Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.149.182.210 (talk) at 01:16, 23 July 2013 (→Google). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


32 Leaves

I don't know how to respond so I'll post this here. You can delete if when you've read it. The lead singer is in a band called Codec (Facebook search: Codec Band) and their bio states they broke up in 2010 I think it was. I messaged them a while back and they said via MySpace message that they'd broken up.

This time, I come in peace :D

Arkhandar has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Holiday wishes!
Sergecross73, I wish you excellent holidays and a glorious 2013!

I hope you'll have great meals, memorable family reunions and joyful times with those you love. :)


  • Salvidrim!, signing off on my best year yet, thanks in no small part to y'all!

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2

Would you mind helping me reason with this user? He keeps insisting that his arbitrary, unsourced, and somewhat messy edit on Bowser (character) is actually cited or notable because "it implies so in the game" and the addition "changes the air of the character." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today looks like it may be a busy day, and it looks like at the moment you've got it under control as far as the actual article goes. Here's my thought; next time he adds a troubling edit (I completely agree with what you're doing, his edits aren't warranted as is.) start up a new subsection about him/his OR on the article talk page, and I'll jump in and try to get through to him. At best, we'll get through to him, at worst, there's likely to be a defined consensus against him. Sound okay? Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this person has exhausted my patience. He can't be reasoned with and is constantly twisting/ignoring all points made against him. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, between the other users he's arguing with in his contribs, and his posts on WP:VG, he's made himself and his lack of understanding public knowledge. I don't think he'll be able to get away with many bad edits. I'll keep an eye on him as well. I don't blame you for tiring of his antics, he seems to enjoy arguing just for the same of being difficult. Let me know if it looks like he's done something wrong and I've missed it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true. I am not trying to be difficult. Oh my... you are geniuses. Using OR on me to point out my error. Problem is that I don't always realize that it is OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine that you don't understand OR at first, it can take time. The problem is that experienced users are telling you you're doing it, and you fight with them every step of the way rather than trying to learn/understand it. Also, your stance of "write first, come up with sources later" is backwards to how things are done here, and probably part of the reason you don't understand OR very well. Start with a source, and base your writing around that. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was having trouble explaining myself. I don't mind being told it can't go in an article. What I was discussing is how my actual statement was wrong. Besides, if I see something in the game, and I look sources to prove it, then how us it backwords. I am finding cites to effectively support my "psuedo-OR" (since true OR cannot be backed up). I like to determine the details of storylines in videogames, hence I right about them. Besides, what is wrong with being backwards in my methods? In the end I get the same result: acceptable or unacceptable (as long as I determine what requires research{cause articles might not cover everything in their cites})

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it'd be easier for you to avoid OR if you start with sources. Then you'd be more likely to stick to the useable information in the source, and less likely to veer off into your own personal observations. Anyways, I'm tired of debating this with you. If you've got specific questions, feel free to post them at my talk page, and either I, or one of my buddies who watch my talk page, can help. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help to post a question as to wether the article already supports it before I go hunting for cites uselessly? Is that allowed? Also, how do people usually write articles? They have to have something to go on when editing, right?

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I do when I create a new article, is pull up 4 or 5 sources that I'm certain are considered reliable sources. WP:VG/RS has a large list of ones that are always useable, or useable in certain scenarios. Then, I write the article, making sure that virtually everything I say, is also said somewhere/somehow in a source. Additionally, I always pretend like I'm explaining the game to a family/friend/co-worker who knows nothing about video games. That's the best way to make sure you're not getting into WP:TRIVIA/WP:GAMECRUFT territory. Pretend you're explaining the game to your Dad, who hardly knows what a "Nintendo" is. If you think he'd be confused about it, or his eyes would glaze over in boredom, then it's probably a sign that its not meant for general audiences, and doesn't belong in the article... Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding on the current "discusssion" at Talk:Super Mario (series)‎, I think bringing up "Nintendo Land vs Nintendo Nightmare" indicates it will not be going anywhere productive anytime soon. He's not even trying to be reasonable. I feel that any further attempt to continue the discussion on his part should be seen as disruptive editing at this point. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't planning on responding anymore. His arguments are ludicrous and would never gain consensus, so its pointless to argue anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's now claiming I have "subject prejudice". I've tried to assume good-faith for the past month, but I've had enough. I'm sorry, but the guy is completely incompetent and should not be on Wikipedia. Nearly every edit of his has been non-constructive and he shows no signs of improving or listening to anyone. He has no true interest in improving the encyclopedia and it is obvious he only wants to advertise his fan projects. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
At least SOMEONE agrees with me :) ViperSnake151  Talk  14:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sorry I haven't supported you more, but I try not to get too involved in image disputes, unless they're obvious/common sense based ones, because I find Wikipedia's image policy rather confusing. But what you're saying is consistent with what I've heard in the past, and sounds right, so I'll try to back you on that... Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Ouya from that list

Because it was sounded redundant to me with the Ouya being mentioned the sentence prior. "The ouya is blah blah blah. And also the ouya blah blah blah...." -Kai445 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG Member list

Hi Serge, sorry this is a bit random, but I thought I should mention that I just noticed you appear to be on the list of members of WikiProject Video Games twice [1]... I didn't touch it because I wasn't sure if it was meant to be there for some bizarre reason, and I don't see any major consequences for it, although I just wanted to let you know. DarkToonLink (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How bizarre. No, it wasn't purposely like that. I removed it. Thanks for the heads up! Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stop changing it.

Please read my edit summary of the most recent change. I standardised it to use "Sega Mega Drive/Genesis" for the category etc, and the first instance of it's usage in the article. Thereafter I used "Mega Drive" as that's the international name. The title of the actual Genesis article isn't relevant as it's still in contention and was only reverted back to Genesis as it was the name the article was originally given. Also, please remain civil, you were being needlessly rude, especially given you hadn't seemed to have noticed I took on board what you said in the last edit summary and standardised it across the article as well as met you halfway with the use of the "Sega Mega Drive/Genesis" term. I don't seem to understand why you object so strongly to improving the article. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint is contrary to the current consensus, and I've said nothing incivil. I suppose we'll continue this argument at your misguided RFC then... Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue the fact you just called the RfC (which is exactly the correct procedure in this sort of debate) "misguided" is qualification as incivil in itself, even without tallying up the other snide remarks made since this issue started. I'd also note that current consensus concerns the Genesis article itself (and it's a very contentious consensus and hinges on the fact that Genesis was the name of the original article), not on the actual games or other articles pertaining to the console, e.g. Variations of the Sega Mega Drive. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say "misguided" because the issue is far larger than "Ristar". It belongs on the Sega Genesis article talk page, not Ristar. I've said nothing out of line, stop taking things so personally. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand that how other articles should address the naming issue is a separate issue from what the article itself is called though. As I've explained on the RfC. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, I just believe you're wrong, as I've explained at the RFC. I don't believe it to be a separate issue. Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User: Peter Somerville

Want to WP:AGF, but this user is also editing using the IP address User:5.64.13.6 and is also User:Agendapedia. Edit patterns (over the top NPOV, and similar edits on Babylon Zoo and Eoghan Quigg articles) are exactly the same as his the use of "I've got this" on edit summaries. Just a heads up. I don't have time to fill out a WP:SPI, sorry. --Yankees76 Talk 14:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. My browser is set to erase all cookies when closed, so I occasionally edit via IP. I will endeavour to use this account at all times from now on. Peter Somerville (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Agendapedia is a fellow student with similar interests. Nothing illegal whatsoever here. Peter Somerville (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yankee76, thanks for the heads up. Peter Somerville, I hope both of you tone down these WP:NPOV violations. At best, majority of your edits are being undone because your word choices are in such bad taste and overtly not neutral. At worst, you'll be blocked for not stopping. Either way, you're not accomplishing anything when you act like this. Please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of language seemed relevant for such critically loathed acts. Peter Somerville (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that your word choices are way over the top. If reviewers are saying that, then feel free to quote them, but you can't be inserting your own 2 cents into articles like that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest you at least fact check your edits before posting. Incorrect edits like these [2], [3], [4] border on vandalism and do nothing but waste other editors' time reverting them. Yankees76 Talk 14:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are all terrible edit choices. If Peter returns to those sort of edits today, after my warnings today, he will be blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the edits were journalistic, i.e. 'vilifying reception', personally i don't see a problem with 'very unfavourable' in the reviews box, i have seen this before whilst browsing albums in the past. We generally have a shared interest in critical failures, one hit wonders etc. I personally don't think articles such as List of films considered the worst, List of films considered the best etc should be allowed on wiki, but the community has accepted them, regardless of the unverifiable original research that they project. It's unavoidable that we should stray away from a neutral standpoint with such articles on offer. Agendapedia (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not different than how we don't use "Amazing" or "Hated" in the charts. Its a standardization thing. Just a quick reference. As far as those articles, they have been accepted because the media themselves have been referred to as such by reliable sources. That's okay. Its not okay when you're using your own personal judgments, which is what much of your two edits boil down to. You need to rely more on what the sources are saying, and less on blazing through the thesaurus to find another outlandish way to call something bad. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see major issues with edits like this [[5]], which, like the edits to the Stone Roses, Radiohead and Japan pages are not only unencyclopedic (the failure of a single to chart is never a "cataclysmic disaster"), but are also incorrect as according to Discogs [6], the single appears to only have been released in the US and Australia - making it's failure to chart in the UK and Canada an irrelevant point and hardly a disaster (especially considering it came out almost a year after Steal My Sunshine). To me this just shows zero grasp on the subject matter. Yankees76 Talk 17:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the more I dig up, the worse the editings appears to be. Commentary like this is unacceptable on a number of levels as well. I'm issuing a final warning. Any more of this will result in a block. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter Somerville has again added trashed another musician. I found this with STiki and the notification is on his talk page. Thanks, Surfer43 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While its debatable that he needed to add that to the person's opening paragraph, its not nearly as in bad taste as his other edits. It does seem like that album was not well received, so I don't think he's out of line when he words it like that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The disruptive edits continue: [7].Yankees76 Talk 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also just a heads up, but it's very likely that he's evading his block and editing as User:5.64.47.4 (pretty much same IP as above). Yankees76 Talk 13:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where at? If its consistently one page, then I can at least protect it. Also, his block runs out tomorrow, so he may be back to his name after that... Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're all on the same Babylon Zoo related articles that Peter Somerville regularly edits in the pattern above. Notably The Boy with the X-Ray Eyes. I would have let you know yesterday but I didn't notice you extended his block to a full week and figured he just forgot to log in again. Probably no need to protect the page - but he should be made aware that being blocked means being unable to edit from any account - IP included. 17:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC) ‎
These guys just don't quit, and I've uncovered another account User:Bluidsports - wether sock or meatpuppet, I don't know (and based on the edits, there is no difference). See the edit history for Deep Blue Something, in particular these edits: [8] and [9]. Frankly, I'm getting tired of going around removing these WP:NPOV violations (2 reverts today). Yankees76 Talk 14:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought one of them alluded to being in dorms in a college or something. Perhaps all their buddies are into trashing random musicians or something. At any rate, while debatable, seems to be in better faith, as they did search out a source, and PS is no longer block evading, so I think I'd file this one more under "annoying" than "actionable". But by all means, keep letting me know when stuff like this happens. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it continues: [10]. Calling an ablum that charted at #6 an album that was met with little interest and a "flop". My main issue is both accounts continue to use tabloids or non music press as mains sources to make strong claims on material that ultimately is given undue weight in the articles they're editing. Yankees76 Talk 12:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not a great word choice, but they have found sources for what they're saying, so I don't feel like its totally unjustified. They both need to learn how to present their information a little better, I'm torn, they're finding sources, but its still thinly-veiled POV pushing too... Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they're finding sources (wether they're reliable or not is another matter) - but as I noted, they're using WP:PUS tabloids like the Daily Mirror and 1-paragraph reviews in small town weekly newspapers to push their viewpoints or support their original research (often ending up in the lead). And edits like this [11] - are just adding WP:OR in the same vein as the Britney Spears edits above. I'm not sure what I'm asking you to do about it, but I feel like this is a least a good spot to track this. Yankees76 Talk 13:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, keep tracking it, and letting me know about the worse ones. Challenge them on talk pages if you doubt the source's validity; I work with video game and music articles, and while I'm familiar with almost all video game sources and their reliability, there are far more music sources that I'm unfamiliar with. I'll drop AP a talk page message too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I think it's going to be an issue as they begin to edit more heavily-watched articles, and begin to more widely meatpuppet each others work (especially on AFDs - which they've already started doing [12]). Yankees76 Talk 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and a 4th account from the same "dorm" - User:PC7705. Edits the same articles (Eoghan Quigg, New Radicals), All I Ever Wanted (The Human League song), Afroman same AFD, and worse the same edits ("known principally" [13]. Yankees76 Talk 13:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it's time I had some input in this discussion. Some of Yankees points are justified, but a lot of them are weak. Sometimes I feel as if he just does not like what is being said about an artist he has a close affiliation to. I agree that adding a Sunday Mercury sentence to deride The Boy with the X-Ray Eyes is somewhat clutching at straws. What is evident is that I am working hard at locating sources such as in these examples: [14], [15], [16]. Not all sources can be considered top quality. I agree that some tabloids present viewpoints that tend towards impartial journalism, however you will notice that most edits supported by citations from The Free Library are usually employed for specifying information as in these edits: [17], [18]. Indeed Yankees reverted the latter edit seemingly because it didn't have an author. Although not a reliable source, it does say at babylonzoo.net that "Spaceman" was the fastest selling single since the Beatles' "Can't Buy Me Love". I felt the Daily Mirror was a reasonable source to corroborate this fact. Agendapedia (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mirror is not a WP:RS, and is specifically called out in WP:PUS. Also, read the articles you edit you'll notice that the Babylon Zoo already has the fastest selling claim that is sourced from Allmusic (and it further verifies why the Daily Mirror is not a reliable source, since they have both the wrong claim and the wrong sales figure). In your haste to post sensationalistic, derisive, and non neutral point of view material, you overlook the rest of the material that has already been added by other editors - which disrupts the project and doesn't improve upon the articles you're contributing to. Yankees76 Talk 14:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you guys have gotten better, and are using sources now, its just that your set up still needs a little tweaking.
  • For instance, in this edit, you make the claim which was clearly a mechanism to boost sales. Even if a source is supporting this, to make such a bold claim, you need to have the right context. Something more along the lines of which was something Nicola Sloan of More Than the Music felt was a mechanism to boost sales. Unless you've got official word from the artist, you can't make the general claim like that.
  • Additionally, as I've said before, as long as your user name is "Agendapedia" and almost all of your edits are centered around adding negative commentary to articles, people are going to accuse you guys of "POV pushing". You're little group is still being rather blatant if people bother to pay attention... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America)

Hey, likewise, McDoobs has no business instructing me to find any sources for him. And you have no business scolding me. Norrk (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling people to provide sources on Wikipedia. ~~|~

He's back

Please review this edit. --McDoobAU93 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you find him again, feel free to keep letting me know. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the by, I do kinda agree with APL on the Genesis talk page that maybe an unINVOLVED editor should have made the block. But it does look like you have clear evidence of bad behavior, and INVOLVED editors can act in that regard, especially now with block evasion. --McDoobAU93 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was contemplating not doing it. I almost blocked him when he repeatedly altered my edits. But once it went to blatant canvassing, I felt it went into the any reasonable admin clause of it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. He's definitely being disruptive, and I think his behavior is pretty clear-cut. --McDoobAU93 19:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help. I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I already reverted his edit on the WPVG talk page as block evasion. --McDoobAU93 19:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

For fixing one of my silly mistakes, I give you this!

Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi Sergecross73, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! buffbills (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding. (It's nice to hear, it seems like far too many edits are with people who want to argue endlessly recently...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gamespot and Gamedaily

Hi Sergecross 73. I've found these two cites Gamespot and Gamedaily and i've found two lists there. top 25 capcom characters of all time in gamedaily and top 10 videogame villains in gamespot and akuma is in both lists. Are those two cites reliable about that stuff . I mean would you mind if i add that information in akuma's reception? Thanks, DisturbedAsylum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disturbedasylum (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Yes, both of those sources are typically considered reliable sources, so I would think that they would work just fine. You can ask me as much as you want, I don't mind, but there's also a reference guide on which sources are considered to be reliable or unreliable for video game related content at WP:VG/S. It doesn't cover everything, but certainly a lot of them. (You can see that both GameSpot and GameDaily are on there in the "reliable" subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

blocking the IP at Mega Drive

I finally checked the talk page of the disruptive IP, User talk:85.211.203.66, and was surprised to see your user id there. As an involved party in the dispute isn't it best to find an uninvolved admin to review the situation and decide whether to block? I'm personally pleased with this block but I'm not sure it was proper. But, more importantly, I think it's critical that uninvolved admins to make these calls. --B2C 16:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to the others at the discussion itself, I held back in blocking the IP when it was more subjective "being disruptive", but as soon as it crossed over into "blatant canvassing", I felt it fell into the any reasonable admin clause of INVOLVED (third paragraph). Consider the same person came back as another IP, and continued their canvassing, instead of making any effort to defend their actions as "not canvassing", makes me think that this person wasn't here to be constructive, and that it was a good block.
Let me know if you need specific difs, or want to talk this over any further. It wasn't meant to be an abuse of admin power, but rather cutting to the chase of the IP wasting everyone's time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That canvassing was so blatant it suggested ignorance about WP's rule about using neutral language in such posts and warranted a warning. Even if he had been warned about that in the past (which I don't see on the talk page), I feel very strongly that any non-emergency block decision must be made by an uninvolved admin. --B2C 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From that 3rd paragraph:

Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

--B2C 17:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't just the language, it was the targets. I looked through the contributions of the three people he contacted, and they all expressed sentiments that favored his argument. As such, I was trying to prevent the RFC from turning into a circus, as it certainly has in the past over the subject, something that would have likely influenced things away from the Speedy Close that everyone, yourself included, was requesting.
  • Both that IP, and another (who may very well have been a sock/meat puppet) both had expressed that they "had been here a long time" and "knew about policy" when discussing various points with them. That, again, the fact that, when he came back as another IP, and instead of saying "Hey wait, what's canvassing?", continued to do the same thing, makes me think the IP knew better. He didn't comment on his talk page, he chose to block evade. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your reasoning. I just think an uninvolved admin may have reasonably chosen to warn for canvassing before blocking for canvassing, and that, as an involved editor, it was not your place to make that call. For future reference... Thanks. --B2C 23:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he's back at his canvassing and causing chaos at that RFC. You've had much to say on how to handle it last time around, so I'll let you handle this as you please. Best of luck. Sergecross73 msg me 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Assault Neo

Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could help me out on my very first article, Nano Assault Neo. (Please contribute if you can; it supports Off-TV Play!) I haven't had any problems with it passing the notability guidelines or anything, but I need some assistance adding a link to the Japanese Wikipedia article on it: JA:NANO ASSAULT. I haven't been able to use the new(ish) 'central data repository' so if you'd be able to help adding the link it would be appreciated. Thanks! DarkToonLink (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I suppose people see right through me; I do love my gaming to be handheld, Off TV Play, or Remote Play, so that is a good way to get my attention! I'll gladly give you general help with the article (it looks pretty good for it being your first article!) However, I've never really worked with any of the inter-wiki stuff, so I can't really help you there... (Last I heard, I thought I understood it as they didn't need to be manually added anymore, but rather it would be added automatically. But since I never really messed around with that stuff to begin with, I could have understood it wrong.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Done Saw that you had to be logged on across all Wikimedia projects to make such an addition. My username is unified, so I went in and made the addition. It's appearing in the page now! --McDoobAU93 01:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, I was hoping that, if something could be done, perhaps a "talk page stalker" of mine could help. Thank you, McDoob! Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does work pretty well ... you tell it what Wiki you want to link to, then give the page's name at that Wiki (in this case, NANO ASSAULT). As you type, it works like the search bar, displaying best matches to what you enter. The system says it takes a few minutes to link, but the Nihongo inter-wiki link appeared instantly on the English article. And I agree, this article is off to a good start, and it's got me interested in the game, too, as I love twin-stick games like Robotron 2084 and Geometry Wars! --McDoobAU93 02:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help! DarkToonLink (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tales

Thanks a bunch for the compliment. Keep up the good work yourself on the Tales pages or whatever else you're working on. Nall (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning you issued

Hi Sergecross. I saw your very applicable comment on Peter Somerville's talk page after I warned him for his disruptive editing. I just discovered that you had previously given him this final warning on May 31, in which told him you'd block him if he did it one more time. Well, he's done it several more times since then, including multiple times just yesterday. Apparently, he doesn't care because he's ignored not only an admin's warning (yours), but also the three or four other warnings from various editors. And he's obviously read all the prior warnings because he removed all of them from his talk page very quickly after receiving them. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but he was getting better for a bit. I was curious to see what he had to say for himself first. Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. But the problem is that he was promised a block on the next occurrence. Also, not only has he never communicated with anyone who's warned him, his edit summaries when removing those warnings included "Rm trolling", "Rm garbage", and "Yeah yeah". This clearly indicates that he thinks the warnings are a joke and that nothing will happen to him if he disruptively edits. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, he's certainly on the thinnest of ice. But he's not very active either, so he's not doing that much damage. Let me know if he makes another unconstructive edit after its clear he ignore my request for an explanation. I think that'll be the tipping point... Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Serge. I have to give you credit; you appear to be a very calm and patient admin. That's a very good quality. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, Peter Somerville has responded to you and I. Based on his explanation, I really think following through with your promised block is now warranted. IMO, he is clearly playing games or has no basic editing common sense. Either way, he's a disruptive editor who's ignored all warnings. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been addressed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, I saw your very helpful comments to Peter Somerville today. However, the fact that he told me to "fuck off" in response to the mild (not templated) warning I gave him, not to mention that he defiantly still insists that his edit was proper, are behaviors that clearly warrant an extension of the block. We cannot allow editors to go around telling other editors to fuck off, especially when there's absolutely no provocation for it. Based on all of the above, I would ask that you please extend the block unless the editor acknowledges two things: (1) that he cannot talk that way to another editor, and (2) that he understands why the fan site is not a reliable source and promises to follow the WP:RELIABLE guidelines. Otherwise, the message you'll be sending to him is that he can get away with that type of inappropriate behavior. Does this sound reasonable? Thanks. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a pretty terrible response, I agree. However, his other warnings were for NPOV and disruptive editing. Technically he hasn't been warned for WP:NPA yet. He's now at final warning for both, and I do agree with you that his response to things from here out may affect things as well. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he has removed the block template and your block-related comments (and everything else). Is that enough to extend it? And remove his talk page access? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully, he'll edit productively if he decides to return. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man 3: The Official Game Armors

You do realize that according to the rules of Wikipedia, an article is meant to help a reader, and this therefore helps a reader in the game. Adding the armors section is like adding a maps section to any other article of a video game on Wikipedia, therefore it is allowed to be added. Especially since the armors a very major part of the game, assuming that you have played it and know this.Brian82027 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm rather irritated that, after I went through extensive work saving the article you created from being deleted, (no thanks to you, who failed to even leave a valid reason to keep it), that now you're going to lecture me about what the point of Wikipedia is. Had I not stepped in, at the rate things were going, the article would have been eliminated in a "merge", and we wouldn't have anything to work with. This is largely because you did such a poor job of writing the article in the first place. So don't lecture me on how to write an article.
  • We don't just add whatever "helps" the reader, which is both subjective and vague. We follow guidelines. We're an encyclopedia; we write descriptions of games. But We don't write game guides on how to play games. And in video game articles we don't add lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Iron man's armor obviously falls into this category. You'll notice that no video game articles have lists of weapons or armors or various items. It doesn't matter "how much it helps readers" or "how necessary it is to the game" you'll notice there's no list of weapons usuable in Final Fantasy 8 or armors collectible in Mass Effect 2. (You'll note these examples are Features Articles -- the highest quality of Wikipedia article. Not a single chart like you're proposing.
  • I'm asking you now, to stop re-adding that into the article. If you don't, then I'll open up discussion at WP:VG on it, and I'm pretty certain we'll find a consensus there that it needs to be removed, and if you go against that decision, you'll be blocked for disruptive editing. Its up to you if you want to wrap this up quickly, or waste time arguing about it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay look, I know that you have nothing better to but stare at your computer, but one of the only reasons I created the article was to show the armors, so why don't YOU stop lecturing me about the Wikipedia. Just because you're an admin, and you think you're so awesome living in your basement doesn't mean you get to make the big decisions on articles that you didn't start and how no one asked for your help.Brian82027 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/05/nintendo-and-sega-agree-on-exclusive-partnership/

My bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeminglySubdued (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:TornadoCreator

Could use your assistance at History of video game consoles (eighth generation) with a user insisting that VGchartz is a reliable source (to the point of 3RR). Completely unwillingness to discuss changes or even begin to consider the source unreliable. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that - this actually appears to be under control for the time being. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I would have helped you. Let me know if issues regarding this come up again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Soap?

He actually didcussed it with me on the Irc wikipedia page, and he at least acted like he was quite interested. I thought it would be okay to contact him about it? Did he have some kind of issue?

TheUnknownNinjaNN2(Talk,Always willing to discuss this subject) 04:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said, its not appropriate to be discussing on Wikipedia, whether it be WikiProjects or any talk pages, because its not Wikipedia related. If other users are contacting you about it here, you need another means of contacting each other. Exchange emails or something. It does not belong here. Sergecross73 msg me 11:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said I played the game and it looked well-made but it wasnt really my type of game. I understand you want help but asking me for advice or help is like me asking you what I should wear tomorrow. —Soap— 22:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for starting the Super Mario 3D World article! Satellizer el Bridget ツ 08:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was surprised I was the first one to do so, but I think I was the only one who started writing it while the Nintendo Direct was still on-going... Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?

You shouldn't judge or talk bad about the person behind "Hydao" because he "helped" you with this article BreakThru! (video game). Now imagine someone like gvnayr, who created and edited hundreds of articles like that, with incorrect/innacurate/silly info, don't you think it's frustrating? Well, whatever, who fucking cares right? Bye! :) --88.214.164.189 (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it bad? I just found it confusing, the contradiction and all. Hydao could contribute when he wanted to, but he sure got obsessed about others habits, so much so that he was completely oblivious to his own... Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, it was me (ex-user:Hydao) who left the message. What contradiction? Maybe I'm obsessed yes, obsessed in NOT wanting to read false information, do you understand? I (and other readers too) was fooled by his additions many times. many... countless. erm, for example, the article you edited was innacurate and had some terribly false information, but it was totally OK, I remember I sent you a friendly message saying about what was wrong, you know, just "working" and helping. I do like sharing CORRECT information. but gvnayr, NO, he's an ass, he's doing these things systematically, however he is still allowed to fool the readers with his stupid additions. I was fooled many times. he's lame, what to do? I don't know why you Wiki-users are "protecting" him, I think it is extremely weird... I don't give a damn crap about the Hydao account or whatever, I just don't want to be fooled by losers like him. is that so bad? am i asking too much? Cheers. --188.140.33.162 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know who you are. The contradiction is that you complain this person isn't productive with their life, meanwhile, here you are, spending your time talking about him and harassing other Admin, on a website you're currently banned from. This sort of acting out just makes yourself look bad, and you're not making any progress on what you mean to do. (You're blocked, while the person you take issue with, is still freely editing, right?) There's so many better ways to get results; forming a consensus against the edits, RFC, ANI, etc etc. Yet you chose to go on a bunch of tirades and harass the user. Your route is the worst, you exert a ton of energy, get an atrocious reputation so that no one takes him seriously, and gets no results. There's just no reasonable justification for it. That's the contradiction. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everthing you just said, I certainly made a silly mistake, and I admit it. I have already discussed this many times before, and it seems that you guys (some of you) don't want to listen and only give importance to the fact that I said simply... the sad truth about that creature. I did not invent anything, it's all true, and things are to be said as they are. Indeed this is all a waste of time, because nothing will change. Nothing. "The Greatest Wikipedian" will vandalize Wikipedia until mid-2030 lol, or whatever. And honestly, I don't want to "interact" more here, if I want to make an useful edit, I will still make it. I will make it for the Humanity. Do I need an freaking account to make edits? No. It's better being 100% anonymous. Take care. --46.50.42.211 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree, then I hope you'll let this go then. Please. Nothing will change the way you're going about things anyways, you're just making more work for people largely unrelated to him. (Like me.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will "let it go" when this gvnayr case/problem is solved for once and all. Blocking Hydao and IP's are not the solution, and pretty useless and waste of time. At least user Jtalledo (which I respect) has some decency and opened that case, now I want to see how it ends. --88.214.165.236 (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just know that all the name calling and mudslinging that you're doing is only hurting the process, it distracts people from getting to the heart of the real issue at hand, and it makes people take your case less seriously. For the record, I'm not blocking you out of defense of this person, but rather, No Personal Attacks and Block Evasion are non-negotiable things that need to be followed here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) called me a "predator" and I can feel offended too (or not?), actually I took that as an offense and personal attack. Well, ok, I'm the Predator then, and he is Billy, how about that? Billy is athletic though... Salvidrim is the one who started sending me YouTube messages/comments more than a year ago, but now he says: "I don't read YT messages. Nice one... I'm off now, and sorry for the trouble, Sergecross73. --188.140.45.255 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouya

And there is consensus that the Gamestick is Ouya's "Main" competitor? Even though neither one is even out yet? You revert my edit which is more factually correct back to something which is even worse. Instead of reverting it back to the worse thing you should have just removed that as well. There was no citation for it. --Teabeard (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the content about GameStick if you disagree with it. I'm indifferent to it. All I know is that there wasn't consensus for your change. If you don't like it, you remove it. That's on you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is The Video Game Critic a RS for reviews? I've seen it used in a number of articles, but I'm not sure it meets Wikipedia standards.76.222.59.241 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe it is considered reliable. You could check through the history/archives of WP:VG/S to see if its been discussed much before. Any context for the situation? I couldn't check your edit history to see where this was an issue... Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been an issue for me personally. I've just seen it cited in articles, such as Metroid and Sonic Triple Trouble, and was concerned because the website appears to be self-published. I've been unable to find any discussion about this matter, but aren't self-published sources inherently unreliable?76.222.59.241 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he's just a random guy, right? Technically, no, he probably shouldn't be used. I think what happens is, he tends to cover older games sometimes, that don't have a ton of sources online (because majority of the sources are back in printed magazines from the 90s, which few editors have access to) since there aren't many sources out there, and the articles don't get many viewers, I think no one really bothers to remove them. Since there aren't many sources on such games, I don't actively remove them unless they say something questionable. But, if anyone else contests them, like you, I wouldn't argue...
Okay, thanks.76.222.59.241 (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I misread that source :)

On the Ouya: When I saw the change, I thought he both mentioned kickstarter and linked to kickstarter, haha. My brain kind of skipped over the IGN part. -Kai445 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I kind of figured as much, which was why I didn't bother opening up a discussion on the talk page or anything. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Red Hat

Can you review the justification for Deletion of Operation Red Hat, the Discussion for banning me and the the claims of providing mis-information. The accusations stated are not valid. Thanks Johnvr4 (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't follow the whole scenario, I was merely pointing out that, you said the article's deletion was unjustified, but the consensus on the deletion discussion was clearly for delete. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PCMag source

Where do you see 5GB mentioned in a chart at PCMag? I only see it mentioned in prose, and in such a way that PCMag is just reiterating what Game Informer reported – not providing additional verification or analysis. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it doesn't. I think I didn't look closely enough. I think I combined the 8GB Memory with the 500GB from the hard drive size below, and thought I saw 5BG. I'll revise my statement. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks. The biggest red flag to me is the fact that there are hundreds of reviews out there (some in the last couple days) that don't mention the 5GB limit. I find that strange, especially when the articles are focusing on comparing the PS4 to the Xbox One. You would think this would be too big of a factor to neglect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic 3D

Dear Sergecross73, could you please enlighten me by telling me what that first bold date is supposed to be? Is it for the first world wide release, the first English speaking relase, the first North American relase or the first US-American release?
If it is the first North American or US-American release, then you are right, but then the English wikipedia is biased and US-centric again.
If it is the first world wide or English speaking release, then it's just November again till more information is found, maybe cf. User talk:Yodonothav#June 2013. -Yodonothav (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link was to IGN, not IGN UK, so I'm guessing its the US release. I'm not sure why you're trying to bring "bias" into this, you removed a release date, and I re-added with a reliable source. If you have some concerns, try doing some basic Google searches for this kind of stuff, its usually not hard to find, rather than resorting to whatever a Wikia says, which isn't usable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the US release date, at least for Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and the price is US-American, too (USD).
Well, could you please tell me what the first bold date is supposed to be? Is it the date when the game was first released anywhere in the world whatever the language is (possibly in some non-English language like Japanese in some non-English speaking country like Japan), or the date when the first English version was released (which could have been in a usually non-English speaking country like Japan or Russia), or the date when it was first released in any English speaking region (North America, Australia, UK/GB), or the date when the game was released in North America or the USA?
To illustrate the question: picture. In this example the first mentioned date in bold is the date when the game was first released world wide and when it was first released in North America as the dates are the same. In The Legend of Zelda (video game) the first date (which isn't bold there though) is the date when the game was first released anywhere in the world (in this case, it was in a Japanese/English mix in Japan). So the first mentioned date is the date when the game was first released anywhere in the world, isn't it? -Yodonothav (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC), added: 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, it's not something I usually even use in articles I've created/rewritten. (I usually just list out the release dates and leave it at that.) You can ask at WP:VG or check through things like WP:VG/GL and see if its stated. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then can't I simply claim that the first mentioned date is the date when a game was first released anywhere in the world? [Just a rhetoric question, of course.] At least for Zelda that is, how it is in the article. As one could claim that Zelda 1 is mix of English and Japanese in the Japanese version, then here is Z:ALttP where the Japanese version was and is in Japanese. So this existing article proofs or implies that the first mentioned date is the date, when the game was first released anywhere in the world.
Now to repeat myself: By accepting that the European version of Sonic 3D was released in November and by stating that the first release of Sonic 3D anywhere in the world was the 30 November of the same year, one claims that the European version was released on 30 November too (as there is no 31 November). As no source was given, it's WP:OR. I instead simply accept that the game was (with some skepticism: most likely) released in November (ie. 30 in North America and at this time unknown/unsourced in Europe, so it could be the any date between 1 and 30). As the concret European day is at this time unknown/unsourced, it's all we have. Conclusion, at this time: The first release of Sonic 3D anywhere in the world was in November [1996].
Also again: For this argumentation it's completely irrelevant what some wikia states as it isn't used here and as I know that it (like many other sources) is no reliable source.
-Yodonothav (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Since we have a source that gives the full release date for the Saturn version, it would appear this is the earliest definitive date for any release of the game on any version and in any market (the citation specifically mentions the Sega Saturn version in North America). If a source appears stating that the European market release for any version falls earlier than that, and not just a broad "November 1996", then I certainly would advocate for changing the date to that release. In the general hierarchy of dates, Day/Month/Year trumps Month/Year, which trumps Year. I don't detect any nation-centrism here at all. --McDoobAU93 00:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might be missing something here, but Template:Infobox VG is the guideline we should be using; it states that the "bold" release date is the first date the game was released. Яehevkor ✉ 09:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with McDoob that we should go with the earliest definitive release date. ("November" isn't a release date. It's a release timeframe.) Find a reliable source that says a European date earlier than that, and we'll use that instead. (Thanks for the confirmation, Rehevkor.) This approach strikes me as a good compromise, and the fact that I'm willing to do that should calm any of those unfounded bad faith claims of favoring a certain region. If you disagree, start up a discussion on the article's talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

173.68.110.16 replied with an inferred uncivil attack at you. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I actually caught it right away, and blocked him for it. (It was even more overt than the original violation.) I had just forgotten to put the block template on his talk page. I appreciate the heads up though, as I could have very easily never noticed his response. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Wii_U#Inappropriate_commentary_in_lead_moved_to_reception

Hello, I've noticed you are an admin who frequently edits Wii U. I thought it was inappropriate to immediately start criticizing the system in the first paragraph as was previously done. A week or so ago I moved some of the criticism down into the reception section and immediately started a discussion about it on the talk page. So far only one other user has joined the discussion (and appears to agree with me). I was wondering if you could leave some input there. (I am asking because User:Mazty,[19] an account that edits almost nothing other than Wii U recently reverted my move. I in turn reverted them and referred them to the discussion)

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure

[20] I requested snowball closure. That mazty guy and his opinions without reliable sources are just pissing me off and contributing to too much wikistress, I am going to log off for a while. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I don't know if they'll close it or not, the rampant arguing could be miscontstrued as there not being a clear consensus, but as I said, whether its closed or not, its pretty apparent there is not consensus to include, nor are we anywhere near it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sergecross73. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

- did not want the message to be public Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Email responded to. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RetroArch guy

Well, at least he's talking more about the technical aspects of his project rather than just blindly accusing everyone of having a vendetta. Progress in baby steps. At this point, unless he launches into another tirade, I don't have any real intention of reporting him, but I don't mind if you do. There's only so much BS we can be expected to put up with, really. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are pretty much my thoughts too. Additionally, I don't think its worth the time sending to ANI at this point, people like this who are both so aggressive and unwilling to learn how things work here, will either lose interest, or get blocked for doing something overtly offensive in front of a general Admin. I feel either one coming on pretty soon... Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Especially now that an RFC (which I suspect will be closed pretty quick and I might get yelled at for) has been opened. Since he's calling into question either the policies themselves or how we're interpreting them, I figured that was a good way to get more input into this, such that he'll do either of the two things you mentioned or (preferably but unlikely, frankly) realize the error of his ways and shape up. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ive given my 2 cents and will probably be done now unless things take a ridiculous return... Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I've got it. He's crossed the line again, so now ANI's getting involved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protecting Xbox One

Usually I would take this to the request page, but since you have been actively involved on the article and have protected it before, I figured you wouldn't mind reinstating it. Quite a bit of unconstructive editing from IPs in the last few hours. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I don't mind doing stuff like this, and I used to do the same thing before I was an Admin, and have a go-to Admin or 2 who could help without waiting for a response at at one of the request places. So I get that. And I've restored it; its a high profile page that has received a lot of backlash, which is resulting in a lot of vandalism, so I think its necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FA prospect for Tales of Graces

Hi, I was hoping you could provide some assessments to see if Tales of Graces can reach FA. The only reasons I believe it might not make it to FA is the lack of information on some English voices for the characters or how the game was conceived since those two info don't exist. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DragonZero. While I am an Admin, and a big Tales fan, I'm not usually not one to work things up to GA or FA. I tend to create C class articles or clean up existing articles to about B-level, or maintain already established GA/FA articles.
Anyways, have you tried talking to Nall (talk · contribs)? He's been doing amazing work cleaning up some of the Tales games on my watchlist. He's been doing such an amazing job that I've kinda been working on other things lately instead. I think he's been using Japanese sources too, something I can't do any of, as I have zero knowledge of the language. Anyways, try talking to him, he may be willing and able. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm okay, thanks for the reply. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preloaded Applications & Rollback of.. in History Of Video Games 8th Generation

Did you see all my messages? Someone changed the 3DS Game Card Launcher back... It shouldn't be there.

From 78.156.109.166 aka (but not same as) Pubserv (I sometimes use the Pubserv account, or just post form my IP;) 78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anyone voice any strong opinions against it, so I'm guessing it was probably added by as an accident, or by someone unaware of the discussion. Feel free to remove it again unless something changes... Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions, especially to video game related articles! ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 22:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing Pumpkins members

Hello, Serge (if I may call you that),

I do not attempt to edit Wikipedia very often at all. One topic I happen to know a lot about is the Smashing Pumpkins. I see you edit that page very often. I want to tell you a brief story about my old experiences with an issue concerning the listing of band 'members'. Maybe the story will help you going forward as you work on the site.

There have been repeated disputes about the treatment by Wikipedia of different persons who have contributed to the Pumpkins. I used to argue, for one example -- and I see that this is still an active problem from my perspective -- that Melissa Auf der Maur's contributions did not deserve to be so greatly elevated in status relative to those of others, and those of Matt Walker in particular.

My arguments, evidence, and so forth, used to be repeatedly rejected by a persistent Wikipedia editor on the grounds that Auf der Maur was a 'full member' of the Smashing Pumpkins, while Matt Walker was not. I have the impression that this grounds for rejecting challenges to the current Pumpkins article still holds sway.

I simply want to suggest to you that definitive claims about who was ever 'considered a full member of the Pumpkins' essentially constitute original research - for there is not in reality a definitive list of members of the Smashing Pumpkins, nor has there ever been (and nor, of course, could there ever be).

What there is, in reality, is: (1) statements by Billy Corgan about his collaborators, and (2) evidence as to what the collaborators have actually done. In effect, when assessing the status of those collaborators, the current Wikipedia article attempts to completely privilege (1) over (2), but at the same time, the article does not cite any statements by Billy Corgan about who is a member or not, and when these matters have been debated on the Talk page, it has been amply demonstrated that Corgan's statements have varied, contradicted themselves, or been nonexistent.

In my view, the current articles dance around the fact that in a lot of ways Matt Walker's substantive contributions to the Pumpkins - his (2), in my taxonomy - were a lot greater than Melissa Auf der Maur's. For example, as I just edited the Pumpkins entry to point out, Walker played the drums on about half of Adore. The previous absence of that fact from the article is an example of the ways in which the privileged status of Auf der Maur vis-a-vis all other contributors is corrupting the presentation of the facts. But once the editors stop believing that the assertion "but so-and-so was a 'full member'" is a trump card that cannot be overcome with evidence, then the article will improve. Jjb (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jjb. We can re-open discussions on this if you like. I was under the impression that they were currently correct, but I am open to hear what you have to say on it. (I'm pretty familiar with their background too, so hopefully that mix of knowledge of the band and Wiki-policy can be helpful.) As far as mentioning Matt Walker more frequently, I see no problem with that without discussion, unless/until someone feels you're focusing on him a little too much. As far as the membership stuff goes, lets discuss it. Do you prefer Smashing Pumpkins or List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members? Let's reconvene there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems again

I noticed the same admin pushing his weight around here and here. Threatening to delete an article over an edit war and threatening another good faith user with blocking in article talk space? I don't want to take it to ANI myself but I though I would ask your opinion first. Just found more harshness.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he's being a little more brash than necessary, but I wouldn't take this to ANI personally. I've learned that people usually need to be really blatantly bad to get anywhere there. (Direct insults/swearing/threats etc.) It'd probably just lead to lots of wasted time, with lots of arguing and no results. I, and another editor, have asked him to cool down a bit. I'll try to keep an eye on things, but let me know if it looks like he actually makes any bad blocks or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is something fishy about these sculpture articles in Vancouver. The same nom went over to commons with some lame DRs. Here, here, and here. I fear that the admin may delete the article even after being involved in it. In that case I may just email WMF for Wikibullying.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's not bullying you, he's expressing concern. Have you talked to him about it? Chill out! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I wouldn't worry about him ignoring the AFD results and deleting the article anyways. That would be a major violation of Admin rights, and it's not like he could be sneaky and stealthily do it. Click on Pokemon-Epic of Time. See how it pretty clearly shows who deleted it? (I deleted that one because it was a hoax. There's no such thing.) So yeah, I doubt he'd do that, it'd be like "Admin Suicide". Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In theory he could supress the log entry (see User:Sergecross73/Sandbox), but it'd still be viewable by admins and would only make it worse. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I had not known that. But yeah, not only would it be unlikely, but Canoe, you can ask me to look into it if that ever did happen. And yeah, as Salvidrim says, BWilkins is being somewhat rude, but I don't think it would constitute as full-on harassment. It doesn't seem like he's especially doing anything in regards to deleting things, so I'd just ignore him for the time being. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do plan to ignore him unless he keeps being rude. If the article is deleted then I will have it userfied so I have a link for all the media to see when I contact them about it. I may list those three lame DRs as well. I can see censoring porn on en:wp but to create three lame DRs with obscure websites claiming to be copyright holders of harmless art just has me baffled. I was offered admin at commons and I may un-decline and accept it at this point. @Salvidrim, did you even read those DRs over there? I have tried reasoning with Bwilkins and as a result he was banned from my talk page for similar rude behavior that went against policy. I won't be taking this to ANI if it escalates but I will warn the WMF and Mr. Wales before I link this all to Canadian media. We are very proud of our culture and arts up here. If you wish to delete all the ones in the USA that we aren't even allowed to host images of then go ahead. I may start with File:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg. I emailed the sculptor's people with no response. If he doesn't wish to provide a version of the sculpture for us then why should we host a fair use one for his articles? Seems that en:wp needs a bit of shake-up to put some of these bullies in their places. Media coverage and DRs of all these fair use art images may be a good way to start. These bullies keep forgetting that we are here to provide knowledge to our readers and not to trim and delete articles that are notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can concede is that BWilkins could be a little nicer, and that I personally tend to stay away from image related stuff because I find the policies confusing and I don't really have any motivation to work with images anyways. I don't believe you're really in any position to "warn" WMF or Jimmy Wales, as I doubt this is really of any interest to the "media". What you've got is grumpy people deleting some images, possibly a little hastily, not some anti-Canadian image conspiracy. I can continue to help you with this on the English Wikipedia, I can't help you if you start going down that route. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am just baffled at the double standard. We have many images in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cloud_Gate and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Academy_Awards that violate http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP I did mention both categories at the drama boards over there and no one seemed to care. I also created http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Canoe1967/Sculptors to help with the issue but that seems to lack support as well. Creating lame DRs to remove Canadian images that aren't violations seems like a waste of everyone's time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lay off the Canadian angle, buddy. I'm from up north too. This has strictly nothing to do with the WMF or Jimmy Wales. If you don't like it... walk away, I guess? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have Cloud Gate and Gate to the Northwest Passage that are two radically different articles about sculptures on en:wp. I don't see AfD and edit wars/block threats about all the OR, trivia, sculptor accolades in the 'merican one. If the media were contacted or our Canadian Heritage Ministry I think they would claim a double standard as well. Instead of en:wp this seems to be usa:wp.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like that's a fair comparison. Cloud Gate is a Featured Article, while the Gate to the Northwest Passage is only a Start Class article. And the person who nominated the Canadian one for deletion appears to be from Canada, judging by their name and User Page, and seems pretty active such topics. When I vote to delete American video games, and then create Japanese ones, I'm not on a "Pro-Japan", "Anti-America" proganda trip. I'm just trying to get rid of crappy articles and create notable ones. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is the Canadian one ever going to make it past start class if the admin and nom keep removing sourced material claiming 'trivial'. Cloud Gate is full of unsourced trivia. A whole table on how it was built? They are also removing material about the artist and their other works. The nom may have to look at it every day and may think that having the article or images deleted is someone sort of victory.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I didn't agree with that either, and I advocated re-adding the information in the discussion on the talk page. I noticed you have not even joined that discussion. You really ought to; if you go to other avenues like ANI, that's the first thing they're going to ask you, and if your answer is "No, I haven't discussed on the talk page." they're almost certain to not take you seriously, because that's supposed to be Step 1 to solving content disputes. So yes, I agree, I don't believe it should be deleted, and the AFD isn't really heading towards a consensus of "Delete". But if you want to make progress, you need to follow proper protocol, which means things like assuming good faith and not assuming that there's anti-Canadian motivations, and discussing on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to wait for the AfD to close as keep and then help with the article. LightShed is another one that was unilaterally re-directed without discussion. I find it hard to assume good faith with three lame image DRs over at commons caused by AfD and drive-by tagging here. IMHO the nom created the obscure image hosting pages to try and remove images at commons. I may ask admin over there to put a black mark on their record for abuse of the DR system.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's really nothing wrong with redirecting an article that only has one sentence and one reference. I was going to point out that this was something you hadn't challenged or argued against yourself either, but it seems you have in fact done that since then. Now, if the person continually tries to redirect it, without discussion or consensus, yes, that's not acceptable, but the initial redirect wasn't against any policy. (I'm strictly talking about policy here, I'm unfamiliar with the actual topic.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can explain English Wikipedia backwards and frontwards, but I really don't work with image stuff, so I really can't be of much help with Commons/Wikimedia stuff. I just don't know how that works. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images are abused far too much on en:wp. Most of the ones hosted here wouldn't last a speedy at commons. Most are Flickr washed copyvio. Wikipedia:Non-free content review has a huge backlog that I gave up trying to help with because they kept moving the policy goalposts. They are still trying to move them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bike Race (video game)

Thank you for your opinion, as the article creator I admit and agree that the game has no good coverage, but it has received some popularity (maybe in the past only). Please let me know if anything new happens to this article. Thanks. Megahmad (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I can't do more for you, I intended on digging up sources and !voting "Keep", but I can't find much out there. Right now, I'm not sure there's a valid argument for Keep unless people are swayed that being the #1 game on a platform is notable enough to ignore all rules or something. If I find more sources, I'll post them though... Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time. Appreciated. Megahmad (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic

Hello there. I have been busy lately with other things, but I am planning to take Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) to GA status as I did with Sonic Adventure obviously. The Sonic article has obviously failed GA status (it was not nominated by me, but by someone else). Can you give me some tips on how to improve these articles? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjones, glad to see you're still working on VG/Sonic articles. I can discuss further tomorrow, but for now:
  • I think both could have more reviews added to the prose in the Reception section.
  • While Czars many questions are a bit excessive in the peer review, we could probably address some of his points though.

I'll try to browse over things some in the coming days and post thoughts on the talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_20#Google

yes, I do find it sad, as well as your comment rather dismissive of the concerns of an unintenional googlebomb. However, I'm trying to be productive about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis#Google_Flavour_text - It would be great to get your input on that. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't find it sad that one correct name is used over another correct name, and I have no interest in rejoining those time-wasting discussions... Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about renaming the article. That's done,no point hitting that dead horse any more, but I think the Flavour text, if it can be changed (I've no idea how google gets it) will help make it clearer for searchers, regardless of which name they are looking for 81.149.182.210 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=565409371"