User talk:Born2cycle

Coherent reply policy If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

blocking the IP at Mega Drive

(transcluded from User talk:Sergecross73#blocking the IP at Mega Drive)

Vandalism part 34

Serge's 34th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is one citation for the change I made: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starset/comments/1cixg4m/metalcore_starset_album/. There are multiple more citations. It is not vandalism. Do you have expertise in this band or music or why was this reversed? There was no justification. 173.59.8.222 (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reddit posts are not usable sources on Wikipedia per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, based on the editing patterns, I'm wondering if @125.160.112.170 might actually be blocked editor @JustYourImaginaryGuy. Not sure how to report this; I noticed you dealt with the latter editor before. RegalZ8790 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I've blocked. Feel free to report incidents like this to me, and if I agree, I'll issue blocks or page protection as needed. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I figured this was okay, just wanted confirmation. Anyway, he's at it again, now with @125.160.115.29... RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Back for another round as @125.160.113.185. What can be done with an individual who has no intentions of respecting Wikipedia and its community? RegalZ8790 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone else hit him with a WP:RANGEBLOCK. Hopefully that helps. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, This user keeps reverting my changes saying they are vandalism. This IP traces back to the subject of the edits who has been using wikipedia to promote his own name, articles, and videos. He doesn't cite his work, he simply pastes it into other articles.

He has done this on the USNVGT page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_vs_Snakeand several others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/35.135.179.48

Surely this is against the terms. Thank you for looking into this. datagod (talk) 🍁 22:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding/restoring info without a source is definitely against policy. I don't know enough about these subjects to know who is correct in some of the disputes, nor am I following the accusations of self-promotion, but I'll warn them about the sourcing issues. Sergecross73 msg me 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• KikanshaThomas1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be a WP:CIR case. Almost all of their edits in the past month, let alone nearly all edits in general, have been reverted. Typically adds unsourced or completely untrue information to articles, such as listing Takahiro Sakurai as Masahiro Sakurai's child with no evidence other than last name. Their most recent edit was editing the user page of a person who was blocked four months ago. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm suspecting that they actually are that blocked user User:Taqi Inalessa Sany, as they refer to themselves as Taqi. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

    Blocked. I agree, I'm pretty sure it's block evasion, but even the disruptive editing alone is enough for a block. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Colmedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Two AIV ANI posts were made about this single purpose editor who WP:OWNs Mac Tonight and Talk:Mac Tonight. He has an editor group listed at User:HectorHawk9, and is a publisher on that subject.[1] He uses WP:ASPERSIONS and edit wars, to dominate anybody who deletes his mountains of WP:FANCRUFT or who tries to assert any Wikipedia policy. He explicitly combats the idea that an encyclopedia is WP:NOT a fan site or a WP:TRIVIA weblog. It's all on the talk page for the user account and the article. — Smuckola(talk) 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  They've only made like 1 edit in 3 weeks, and there's very little in the way of talk page discussions within the last month. And as far as I can tell, nothing really came of the AIV/ANI discussions? And it doesn't particularly look like anyone's doing very much to explain to them what they're doing wrong... Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are obviously a lot of discussions there as I said, and on several other users' talk pages that he hounded them at, and they quit apparently because this guy's bullying obliterated the community's collective efforts so he declared his war a victory. Everybody tried to explain everything in plain sight, right there, as I said. Anyway, I engaged even harder because admins failed to do anything, and I guess it worked for now FYI. Yeah the main response at ANI was a quite typical flood from the peanut gallery, barking about how Wikipedia actually has no rules whatsoever. — Smuckola(talk) 00:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm short on time (I slept in and gotta run to work crap crap crap) but can you look into Ariaslaga a little for me? Most definitely a WP:NOTHERE case. Panini! • 🥪 13:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you took any amount of time to address this on what basically amounts to an unpaid hobby rather than ensure you aren’t late to your paid job, you clearly have your priorities straight. Ariaslaga (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I recommend defending yourself in a much more constructive manner very quickly. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked. Returning customer. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Figured it was warranted but didn't have time to look into it yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  And I'll assure you that I wasn't late, but I needed at least some time to drink coffee and watch my morning show before going to work. If I don't have that it ruins my day lol. Thanks ferret! Panini! • 🥪 01:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• We Preform, We Rewrite the Norm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be WP:CIR. Restoring articles that were redirects in abysmal quality. Recently restored Count Bleck just by copy-pasting the text from the Mario Wiki. Responded to a talk page warning with "amogus". --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @ThomasO1989 Evading two blocks. CU confirmed and tagged. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Would you mind deleting this revision they added since it's a copy-vio? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Saturnpilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a wordless, single-purpose, WP:MEATBOT editor. His only edits are all bare URLs about airports, including mass destruction of existing citation formatting, and ignoring years of warnings. I placed some of the worst examples at the bottom of Years' Warnings Mountain, aka his Talk page. Sadly I assume the only possible response could be elicited by a block. Thank you so much for any kind attention. — Smuckola(talk) 00:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Most of their talk page seems to be about using bare urls. That's not a blockable offense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is also incorrect, I have never blocked an editor for using bare urls before. I wouldn't, because it's not a blockable offense. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hey Serge, just chiming in about this since I’m the guy leaving most of the warnings on Saturnpilot (talk · contribs)’s page. Most of the warnings were for Bare URL’s, which yes isn’t a policy so it isn’t blockable. Since they do source their edits, I do believe they are editing in good faith. The main issue is the lack of communication and failure to acknowledge their warnings. They have, and still occasionally edit with unsourced content. Most recently I warned them of an unsourced edit in June: [2]. If you go through their talk page, you’ll see they have a history of editing unsourced. Several of their edits also fail to meet WP:RS, such as this one which is WP:UGC (Twitter link): [3]. After a few months, the user will usually clean up their talk page by deleting my warnings, seen here: [4], here: [5], and here, as examples: [6]. Thing is, WP:OWNTALK states that deleting a talk page usually means you’ve read the messages, but the user continues their editing patterns. They don’t use edit summaries, either, and I believe the user hasn’t used one in years (user has been on Wikipedia since 2013 and has less than 3% of their edits with summaries: [7]). With all that said, I believe the failure to communicate, failure to respond to talk page messages, and failure to use edit summaries and communicate with anyone else is a WP:CIR issue, especially for an editor that has consistently edited Wikipedia for over a decade at this point. WP:CIR states “the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus” which they repeatedly have failed to do, and “the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles” as many of their edits still don’t use reliable sources. All in all, I’m not sure if this is enough for any action to be taken, and again I do believe they are editing in good faith, but I did want to further explain about the user than what was posted above. Sorry for any inconvenience! VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• 86.43.181.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adding unsourced developer credits to many different articles, sometimes undoing reverts of their edits. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• 86.44.23.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Looks like the above user, a block evader. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, already had my suspicions. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi! Can you help block 2601:840:4681:6E8A:7957:5652:EC80:E62C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Likely a sockpuppet account of Meena Kurian (talk · contribs), which was banned for vandalizing Planet Zoo and various real-life zoo articles. OceanHok (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, when I read this I only had a brief amount of time, and simply protected the main page. I meant to circle back. That said, it looks like they've stopped, so we're probably good until/if they start up again. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• 2A01:827:35D3:E701:711E:4928:AF3E:67AA (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adding unsourced "alternate" names to articles on the Mario cartoon series. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• 72.82.231.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) A few of us have been dealing with this anonymous IP. They started out a few months ago making a number of bizarre/sloppy edits, such as at Songs for the Mama That Tried (where the infobox title was changed, a song was removed from the track listing, etc.), or at Hey Jude/Hey Bing! (where a sourced quotation was rewritten, etc.). Then they settled into a pattern of making the same bot-like edit of changing "Side one" and "Side two" to "Side One" and "Side Two" on dozens of album pages, even though that's not how the MOS lays it out. Many of these have been reverted/fixed, but not all of them. Both Justin (Koavf) and myself have approached them in good faith on their talk page and have received no response. I thought this should be brought to your attention. Thanks!—The Keymaster (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I gave them a final warning. Let me know if they persist, and I can block/protect pages as needed. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, Serge. Unfortunately, this guy went right back to his old behavior after his temporary block expired.— The Keymaster (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked again. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 11:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• 47.223.111.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Looks like we've got another one. This IP continually makes unsourced genre changes (and the same minor spacing changes) to album pages, despite them being reverted. Also harassed Binksternet about it on his talk page and outed himself in that thread by posting under two different IPs. Multiple talk page warnings issued to both IPs. See here and here.—The Keymaster (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  This editor seems to have resumed some of their problematic behavior after the block expired, with at least a few of their recent edits having been reverted. Looks like Binksternet left another warning, to which they didn't reply (again).— The Keymaster (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• 108.41.169.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hi Serge, I've gone back and forth several times the past few months with this IP over unsourced content. Recently in this edit: [8] they called me a fascist (?), P.O.S., and used inappropriate language for reverting unsourced content which I'm thinking breaks WP:PA. Based on similar edit summaries and editing activity over the past few months, I'm thinking similar IPs that are the same user also include 71.190.73.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 96.250.238.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thanks! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC))

  Blocked 108 for NPA/CIVIL violations. I agree that it's probably the other IPs too, but they're so stale they're not worth taking action on. It is enough to show a patter of issues though. I protected Westchester County Airport since its clear that one is a recurring target. If further disruption occurs at other pages, let me know and I can review and potentially add protection there too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Appreciate it. Also, anyway we can get page protection from IPs on Salt Lake City International Airport? If you check the edit history there has been an IP user (hopping around multiple IPs, most recently 168.179.186.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) that keeps changing a name in the destination table. I know you probably aren’t too familiar with airport articles, but the way the IP is editing it is not how the entry is listed on any other article. I attempted to bring it up on the talk page and project talk page, but it didn’t seem to go anywhere. The IP won’t respond to talk page messages and leaves no edit summaries. At this point I feel like it’s disruptive editing and the page could use protection. VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• OrangeRye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hi again, Serge. Been having issues with this user for a while now, particularly at Rhode Island T. F. Green International Airport. They constantly add unsourced content and revert me every time I remove it. I've left them several warnings on their talk page to no avail. They never leave a reliable source and seems like trying to warn them or talk to them isn't working at this point. Been happening for several months at this point. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC))

  Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Okay this one is a little tricky. There have been some on and off users claiming to be Ben Rector's management team (or Ben Rector himself in some instances) making non-constructive edits to the article. The edits are pretty much exclusively removing large blocks of content relating to details outside of his career (specifically regarding his early life, family matters and religion). Meanwhile they've been rearranging and rewriting their career and release timeline to read more promotional (see here). Edit summaries are misleading. It's getting very hard to clean up the mess because they slip a lot of it in there, and in between my other edits, so I can't simply rollback anymore without losing progress.

These editors are definitely related, sharing similar usernames and making next to exactly the same changes. What do you recommend be done with the group of users? Should the article be protected based on this string of non-constructive edits? Panini! • 🥪 15:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• 66.60.99.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hi again Serge, an IP user has been constantly editing Salt Lake City International Airport for the past few months. The edits have been coming from a few IPs, including 168.179.186.109 (talk · contribs), 168.179.186.83 (talk · contribs), and 165.239.42.184 (talk · contribs). I’ve reverted every edit for disruptive editing and have left talk page messages on some of the IP users, but nothing has changed and the editor never uses edit summaries. Brought a discussion to the article’s talk page that didn’t really go anywhere. I am not the only user to revert the IP’s changes. Just wondering if we’d be able to get the page protected against IP users since it isn’t stopping. Thanks! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC))

  Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Jun Senoue could use protection. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like Izno's block may have stopped the disruption, so I only did a short page protection. Let me know if it restarts again. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Celestial1621 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You just reverted and warned this person's unsourced edits on Wii U, but they're continuing elsewhere on Mixels. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked. (I was technically waiting to give them the benefit of the doubt in that maybe they were making previous edits while I was warning them...but they went and made yet another unsourced edit after that, so there's no way they didn't see it...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• 181.176.119.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persistently making unsourced genre changes even after receiving a talk page warning. Left guide (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Can you also consider blocking MihaiVulturul23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Their talk page shows a very long history of warnings for unsourced genre changes and additions, and they just did it again; enough is enough. Left guide (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like someone beat me to the punch and indeffed him no less. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I reported the editor to ANI because their behavior escalated to a personal attack and legal threat. Left guide (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuous block evasion and sockpuppeteering

Hi Sergecross73, hope thinks are going well with you. I've got a question, and you're usually my go-to admin for these kind of issues. For a month and half, there's been a person unnecessarily changing the leads of hip hop artists' articles. They mark all their edits as a minor one and occassionally leave unnecessary opinions in edit summaries. The main account is Maurice20111 (talk · contribs). Confirmed socks are WilliamNathan (talk · contribs), LeahAnderson2005 and Joseph231028 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maurice20111/Archive). I'm also absolutely sure KingVonFan2011 (talk · contribs) is another (ANI'd, but to no avail). They also edited under changing IPs, such as Special:Contributions/2600:1007:A111:709:A1E0:9A8F:2DEC:4FD5, Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1BFB:5010:C965:9B83:9189:EB29 and Special:Contributions/2600:1007:A111:709:1CE4:C321:F5A9:7A49.

In my experience, sockpuppet investigations is too slow for continuous disruptive editing - there aren't any tools to do that quickly, but ANI didn't work last time. In your opinion, what's the best course of action here? It's not the worst kind of disruptive editing, but they do need to stop. Input is appreciated. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For what it's worth, I have reverted multiple edits made by the sock. From where I sit, obvious WP:DUCK situation. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

P.S. If you can indef KingVonFan2011 as an obvious sock in the meantime, I'd appreciate it.

Before I do anything - what was the result of the ANI case? Was there opposition to blocking/seeing them as a sock? Or did it just close due to inaction/indifference? Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Inaction I suppose? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 03:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, just making sure there wasn't differing views on him being a sock. I've blocked him, as I see what you both are talking about here.

Sadly, your options are limited outside of SPI. You can find a friendly admin who can help with WP:DUCK blocks (me), or find a Check User who can run CU scans for you (not me - I don't have that access.) I have a pretty high tolerance for DUCK blocks for as long as it takes, but there will likely be times where I can't justify action too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance. If it's okay with you I'll send you a quick message if (when?) they return. So far they haven't changed their MO one bit, spotting them has been easy. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup, no problem. I can do it for as long as you're motivated to spot and report them. My only request is that you don't get mad if I dont take action because I don't think there's enough evidence. (Not saying you would, I just say that to everyone.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That didn't take long: Leonard1245 (talk · contribs). One edit, but a) new account b) hip hop artist c) marking as minor d) same type of changing the lead. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, on KingVons talk page someone pointed out a IP range that was making similar edits too, so I'm not surprised. Leo has same target and naming convention for account too. Blocked. I'll start protecting repeated targets as well. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

They're back as Depeet1998 (talk · contribs). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Now back as this IP address. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 00:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

And this is them too. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Both blocked. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

They're back. It was almost an entire week. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, protected a few repeat targets. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

TyMega

Hi Sergecross, similarly TyMega (talk · contribs) has been doing the same thing for years apparently. See this IP address and the articles edited. I believe HorrorLover555 and FlightTime have experience with them as well. Is this another case of edit protecting those articles? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

TyMega has been doing it for years, as it looks like they have been using a VPN to evade. They've just recently been changing anything related from "guest appearances" to "guest featured appearances". As usual, I revert their sock edits and report them to ANV. HorrorLover555 (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If reporting to ANV is working for you, I recommend sticking with that. But let me know if there's common targets you'd like me to protect and I'll look into it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

And they're back. They definitely have their favorite targets. I wish I had the time to revert everything, but I have to get going and won't be able to look at their edits for the rest of the day. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Atari Panther image dispute

Hi @Sergecross73

I have been in a bit of a back and forth with user oknazevad over on the Atari Panther page. They are determined to continue to remove a 3D mockup of the Atari Panther console and keep reverting my changes back to a very oudated, very rough and unclean sketch. Asking for some assistance so we can get that article at least looking a little better. TheEmperorAnt (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Atari Panther. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair to midland history

What’s up man, I’m not super great at adding sources into articles (yet) but it’s legit, if you look at the discogs page for the album or the back of the album, Brett is listed as an official member, as well as the dedicated percussionist. He’s also in the band photo on the back of the album. https://www.discogs.com/release/3622747-Fair-To-Midland-The-Carbon-Copy-Silver-Lining Tritonianyeti (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

While technically Discogs isn't a usable source, it is possible to source things straight from an album jacket itself. I don't have that album though, so I can't confirm or deny. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I get that, and it’s quite hard to find the album jacket online, especially the insert, but there are some pictures on like Reddit or Instagram or whatever. I can’t link because of wiki’s link block stuff but if you look up the name of the album and scroll a little it’s right there. Tritonianyeti (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to do a search and see if I can find anything usable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Request

Earlier this year, you reverted some edits on the new wave page under the belief that all of them were made by sockpuppets or block evaders. One of the edits you reverted was one I made: adding the Post-disco template. However, I am not a block evader, and I was certainly not evading a block when I made the change. Could you put the Post-disco template back on the page for New Wave? 2600:6C5A:417F:528F:DD65:6D7E:9939:D516 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend asking on the respective article talk page through an WP:EDITREQUEST. I'm not saying the template was or wasn't appropriate, it merely looked like it was added by a serial disruptive editor. Someone else at that article should decide. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:BorisDG uncited information on Apple Silicon articles

The user is at it again as in [9], still not having read WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, etc. and providing a wiki as some kind of citation in the edit summary. You had given a last warning previously, is it time to ask for a nudge from ANI? —DIYeditor (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I'll take care of it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Asking for advice

Hi Sergecross73,

I had the talk page of MiamiManny still on my watchlist after I left them a message about a BLP situation. Yesterday I noticed the back-and-forth between them and Cambial Yellowing. They issued MiamiManny a standard notification for an incorrect edit summary. MiamiManny immediately described this as "wikibullying". It went to "wikihounding". Cambial Yellowing responded, saying if MiamiManny doesn't want to communicate, they shouldn't ping them. I left a message, that MiamiManny that accusing someone of such behaviour is acting in bad faith. That message made me also a wikibully for some reason.

They changed Cambial Yellowing's message, which is a violation of WP:OTHERTALK. This went on for a while, with some warnings issued and telling them not do so. Their latest edit again includes editing others' comments and the edit summary is "Removed repeated wikibullying and wikivandalism after multiple warnings- Please cease your harrassment". I respect WP:OWNTALK, but at the same time they've been told not to incorrectly (or falsely?) describe other editors' comments as bullying, vandalism and harassment. What are your thoughts? Do I need to start a discussion at ANI for this rude behaviour or just let it slide? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I considered doing so, given their repeated editing of other's comments and deleting of individual comments in the conversation, even after 3 explanations that editing other's posts is not appropriate.[10][11][12] (Miami deleted those explanations). Ultimately though, they have ceased their disruption of the wider encyclopaedia for the moment. I don't think we should escalate it unless it becomes necessary. In my view the facetiously inaccurate edit summary ("removed false claim about no physical evidence and reference that did not mention that claim" – the references in reality) was more troubling than the talk page behaviour. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with both of you that the editor is out of line. Nothing there remotely constitutes "harassment", refactoring others' comments isn't allowed, and it's baffling to ping people just to tell them they're not welcome on their talk page (even though they are technically free to ask people not to comment any further.)

That said, if they've stopped for now, I wouldn't escalate it. Their talk (and user) page makes it pretty clear they have a chip on their should in regards to be told what to do by others. It'd probably be a messy, heated timesink.

Their "threats" to take you to ANI are meritless, they could never incur any action against either of you. So, I recommend letting it sit for now, and if you have further issue with the user, feel free to reach out to me again, and I can review at that point, and let you know if I feel like its something I feel comfortable taking action on, or if it feels like something that the community should evaluate at a venue like ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Sergecross, I appreciate it. They left their talk page for what it is, but they did wrote this uncivil message, which includes Further, your tone and hostility are uncalled for. If you persist with aggressive behavior and attempts to misrepresent well-sourced content, I will escalate this issue. You've been warned. Cambial Yellowing, that latest comment wasn't addressed to me, so I feel like it's up to you make a decision how to handle this. You're welcome to use my initial message here for the diffs, in case you'd like to take this to ANI. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent conduct

As you know, I have had a couple of complaints about your recent conduct at two page move discussions, namely at Talk:Avatar and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. I believe your posts regarding Avatar were excessive because you essentially took your arguments to AN/I where they don't belong; however, this occurred two weeks ago and I am reluctant to impose a sanction for disruption that is not current. Your contributions at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton are not clearly excessive but are bordering on it; I am therefore instructing you to disengage from that discussion. Also, the tone of this comment is inappropriate: mocking opponents in such a way may lead to blocks in future. I would also suggest that you refrain from reopening page move discussions that are less than a year old; while six months may be the de facto wait period, it may be seen as disruptive for someone in your circumstances to be revisiting previous page move requests that frequently. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with posting a lot in an RM? Nobody told IIO, that's for sure. Kauffner (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

B2C has a history of verbosity (among other things) that many have complained about. It seems that that reminder may have been made as part of the editing restrictions. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Although User:Gatoclass clarified that his advice to you to disengage applied only to the original requested move, your efforts across two separate pages to harangue the closing administrator into reversing their action — despite a clear consensus to everyone except you — is the very reason there are restrictions in place. You've racked up over 10,000 characters and about 1,500 words in your campaign so far, the bulk of which are in two sections (both of which you created) on the talk page for that administrator. It's reasonable for you to request clarification of something, but clearly the point you're trying to make is rhetorical,^{[13], [14]} not collaborative. user:j (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I anxiously await a response to both points. I'm done posting about it for now, awaiting explanation per WP:ADMINACCT. But thank you for your concern. --B2C 19:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you find what you're looking for, in that case. Take care, user:j (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi B2C,

I know you are an expert in naming conventions and since I know close to nothing about this topic I thought I would use this as an excuse to visit with you. I saw news about a horrendous wildfire in Arizona, but could not find an article on Wikipedia about it, so I started one. A little while later I found the name of the existing article :-)

On a more serious note, I believe many articles in the Category:Disasters have a naming problem and I am not sure who at Wikipedia to raise this issue with - and whether I am the right person to do it in the first place. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Off the top of my head, it seems like "year state fire" should always be a redirect or title if there was a notable fire in state in that year. --B2C 17:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The usual titling, at least in the US, to list the fire under its official name, if it has one (Porter Ranch Fire, Day Fire, Schultz Fire - note the capital F in Fire), unless it is part of a larger article like November 2008 California wildfires or 2009 California wildfires (small letter w), in which case the names of the individual fires redirect to the general article. See Category:Wildfires in California, Category:Wildfires in Arizona, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Redirects as you suggest (2013 Arizona wildfire) sound like a good idea. Looks like they aren't always done but they probably should be, since (year) (location) (disaster) seems to be a common way of titling such things here and thus makes a likely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP, in a discussion you participated. Note there was a discussion of PDAB at WT:D the last weeks (everything is explained in the RFC). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My recent bold edit to PRIMARYTOPIC

Prompted by an edit by sroc (talk · contribs) that introduced some ambiguity to some language at WP:PLACE, on July 22, 2013 at 15:57 I made a bold edit[15] to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to clarify something that I thought was obvious and trivial: that only use of a term is the primary topic of that term. This clarification would also remove the ambiguity from anywhere where PRIMARYTOPIC was referenced in the way sroc did (assuming it applies to the only use case as well). These were the words I added:

Whenever a word, name or phrase is used to refer to only one topic on Wikipedia, that topic is the primary topic for that term.

My edit summary said: "The trivial case of primary topic - when a term refers to only one topic".

Within 7 minutes, at 16:04, the edit was reverted by Dicklyon (talk · contribs)[16].

So, per WP:BRD, I started a discussion about this at:

Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#What is the primary topic for "Oprah Winfrey"?

At 19:33, on July 22, 2013, 3 1/2 hours after my edit was reverted, and well into the above discussion, Tony (talk · contribs) started a new section[17] about me allegedly adding my own "untested" views into the guideline.

Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Please be more careful

Some of the discussion about the edit spilled into this section, starting with JHunterJ (talk · contribs) asking for a "headline version of the problem with noting that if there's only one WP topic for a WP title, it's the primary topic for the title?" Andrewa agreed he had not seen any such description. I believe no one has provided one yet.

After two days Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs) closed that behavior discussion, saying, "If people want to continue to engage about B2C's policy editing style, they should do so at their userpage.".

So, I've created this section for that.

I want to start by addressing Andrew's claim that I should have known this particular edit needed discussion needed first, so I've demonstrated an inability to gauge what edits need discussion first, and thus I should always discuss first. I suggest that's applying a standard to me that nobody else is expected to meet. I mean, the history of that page alone is replete with reverts of edits that were made without discussion first - is every one of those edits evidence of someone who should never edit without discussing first?

Also, I'm not convinced that if someone else had made the edit, that it would not have been reverted. After all, we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain how saying this is problematic or harmful in anyway. What does the addition of this edit do to Wikipedia other than harmlessly clarify something that is currently ambiguous? How does it not reflect consensus when there are multiple examples (or least there were 3 days ago) of references to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in our guidelines that clearly assumed it meant exactly what the words I added said? --B2C 22:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. I support your view in principle but disagree with how you have gone about it and would have taken the same action whoever it was. I don't know you, anyway!

I agree with you that, where a particular title has only one topic, that topic is effectively (if not technically) the primary topic. I wasn't certain that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needed to be amended to explicitly say this, as I thought common sense would make that obvious, but if it's causing confusion, then I would support a line in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to clarify this. That document is a guideline though, and there is obviously disagreement about whether or not primary topic should, by definition, include such cases. Therefore, it requires discussion to reach a consensus on this before making such changes.

I do not agree with creating a new guideline or essay at WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC, which only adds another layer of complexity to something that is really quite simply. I certainly do not agree with editing guidelines to replace references to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (an agreed guideline) with WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC (your own essay), as you had done which is why I reverted it.

I'm not sure why you're choosing to discuss this on your talk page rather than at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. —sroc 💬 23:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything you said or did personally. It never seemed personal. I do finally understand your viewpoint. Now that I do, I'll give it some thought. If I have a flash of insight, I'll share it with you. But as far as I'm concerned, you and I have no unresolved issues.

But here's another idea. How about adding an ONLYTOPIC section to WP:AT? After all, the objection to adding this clarification to PT is because it's on WP:D which deals only with disambiguation. So maybe ONLYTOPIC belongs on WP:AT? I'll propose it at WT:AT. --B2C 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My first paragraph was in response to your closing comment that you were "not convinced that if someone else had made the edit, that it would not have been reverted."

I'm not sure what the best way to resolve this is, but I can't believe this all snowballed from my omitting the word "unique" thinking it was redundant! —sroc 💬 23:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit and revert I was referring to, and linked to, was at WP:D, not yours at WP:PLACE. You're not the only one who thinks its redundant. I think most WP editors who deal with titles probably assume it is. --B2C 23:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)