Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 59) (bot
Line 81: Line 81:
He's now editing the Sixteen Stone page as an IP with the same edits he always does. I won't be surprised if he creates another account. [[User:Statik N|Statik N]] ([[User talk:Statik N|talk]]) 22:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
He's now editing the Sixteen Stone page as an IP with the same edits he always does. I won't be surprised if he creates another account. [[User:Statik N|Statik N]] ([[User talk:Statik N|talk]]) 22:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Statik N}} 2601:19A:4500:E7E:0:0:0:0/64 range blocked for 3 months. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Statik N}} 2601:19A:4500:E7E:0:0:0:0/64 range blocked for 3 months. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

== The grunge article is confusing. ==

So I was reading the grunge article and some of the stuff in there makes no sense. I was reading some stuff in the article because I love to read pages in Wikipedia and there is some bizarre things on there. First of all, I seen that some users tried to change it and then change it back again. Statik N keeps making a lot of editing and some of the stuff that he puts makes no sense. In the article it states that, ''Although the bands Bush and Candlebox have been categorized as grunge, both bands have been largely categorized as post-grunge, too''. This statement is included on the post-grunge section of the grunge article and it seems to me that the user is a huge fan of a specific band. I don't think that the bands Bush and Candlebox should have been categorized as grunge and then post-grunge on a post-grunge section of a grunge article. To your average reader, this literally makes no sense. It's like saying, the person is hard to understand but the person is also largely easy to understand. It just makes no sense. In the post-grunge section of the article, it also states, ''Bands described as grunge like Bush and Candlebox also have been largely categorized as post-grunge. These two bands became popular after 1992''. Again, isn't this the same thing as the other statement. Also, another statement states, ''Tim Grierson of About.com described bands such as Bush and Candlebox, writing: Perhaps not surprisingly, because these bands seemed to be merely ripping off a trendy sound, critics dismissed them as bandwagon-jumpers. Tellingly, these bands were labeled almost pejoratively as “post-grunge,” suggesting that rather than being a musical movement in their own right, they were just a calculated, cynical response to a legitimate stylistic shift in rock music''. If Tim is describing Bush as post-grunge then why is it that they are grunge but also post-grunge too? It doesn't make sense. The section also talks about other post-grunge bands but for some weird reason, a band like Bush could be describe as grunge and also post-grunge too when the section is talking about post-grunge. I think you should check the grunge article to see if you could make any changes. ( [[User:Mikeis1996|Mikeis1996]] ([[User talk:Mikeis1996|talk]]) 06:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC) )

Revision as of 06:39, 29 December 2017

Vandalism pt 19

Serge's 19th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you see may need intervention. Ferret may also answer queries, as we're both generally pretty active and on the same page when it comes to policy. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page history is a bit rough, but it looks like there's only like 1-2 instances in the last week or so. I think it's best to wait at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to actually block any anonymous IP's from doing such vandal edits, of which something I should learn to do when IP edits get way out of hand. But one thing I really get bothered about is the fact that people are frequently using single digit numbers like 2015-1-5. One such IP that's doing these edits is on a spree on List of Virtual Console games for Wii U (North America) and the links to these are: here, here, here, here, here, here and others ahead of that. Would strongly recommend a page protection please, if you can. Or a block, whichever works best against users like those. I will keep a close eye on that page from now on. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zacharyalejandro: You can't block anyone, you're not an admin. And not using 100% valid dates is not vandalism. It's really about time you understood the difference between good faith edits that might not 100% meet guidelines, and bad faith vandalism. And besides that, the {{Dts}} template doesn't require double digit months, and its documentation gives examples in single digits. The entire point of the template is to format the dates so that they correctly sort in tables. Nevermind reporting some edits from an IP over 10 days ago who hasn't edit since, and you gave no warnings or advice to. -- ferret (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as ferret says, this isn't vandalism or a blockable offense, and even if it was, unless its something insane like "death threats" or "blatant hoaxes", you need to generally have discussions with other editors/IP before they're blocked. It doesn't appear that you've made any effort to notify the other person of your objection of their edits - a discussion should be had at the article talk page and/or the the respective editor/IP's about your concerns. Zachary, I appreciate your efforts to populate the video game lists like you do...but it would probably be good if you did more reading up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You don't seem to know the proper protocol for some of these scenarios... Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone else gave him a short block that has already expired. I'll do a longer one if disruption starts again. I don't want to protect the article yet just because all the recent issues have mostly been from the same IP. I can protect if other IPs start causing trouble too though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandal MySuperBelt has returned as a another IP to vandalise the Mafia III article by removing information about the MacOS release. He will likely will keep continuing to vandalising the page until the page get protected. His IPs have been blocked multiple times but nothing seems to work to stop him vandalising the page when the article is unprotected as he keeps returning with a new IP. Is there anything you can do to stop vandalism from this guy?. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can re-protect the page and keep an eye on it for a bit. Just to confirm, since I'm not familiar with the finer points of Mafia 3 - there's nothing particularly contentious about this Mac OS version, is there? Sergecross73 msg me 11:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like Andy. Pretty large crossover on previously targeted articles: User:The1337gamer/sandbox/Andy. Rollbacked all their edits. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Blocked. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the proper section to put this in, but if you look at this IP's contribution and talk pages, you'll notice a lot of bad edits. This is because this IP is used by a community college, and as such has a high number of users. Would it be at all possible for you (or another admin) to block this IP from editing, but not from creating accounts? The intent here is to stop my classmates from vandalizing pages and making poor or bad-faith edits anonymously. 140.198.160.63 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, you've come to the right place, and yes, that is something I could conceptually do. And I appreciate you saying something like this - it's not something someone would normally request. However, with the blocking policy on Wikipedia, without boring your with the little details, is supposed is supposed to be done like right after an IP address or account was being disruptive. The edits from your IP address, while historically bad, really hasn't been all that bad in recent days. So ultimately, while you're right about everything, it may be best to wait until right after there are bad edits coming from it again. Please notify me in the future, if this IP address, or any others from your college, are being disruptive right after it happens, and I will look into it then, and may be able to take action. Let me know if you have questions. (And if any of the Admin who watch my talk page feel I'm being too cautious here, feel free to follow through on his request, I would not object.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello; another user on this IP is insisting on blanking our talk page, including removing the {{Shared IP edu}} template from it, which I believe is needed. Additionally, the IP 140.198.160.64 is also registered to the same college. I added the {{Shared IP edu}} template to that talk page, but the same user that has blanked this IP's talk is also insisting on removing the template from that page as well. I feel like something shifty is going on here; is this acceptable behavior?
This is relatively minor, but (again, I'm assuming) the same user has undone my minor edit to Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense, where I changed "speedy deleted" to "speedily deleted", and I must confess that I've gotten in a minor edit war over it. 140.198.160.63 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems bizarre that two people would be using the same IP back and forth, minute by minute, but regardless, it appears another admin have gotten you IP blocked for 6 months, so I suppose this is resolved... Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caught Error On 3DS Page

Hello,

I caught the slight mistake on the edit I made to the Nintendo 3DS page. I meant to say "Nintendo Switch at $299", and I have corrected it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techmaster12 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time...

Hi Serge, first of all, greetings of the season and cheers for you and your family this Christmas. Hope you are doing well. If you might recall, at my Rfa early this year, you and other established editors had provided significant feedback on the areas where you felt I could improve. Over the past year, I've stepped back and have worked on the areas that were pointed out during the Rfa. I just wanted to request for some of your time (whenever you might be free; there's no hurry) to review my contributions at your convenience and to provide further feedback if necessary. Your inputs would be invaluable. Once again, happy holidays and wishes for a wonderful new year. Warmly, Lourdes 08:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, I can try to do this sometime, though my wiki time will be limited in these next couple weeks, so it may not be right away. If you happen to want to do an RFA run before that or something, you don't need to wait up for me - I won't oppose you or anything. I know RFA is a nerve-wrecking process, so I don't make it a habit of opposing people. It's hard enough without me chiming in. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Serge. I'll wait for your feedback nevertheless. If in the meanwhile I find a suitable window to push in my Rfa, I'll leave a note for you. Have a great new year, Lourdes 09:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

Hello Sergecross73: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Thank you. Same to you! Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strangeguy91 keeps persisting

He's now editing the Sixteen Stone page as an IP with the same edits he always does. I won't be surprised if he creates another account. Statik N (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Statik N: 2601:19A:4500:E7E:0:0:0:0/64 range blocked for 3 months. -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The grunge article is confusing.

So I was reading the grunge article and some of the stuff in there makes no sense. I was reading some stuff in the article because I love to read pages in Wikipedia and there is some bizarre things on there. First of all, I seen that some users tried to change it and then change it back again. Statik N keeps making a lot of editing and some of the stuff that he puts makes no sense. In the article it states that, Although the bands Bush and Candlebox have been categorized as grunge, both bands have been largely categorized as post-grunge, too. This statement is included on the post-grunge section of the grunge article and it seems to me that the user is a huge fan of a specific band. I don't think that the bands Bush and Candlebox should have been categorized as grunge and then post-grunge on a post-grunge section of a grunge article. To your average reader, this literally makes no sense. It's like saying, the person is hard to understand but the person is also largely easy to understand. It just makes no sense. In the post-grunge section of the article, it also states, Bands described as grunge like Bush and Candlebox also have been largely categorized as post-grunge. These two bands became popular after 1992. Again, isn't this the same thing as the other statement. Also, another statement states, Tim Grierson of About.com described bands such as Bush and Candlebox, writing: Perhaps not surprisingly, because these bands seemed to be merely ripping off a trendy sound, critics dismissed them as bandwagon-jumpers. Tellingly, these bands were labeled almost pejoratively as “post-grunge,” suggesting that rather than being a musical movement in their own right, they were just a calculated, cynical response to a legitimate stylistic shift in rock music. If Tim is describing Bush as post-grunge then why is it that they are grunge but also post-grunge too? It doesn't make sense. The section also talks about other post-grunge bands but for some weird reason, a band like Bush could be describe as grunge and also post-grunge too when the section is talking about post-grunge. I think you should check the grunge article to see if you could make any changes. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=817571136"