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 TheKingsTable (talk | contribs) at 18:59, 20 February 2014. 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.

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
I should start by saying that it was actually hard for me to choose which Barnstar to give you! You've done lots of great work on video game and music articles, you've done lots of great admin work, and you're always working hard to improve articles, even many lesser-known ones.

This time I'd just like to say I appreciate the difficulty that comes with being an admin and I'd like to thank you for your ability to remain calm and rational when in a dispute. Thank-you very much for continuing to improve Wiikipedia. DarkToonLink 09:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kinds words, I really appreciate it. As you've probably heard me say, sometimes it seems Admin are always yelled at for being "the bad guy" when they're just enforcing policy, so I do appreciate the kind words. I hope you get the recognition you deserve too, you're a very good editor that has done a very good job of overcoming the high hurdle of getting used to this Wikipedia culture. Many have a hard time jumping in, but you do very good work! Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at DarkToonLink's talk page.
Message added 08:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Holiday wishes!
Sergecross73, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays!

I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :)

  • Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!
Thanks Salvidrim! I wish the same to you! Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays, Sergecross73! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another holiday message for you!


DarkToonLink is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

G-Zay

He has posted a legal threat on his latest sockpuppet page, which is Skyjet89 (talk · contribs). I think he has gone way too far. Can you please disable his talk page access? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. (Seriously? This person believes a block of their account is something the FBI concerns themselves with? Yikes.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Honestly, this user was a pain in my neck and basically, I've just about had it with this nonsense. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Generations/Sonic Lost World

Hi, Serge. I am planning to help make Sonic Generations and Sonic Lost World good articles. I think we should work on the entirety of these articles, using Crash of the Titans and Crash: Mind over Mutant as models. However, I have a concern here. Even if there isn't a direct link to Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations, should we at least mention these anywhere in the Sonic Lost World article? We should also mention Sonic Colors in the plot section at the beginning to tell the backstory of the article as well. Also, I think the differences between the 3DS need to be explained in Sonic Generations, such as the characters, setting and storyline. I'm discussing this here. Any thoughts about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I created Lost World, and am a large contributor/maintainer at the other 2, so I'd definitely like to help. I have no idea how much free time I'll have today; could be a lot, could be just a little, but I'll do what I can. Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair deal. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luo Feichi

Before I edited this articles, I checked many other articles about e-sports players. Actually, I did not see any articles which have reliable sources. I have listed some of these articles in that page. For example, article Guillaume Patry and Andy Dinh, these two did not even have reliable online resources. If you decide to delete this kind of articles, can you also check the following articles which have the same problem and determine whether to delete them? Fredrik Johansson (electronic sports player)，Guillaume Patry,Andy Dinh,Aleksey Krupnyk,Danylo Ishutin,Laurens Pluijmaekers, Manuel Schenkhuizen, Sander Kaasjager,Cannito Giancarlo,Cannito Giancarlo, Chris Loranger and Marcus ''Dyrus'' Hill. Miracle dream (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)

The metric for deciding whether or not articles should be kept, is always going to be if there are reliable, third party sources that discuss the subject in detail. I don't usually go and nominate articles for deletion, I just comment on ones that have already been nominated. BUT, if I were the type to nominate them, I'd bet that there are a bunch that would probably get deleted because they don't have the sources to meet Wikipedia's standard for notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G-Zay evidence page

Hey, Serge. I am trying to compile an evidence page related to G-Zay here. This is for the purpose of preparing an edit filter or a long-term abuse report if the disruption continues. Can you help me out? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not GZay expert or anything, I didn't ever really interact with him until after he was banned (or maybe to the point when things escalated to ban discussions, not sure) but I can still try to assist some too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with HappyLogolover2011

Hey Serge, long time no talk! I've recently been having a little trouble with User:HappyLogolover2011. Every once in a while he uploads new pictures that he took on his emulators to replace older ones. While usually there would be no problem with them, the new pictures tend to be glitchy and/or don't really present the gameplay as well as previous versions. (One good example is this picture from the SSBM article.) He never really tries making a case for himself (the only actual discussion he's had with me has been User talk:The Stick Man#Widescreen Melee), and prefers simply reverting my reverts while telling people to quickly delete the old versions so I can't stop him again. I'm sure he means well and I'm unwilling to take this to ANI (but if it comes to that, then I will), but I wanted another admin's opinion on this. If you could address this or point me to someone else who could, that would be great. Sorry to bother you, TheStickMan[✆Talk] 05:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents, but I think both screenshots are actually pretty shitty for their intended purpose. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I appreciate the attempt to upload a better quality picture. I just think his are worse, but he keeps on pushing them without saying much. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 05:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Stick Man, contact me whenever you need help. I'm not the biggest expect with images though, but I'll still give my two cents. It seems like we shouldn't be emphasizing emulator screenshots because they could misrepresent the game, whether it be things like glitches, mentioned above, or that, many emulators can show games at higher resolutions than the actual game, misrepresenting it by making it look better than the game does when "correctly" played on a system. Thoughts, anyone who stalks my talk page? ^_^ Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vita Sale Figures

yes it is i work for Sony Computer Entertainment and it looks like 25 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonSonySalesUpdate (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not for long, you'd be fired pretty fast for leaking info like that. But it doesn't matter, there's no way you're telling the truth, or that those sales figures are correct. Those are well beyond projections, of which Sony is expected to fall short on. Vita sales are not great right now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just talk to Sony Computer Entertainment they will confirm it okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonSonySalesUpdate (talk • contribs) 15:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they won't, those sales are insane. Also, if sales figures are released, they would be available all across the internet because all the main video game websites would do and article about it. Until you have such an article supporting updated sales figures, they should not be updated. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just butting in here, but isn't claiming to be an employee of X company at odds with WP:USERNAME? --benlisquareT•C•E 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually dabble in the username stuff that much, but you're probably right. Beyond that, he only seems to be interested in childish games and bogus sales figures, so I blocked him for being a vandalism-only account. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how to handle this

a particular editor i'm banned from interacting with, has made an erroneous edit, by clumping all video games together in the Ghost in the Shell article, despite the article already being divided by series (in which certain video games belong to specific series already mentioned) (it's like clumping all the manga together considering all of the series have had manga adaptations, except for the original series). How do i handle it when i know perfectly well there's not enough editors to care about that particular series to revert. and since this ban is "indefinite" i don't know how to bring it up in the talkpage.Lucia Black (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it erroneous as in "incorrect factual information" or is it erroneous as in "This isn't the way you want it to be organized"? Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its an inconsistent form of organization. The article is organized by "series" sort of speak. There is the original manga series, the film series, the "stand alone complex" tv series, and the recent "arise" OVA series. Each series has its own offspring of media that of course will have similar variants. So it doesn't make sense to give video games its own particular section because its not its own series, they are all individual games from their respected series that already have their own sections.
Not to mention they are direct copies of the information i added not to long ago, basically its mainly video game off of stand alone complex series and the one Ghost in the shell video game based on the manga.Lucia Black (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this sounds like it falls into the latter then. This sounds like the kind of stuff that you/ChrisG/Ryulong have been arguing about forever. As such, my recommendation to you is to drop it. You are interaction banned from him, and the projects he's working through. Unless it's objectively factually inaccurate, I'm not interested in intervening.
You're free to consult another Admin, if you're unhappy with my response, but just remember that the community is very low on patience your arguments with him in regards to how to organize these anime articles. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it is "objectively" inaccurate. it implies that video games are a separate entity of the other media given in, especially if organized by name of series over media. it doesn't "sound" like Chris/me/Ryulong issues. its a valid issue. why don't you take a look at it before writing it off as an issue.Lucia Black (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstand. Unless it's "Chris listed Batman as a main character in GitS", I'm not interested. That sort of factual inaccuracy. Your interaction ban was enacted to stop all these arguments, not drag more people into them. Again, if you're unhappy with my answer, consult another Admin. If they intervene, great, that's what you wanted. If they don't, then its probably a sign that my approach is the way to go. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, there should be a way of presenting this to the public. can i provide this to the wikiproject without providing more discussion. even though its been beaten to death...for good reason.Lucia Black (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what should i do if its the other way around? when a particular editor beigns to undo these very edits i've made in the past.Lucia Black (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should follow our advice and drop it. I don't see how complicated this is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i have a feeling you didn't read what i said. so i'll repeat myself. what happens when chrisgualtieri reverts my revisions?Lucia Black (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Walk away. Enjoy that you're still able to edit at all. Don't forget: you're dangerously close to an indef block, where you wouldn't be able to edit anything anymore. And remember that all of this is merely about organizing how to portray anime/manga. It's not that serious, especially considering, as I said above, none of the info is actually incorrect, its just an organizational issue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't hypothetical. he reverted my revision in Ghost in the Shell (manga) article (a different article), in which re-reverted back, but this is a clear sign he will do it again. And even so, you're not really acting neutral if you're going to allow another editor thats banned from interacting with me, and violates the rules.Lucia Black (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, because I looked this up, and the first thing I saw was you directly violating your interaction ban. You literally, directly reverted him, and referred to him directly, in that edit. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes really. look at my previous comment. i said i re-reverted. lets not try to cover up the truth here by making it seem like i'm trying to lie.Lucia Black (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Can you show the direct difs? 2)Does he have the same restrictions? An Admin formally declared in on your talk page. I don't see it on his. 3) Do 2 wrongs make a right? Shouldn't you have consulted an Admin before you reverted him? Regardless of who acted first, you still violated your interaction ban already. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there really is no point, i'm already banned from that page along with the other editor, so it feels good knowing my edits wont be reverted again). next time, i WILL inform an admin before it happens. but for now....i'm too tired...i'm just going to concentrate on an article i can fix.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I imagine you know, at this point, what type of article he is likely to work on. Please try to chose something he'd be unlikely to work on, so these sort of things don't even arise. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, more issues arise by the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghost_in_the_Shell_(manga)&diff=590698248&oldid=590692849 here Thomas believes that the violation began just with me, but it began with Chris. and since both of us got banned from the article, per status quo, the article should be reverted to before ChrisGualtieri (and I) made any further edits. This can easily be seen as a form of meat puppet considering how close the edits have been and how confusing the edit was done.Lucia Black (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted my edit. If it's true that the violations started with Chris, then the article is restored to status quo. --18:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

nevermind. its resolved.Lucia Black (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About previous talk

Sorry, maybe I am too sensitive. My recent edition focused on Luo but it is because of the discussion. Actually,I am also surprised about that. In my previous plan,I just want to spend maybe 1 or 2 in that article. The discussion is beyond my plan. I am not admin so do not spend much time for edition in wiki. I may edit one or two article per a day or even spend a week for one article. This two weeks I spend all time for the discussion so my recent edition is all about this. Actually I do not feel there is something wrong with Wikipedia policy. I think the problem is the list of source in wiki video game project is more about video game and there is no source about e-sports here. Thus I think Viedo game project group may need to add more online source about e-sports as the reliable sources. Then I see you and another admin think about merging article Luo in another article but you don't discuss this anymore. I have stated my opinion and don't want to join the discussion how to merge or other kind of way to deal with anymore. Sorry to disturb and thanks for your explain.Miracle dream (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2014‎

Piero Scaruffi and Soul Crusher's spamming behaviour

Regarding Piero Scaruffi, a wp:consensus was reached by several users in a long discussion herethat he was not "a professional" critic. He has even created his own publishing edition "omniware" which only publishes his own books, see Tower.com source here and here on book-info.com . Soul Crusher has been editing for months, tons of reviews with only "piero Scarruffi". Some might think he is a relative of Scaruffi. Such dedication is suspicious. Scaruffi is also not included in the list of sources for reviews on the wikiproject albums article. [see here]. I think we should report this to administrators because Soul crusher's behaviour sounds too much like a commercial for a non professional critic. Woovee (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're in luck, as I am an admin. I'll probably start up a discussion at WikiProject Albums about this first though. A more recent discussion happened here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_reviews_.28again.29 - but that's either a really weak consensus or a WP:NOCONSENSUS. We can just start up a new discussion and see where it goes. Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the consensus is rather to not keep his reviews. I read all the talks and made the counts.
The wp:consensus is clear. The result is 18 for him, 25 against him.
The main problem is that he is not a professional music writer. He's a scientist who writes about music as a hobby in his spare time and who self publishes his books on Iuniverse self publishing and "omniware", source here. In 2006, 3 years after the release of his first book, he admitted he had only sold 1.500 copies worldwide. source here. So, he can't make his living with this. BTW, the writer of the article, Dan morrell, only contributed 4 articles to this magazine between 2005 and 2006 according to the paper archives, see here.
According to wiki rules, the template for the rating for the articles shows this presentation: "Professional ratings, Review scores". Thus, normally only professional ratings should be included. According to our rules, his biography should even be deleted of wiki. Indeed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bio#Basic_criteria says: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.. Scaruffi only had 2 sources for his work about music: they are mentionned on the Scaruffi article. 2 doesn't mean multiple to my point of view. This is a very "strong delete" for me.
Concerning Soul crusher's behaviour that can only be dubbed "spamming", how can wiki accept such a situation. All his last 2000 edits, see here are all to put links leading Scaruffi's website. It is a publicity, and lobbying. 3 new links for Scaruffi per minute, that's what he did. And he makes this, 2 days per month, disappears to stop our guard for a while and then comes back. There's no need to start another discussion to my point of view. And as a administrator, you should also report this and clearly ban Soul Crusher for quite a long time if not indefinitely.Woovee (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) No one is likely to disagree that Soul Crusher's contributions are a problem, but Sergecross73, and any other individual admin, doesn't technically have the power alone to impose lengthy or indefinite blocks/bans on users. A consensus would need to be reached and any user, including yourself, has just as much power to make proposals such as this at the proper outlets (such as WP:ANI). Яehevkor ✉ 19:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, while I do have the power to block people, I can't usually jump straight to an indefinite block. You need to have enough warnings and shorter blocks prior to that. He's gotten plenty of warnings it seems, so I think I'll give him a final warning regarding this, and block him if he continues it without a clear cut consensus, he'll start getting successively longer blocks. I'm going to let him attempt to get a better consensus first though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genre discussion

Thanks for taking part in the genre discussion. I was just wondering you could respond to a new point i made that the way genres are currently handled (even in a good form) goes against the standards of MOS:INFOBOX (to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance") and WP:TECHNICAL,("Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material."). The infobox currently doesn't do this for genre. That's why I think it needs a change. It's not just for vandalism, as we have a bigger issue at hand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what else to say about this. Whether its vandalism or other reasons, I just don't feel your suggestions are plausible. The genre is a defining fact that is one of the first things people look for when looking up music, so it should definitely be right there, readily apparent in the infobox. (Its a format held across virtually any format coving music, really.) While I support using only one or two genre in an infobox, I don't think its realistic to even come to a conclusion on selecting a preset selection of genres to chose from. I don't believe its realistic that there would be a consensus on such a proposal, not to mention, it's sure to certain rub some people the wrong, or not really classify subjects in the best way. (Like how people get worked up when they see a pop rock label on someone like Metallica or Slipknot at a store or at Allmusic type website, which is admittedly, not the best choice for identifying them. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scaruffi article

This article should need to be locked to anonymous users with ips only. Indeed, there are 2 brand new anonymous users (with ips only) that suddenly appeared this week end to modify this article and edit out all the details that I brought last week. These 2 users 82.152.187.125 and 5.69.238.72 appeared to have both a special interest in famous wrestlers. This is not a coincidence, they are both the same user. Woovee (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hate to put a downer on this, but there are some serious NPOV violations in this article.. Яehevkor ✉ 16:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is what I was going to say as well, but I got sidetracked by another issue. Basically, I think it should be talked over on the talk page. I'm not sure the IPs are all wrong here. We don't need to repeatedly state that he hasn't been published. There's already been consensus that he's unusable as a source, so there's no need for such statements on the article about him. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is these two ips are fom the same person. [1] edited about the wrestler Charles Wright_(wrestler) and his double edited [2] about the wrestler Sting (wrestler). This speaks volume. I need to deal with one identified user with a name and not one multiplied by 2 thanks to anonymous ips. Woovee (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither IP is editing very much. (One only has 5, the other like 20 or so.) If they're using it to edit war/tag team to get their way, that's not okay...but right now, they've done so little I don't believe it warrants any action. Start a discussion on the article's talk page, and post a comment on both IP's talk page to comment. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth talking a closer look at what's going on at Scaruffi. Woovee is playing the martyr, the impartial editor held back by pesky vandals, when in fact he's on a relentless crusade against the subject. Please, analyse the edit history, his tone, the out-of-context use of quotes to drive his agenda, and most of all, his edit history. I suggest protection, and that we leave the article as it currently is following my recent alterations. Hopefully you'll agree that it's totally neutral at present. 5.69.238.72 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Woovee included too much info that belonged in the discussions about whether or not he should be used as a source on Wikipedia. (That has been since resolved.) That belonged in those discussions, but s not appropriate for his article. However, I think some of your trimming has been rather heavy-handed as well. Both of you should be hashing this out on the article's talk page, or at least have better edit summaries, I'm the only one who's said anything on the talk page, and I'm mostly just mediating this... Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think talk page discussion was necessary, since so many doctrines were blatantly violated by Woovee's crusade. I have massive concerns about neutrality, and Rehevkor above also observed "serious NPOV violations". 5.69.238.72 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that both of you are going about it so aggressively, and not discussing things out. I don't disagree that some of Woovee's info needs to be changed. But as I said, you're trimming a lot of things rather aggressively that are not "serious NPOV violations", such as the info on sourced sales figures, or the comment about him being a "one man operation" which is not an overtly offensive thing. (It could even be considered a good thing, like a positive comment on his ability.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was a little forceful but I still maintain that Woovee is on a crusade. Okay, so the sales figure is noted, and I mentioned that Scaruffi, by himself, maintains the website. Given Woovee's track record, it would seem that the "one man operation" detail was an attempt to discredit the subject, i.e., 'It's only Scaruffi involved, so it doesn't matter.' 5.69.238.72 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus has been made. Could you write a word to on 5.69.238.72's talk page or if this user doesn't follow the consensus, the article must be locked. Thanks for the help. Woovee (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus. See the blatant, unrelenting rigging and agenda pushing I'm talking about now, Sergecross73? EDIT: The "one-man operation" quote is on there, that's fine. But Woovee is acting like there's a consensus on the article as a whole, which there isn't. His biased opinion equates to consensus, basically. 5.69.238.72 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You both need to start assuming good faith and keep the comments on the content, not each other. I don't need any help identifying anyone's motives, consensuses, or if an article needs to be protected or not - I've got a firm grasp on all of that. Just focus on the content, and hashing it out on the article's talk page. I'll keep mediating and keeping an eye on the discussion over there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I absolutely cannot assume good faith from a man who constructed this POV-riddled nightmare: [3]. "Dan Morrell, who only wrote four articles..." If that's not a glaring, agenda-driven crusade against the subject, I don't know what is. 5.69.238.72 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TTR

I think listing total number of user reviews is a valid and important piece of information. How could you not think it's essential? With respect, I want to know what gives you the right to change my edits? You have created a biased and unfair page on this title. I am only trying to reflect what the media and more importantly the gamers think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteTheDestroyer (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Lost World

Do you plan to work actively on the Plot section of that game? You haven't edited it in weeks, it looks like. Tezero (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, I don't even usually work on plot sections at all except for brief overviews. I think Sjones or TimesAreChanging put that template in. I actually almost removed it myself today, but I ran out of time. So yeah, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Okay, must have been Sjones. I figured it was him, but I knew you recently revamped the article too. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

Why are you putting not in source for book references? No book quoted in the majority of video game related articles links directly to a source. So I don't understand the logic here, because it's from a book regardless. TheKingsTable (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its plain and simple. You linked to a Google Books entry, and a book listing at Amazon. At no point in those links do they say 4 million copies sold for Bubsy 1. That's why I added the "not in citation" tag. Nowhere in the links does it give that sales figure. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, well recently I found a more straight forward source and replaced it. That source my be better. The old one was based on "I think we sold this" so it probably was not the most reliable. The current one is more reliable. TheKingsTable (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it still suffers from one of the main points above (the link still doesn't give a figure), as you said, at least it seems like a more reliable, third part account, and seems a little more feasible... Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got a problem.

You're an admin. There seems to be a problem with a user randomly reverting my edits and spamming others talk pages without any reason by saying I am a sockpuppet. It's becoming an issue and I was hoping you can provide a solution for this issue.

Take a look at the bottom of this talk page here and the history of the talk page here.

Also notice here that the last 2 edits on top by the same user were reverted "just because" with no real reason than accusations in the edit summaries, he also currently edited a few other pages. Then there is this user, encouraging the issue. So this may become a problem.

What is recommended? TheKingsTable (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see both sides of the issue. On one hand, if they're so sure you're a sockpuppet, they should report it to WP:SPI, not use it as an edit summary. If it comes back negative, as in, you're not a sockpuppet, then that'll quash that right away. On the other hand, they may have a point too. I've come across the same issue with you in the articles I monitor. Many of your edits are very sloppy, with typos, capitalization issues, and flow. (You reintroduced/re-defined the PC port of Bubsy twice in the reception section, when it was already defined, for example, and you've had a few sentences that ramble on too. Perhaps it would be good to slow down a bit, and be a little more careful with your edits, and maybe you'll be met with less resistance? This also goes into what I was telling you before, where you'd probably have an easier time working things out with people if you weren't so aggressive...
I'll ask the other editor about the sock puppet comments though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am still quite confused whenever you say I am "so" aggressive. It's not like I am sending people hate mail or angrily posting on their talk pages saying their edits are wrong. TheKingsTable (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the post you pinged me on. I have been involved in this whole situation since early January, so I would be happy to fill you in. The whole situation revolves around a user named jakandsig, who is currently blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. There have already been two SPIs filed against him, which have resulted in three accounts being blocked as socks (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jakandsig/Archive). Each time a sock gets blocked, another has appeared to carry on editing the same articles. The last of these socks, Kombat Police made his last post on February 14, this account appeared two days later and has targeted several of the same articles, advanced several of the same views, is active during similar times of the day, and exhibits some of the same behavioral issues as the previous users. There is a pretty convincing pattern here, and I am not the only video game article editor who thinks so. I may file an SPI at some point, but its never a good idea to rush into any administrative action in my view, so I have been mostly observing. I think you will find that I still take each of this user's edits on its own merits, and a look at the edit history of Asteroids (video game) will show that I interceded in this dispute and reworked this user's edit so that it fit properly within the larger article. Anyway, I hope that clears things up for you a little. Indrian (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Indrian: I thought you handled that well, and that's been the only way I've had any luck with content matters with the editor too, rather than reverting his sloppy additions wholesale, I've tried to rework them into a useable form. Anyways, I certainly see the similarities, as far as an unwarranted rage in the edit summaries, and sloppy additions. Can you add this name to his on-going list of SPI reports? (I've personally never added a new name to an old report.) If you would help with that, I'll read up on the past SPI cases and whatnot, and once I'm knowledgeable with that, I'll be able to identify his socks better on my own, and block any clear cases of block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? I can clearly see that I have not "tackled" several of the same articles just by looking at the users history. Neither have I advanced the same "views" either, the edit summaries of the user make that seem pretty clear to me. I would also like to point out that Indrian actually did not fix the dispute at all with the Asteroids article. In fact, you will see that the disruptive user actually was fine with it, but then removed it after only because he though I was a sock puppet. so you thinking that he "handled that way" is highly suspicious. Eitherway something should be done about the issue now so it does not become a bigger problem later and I get less of a headache. Also Unwarranted rage in the edit summaries? Really? TheKingsTable (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=596376244"