game yet.

Oh, and thanks for protecting Sage. In a way I do feel bad about it, because I don't want to catalyze their game's potential DMCA claim and I trust that the sources aren't inerrant, but at the same time, Wikipedia policies do exist and I'm just going by them, and you can't just expect us not to write about things because you want to keep them a secret; that's not how journalism works. Tezero (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Haha, no problem about the "stalking". My personal stance is that its fine as long as its not done for the purpose of harassment. (ie purposely following me around at AFD !voting against me every time, following me around and reverting all my edits on topics that seem unlikely for the other to be on, etc.) I have no problem with the way that you or Salv do it. (In fact, I like it, it can help facilitate discussion.)
  • I have no problem with you writing the Slime 3 article. The merge was simply on the grounds that there was very little content present, so it was better presented at the series article. As long as you expand it out farther than the "1 source 1 sentence" approach "Coin" always used, I have no problem. (Well, don't COPYVIO like he did either of course.)
  • No problem about Sage. The game's getting coverage, so the deletion requests are bogus, and if they are unhappy with information presented by the sources, they can contact the sources about correcting it, or do a new interview that corrects it or something. There are ways of them fixing this that still fall within the confines of how we do things here. Subjects of articles should not have too much control over their own Wikipedia articles, or you fall into problems with WP:NPOV or WP:PROMOTION. There's an essay I've read before about how that's why one wouldn't want a Wikipedia article about themselves, because they can't control it. I can't remember what it was called, but I'm reminded of that. I guess that wouldn't apply, since they didn't create the article, but surely someone probably would have by the time its released, if it in fact is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

PlayStation Vita: undo Revision 635658444[edit]

Hello Sergecross73, I wanted to know why you consider, in the english wiki, that isn't a reliable source. Indeed, it's considered to be an OK source for at least the french, Dutch, spanish, German and Italian versions of wiki. furthermore, it doesn't have a reputation of bad accuracy (as I know) when it comes to the hardware totals – Best regards, Twymx (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Twymx, I can't speak for Serge, who may have more experience with cases in which it has or hasn't proved unreliable, but I think it accepts user contributions. The concept of a reliable source is, first and foremost, that fact-checking is involved, and if people can just add whatever they want, there's no reason to believe it. Even Wikipedia, which demands sources for all non-obvious content, can't be cited for this reason. Tezero (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. There's an active consensus saying it's unusable, so even outside of my opinion, others have deemed it unusable.
  2. There's a number if ways that they don't meet the definition of reliable source. They're a bunch of people with no credentials. They don't reveal their methods. They're commonly wrong with their figures, and change their figures on a whim.
Others may have other reasons as well. Ultimately, you need to change consensus before using. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Sergecross73. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Hopefully!!!! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Dammit. Oh well, at least I've been pretty active lately... Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Check Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo? And you're sure it's not going to junk mail? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, it appears a week ago Google randomly decided the emails Ive been receiving for like 5 years are spam. >:( Thank you for your help, Salv. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
NP. I suppose Gmail detected that you always deleted the e-mails quickly without replying and somehow assumed they were spam. The same happened to me for Youtube upload notifications a while back. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I actually never delete emails, because they're so small in comparison to how much space you get. (I mean, after years of use, I used like 2% of my space.). Who knows I can fix it once I'm on a computer im sure. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm a but of a hoarder too, but for notifications like that, there is no point keeping. Communications I always archive. At work I never delete a single e-mail. In 2.75 years, I've got 3Gb (our of 5Gb) of mails. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Mega Drive/Genesis[edit]

Why have you reverted my edit? It's grammatically and factually correct, I haven't changed the meaning of the sentence, nor have I changed the original sentence structure: the Mega Drive was released in Japan in 1988, later known as the Genesis in North America. You can rewrite an equally factually correct sentence from the North American perspective: "the Genesis was released in North America in 1989 (released in Japan in 1988 and Europe in 1990 as the Mega Drive)" if you really wish... (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Either are fine, and it didn't need to be changed. Pretty sure the original wording is what was decided upon in its Good Article Review. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The sentence you prefer is both factually and grammatically incorrect, which is why it was changed and is not 'fine' as you claim. Please reconsider this and unlock the article. (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
What is your grammatical objection? Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"Released in Japan in 1988, the Sega Genesis (known as the Sega "Mega Drive" in Europe and Japan)" Three objections. 1. Factually incorrect: the sentence expresses what was released in 1988 was called the Genesis, when it wouldn't get that name until a year later in North America. 2. Grammar: to mention Japan twice in one short sentence is unnecessary. 3. Grammar: the quotation marks around Mega Drive aren't needed (I don't see them in common usage in that context on Wikipedia?), and personally they sound patronising and almost perjoative. Not sure what the right term is, but the quote marks imply falseness or a double meaning – does that make sense? Additional: As I said, I'm not against rewriting the sentence to a North American viewpoint, but I'd then question why it needs a North American bias as opposed to writing in the context of the product in and of itself. (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Your "factual argument" has been debated endlessly, and consensus is to word it like that, so I'm not interested in that one. The quotes aren't scare quotes, they're just denoting the beginning and ending of the name, since they are two words that could be used in other contexts (opposed to something like Wii, which has no use other than a name of a product. The same cannot be said of "Mega Drive".) Mentioning Japan twice may not be ideal, but I don't believe it to be incorrect. I'm open to suggestions on solving that one though. If you're unhappy with my response, you may propose things on the talk page, but beware, most people have next to zero patience with these Genesis/Mega Drive arguments anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You've misunderstood my point – I'm not debating whether the console should be referred to as Mega Drive or Genesis (I'm aware of the debates), my objection is that the sentence is simply incorrect and completely inaccurate as it's currently written. Consensus/compromise on the name is fine, but should not at the expense of accurate writing. Please don't belittle and misquote me (with added scare quotes) with the phrase "factual argument". As for rewriting the sentence while keeping it US-centric: if you'd care to re-read my initial comment, I've already provided a suggestion. Re the quotes marks: I did say I hadn't seen them in common usage across articles. Plus, Family Computer are two words that could be used in other contexts but aren't found in quote marks. (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I've already commented on the talk page but is it safe to assume from your lack of reply thus far that you don't acknowledge any of the points I made as to why I find your reasons invalid/flawed at best, or my suggested rewrite and are happy to keep the article under semi protection? (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I was waiting for more input in the discussion you created. Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

About the Thank you on the Bravely Second edit[edit]

Hey thanks for the thank you! That's very nice of you. I didn't even know that was a thing. Is this a new feature on Wikipedia or was I just oblivious to it until now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karasuhebi (talkcontribs) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Karasuhebi - No problem! I just appreciated that you were updating an article that I created, that I've kind of been neglecting to update myself. And yeah, its a "new-ish" feature? Like, it's not new as of this month or anything, but was probably started...early 2014? Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverting Talk Page Comment[edit]

I didn't see the Talk namespace, so I thought it was an article. Next time I'll try to look more carefully. Hailey Girges (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You...thought...this...looked like article? Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne (album)[edit]

Two different IPs added unreliable sources like, and Muumuse (see References section below). (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles not very active (7 edits this month, the last 50 track back to August.) You should be able to make the changes yourself without much opposition... Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about SPI[edit]

Do these things usually last several weeks? Because this has been a nightmare all around, and I'm not sure I can or should take much more of this, as this has been ongoing for almost 12 weeks now, and it's very discouraging and demoralizing. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh, I guess I was too late? Rationalobserver, it seems the SPI clerk determined that you are a sock? That's too bad, I hadn't thought so. I'd help if there is anything you feel that is conclusive that could defend you... Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)