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 5.134.117.107 (talk) at 13:37, 12 September 2014 (→‎No need to semi-protect anything). 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.

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.

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

I will be in contact with the band if there is new information. Stayheredusttodust (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2014

Nickelback

On that post that I made earlier, I had said: "here's an another biased opinion: __________________________________________". I said at least I didn't wish death upon them, and if I did, it was the emotions that I had displayed on that particular topic. I also said: I shouldn't say this, but I wish that I want them to be dead (in my opinion). So I had two sentences, and they were all about biased and I my thoughts and opinions on Nickelback being dead. Either way, it was wrong of me to do such things on Wikipedia, of all things... yeah, that's atrocious. There you go, my friend, I'm taking full responsibility of what I posted and said, and I'm not going to argue and say some bullshit just to get out of the trouble that I did; I'm not 14 again. Sorry about that. panicpack121 14:31, 19 April 2014.

Re: Potential super powers

Yeah, that's fine. I don't care; I was just wondering. Hell, I stalked your talk page earlier today. Anyhow, here's an accusation of pro-Russian bias and Russian nationality, here's an unoffensive but obstinate and poorly formatted request, and here's an ironic condemnation of the article's perceived laughably poor quality, along with another suggestion that my familial link to Eastern Europe extends to the present day. You can decide what to do; I just want the article to gain a reasonable level of stability.

Oh, and I haven't merged any of the Sonic characters since Wisps. You can do that if you want. I guess I'm not picky as long as the section is reasonably complete for the average reader; I'm probably going to be rewriting everything there anyway if I decide to pull through with the characters topic, since it would need to be an FL. Not that I want anything to do with character articles in the near future, but you know... Tezero (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the IP a warning. Let me know if he doesn't stop, or gets worse out of spite or something (I don't especially intend to keep following the discussion unless you need Admin like assistance, which is fine to request of me, just because I'm pretty disinterested in things like politics typically.) If he doesn't get better, I'll give him a last chance, and then a block. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be burdensome, but would you mind keeping an eye on the GAN altogether? You know, just seeing to it that the acrimony eventually flattens out and the citations get fixed to something above bare links. I've been spouting for a while that a Wikibreak is upon me, but it's about time to put my money where my mouth is, because my last GAN for the time being is finally done and some IRL events in the coming weeks make excessive Wikipedia editing a bad idea. Or maybe you can find someone who's as neutral as you or me and willing to stir the cauldron. Tezero (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 I would like to report that Tezero is correct about ip user 151.40.13.125 for being disruptive on the Potential Superpower GA discussion and disruptive editing on the Potential Superpowers article. I agree with Tezero that I too want the Potential Superpowers article to gain a reasonable level of stability adding Russia in as a superpower with the sources needed if editors can start to agree and allow in. However I will report the example problems with ip user 151.40.13.125 of ip hoping as I kept the ip's editing history for questioning; who is speaking entirely against Russia in all ip’s I found below. All the same editor, all ip addresses are from Florence Italy. I would like to discredit this user out of this discussion since it is all the same wording slamming disruptive edits against Russia since 2013 that this is not effective when users like this are disruptive and are doing the opposite. Here is the list with links of the contributes starting July 8, 2014‎ - 151.40.13.161[1] , July 7, 2014 151.40.45.125[2], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.95.82[3], April 2013 - Bocca Trabaria[4], March 2014 - 151.40.24.9[5], March 2014 -151.40.7.192[6], Sept 23, 2013 - 151.40.18.30[7], Sept 15, 2013 - 151.40.55.125[8], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.35.236[9], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.9.149[10], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.72.141[11], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.14.179[12], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.83.17[13], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.69.199[14], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.34.218[15], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.120.19[16], Feb 4, 2014 - 151.40.63.30[17], Feb 4, 2014- 151.40.16.167[18], Dec 28, 2013 - 151.40.107.93[19], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.27.25[20], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.64.77[21], Dec 25, 2013 - 151.40.54.32[22], Dec 23, 2013 - 151.40.41.170[23], Dec 22, 2013 - 151.40.9.139[24], Sept 8, 2013 - 151.40.102.200[25], August 14, 2013 - 151.40.125.50[26], May 10, 2013 – Mediolanum[27], Oct 22, 2013 - Glc72[28], May 21, 2013 - 151.40.11.180[29], May 14, 2013 -151.40.59.151[30], May 14, 2013 - 151.40.60.108[31], May 11, 2013 - Bocca_Trabaria[32]
That is the list which this ip user 151.40.13.125 is certainly not a good editor because of past disruption on this very subject. If you click on the URL links above, you'll notice the same writing style and same pushing on the same subject. I appreciate your help, thanks.--173.224.116.150 (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero - I'll try to keep an eye on it, and I've got a bunch of "talk page stalkers" that may also see this and help. (Though, since I never edit in the area of politics, the type of people who have watchlisted my talk page may not really either.) I feel like page protection could be warranted, but at the same time, could protecting it be a "concession of instability" that could hurt your GAN efforts. Let me know of you'd like me to do it or not. Sergecross73 msg me 12:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go full-protection, although I can't stop you if you want to. Semi-protection I normally think is a bit overdone, but here I think it could be helpful because there's so much drama with which IP is who; they can just get accounts if they want to continue. And yeah, I'm well aware that it's unstable now, but eventually it should boil over. Thanks, by the way. But what do you mean by "hurting my GAN efforts"? Does an article turning unstable while I'm reviewing it make my reviews worth less or something...? Tezero (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I rarely do a full protect. (Only one time comes to mind ever actually.) I just meant semi. And while I could be wrong, because I'm only conceptually familiar with the GA process, rather than doing it first hand myself, but I was referring to WP:GACR # 5. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Yeah, I know; that's why I won't be able to just pass it myself for some time. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP - Thank you for the resources. It will be helpful if he continues to be difficult. Sergecross73 msg me 12:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After skimming the above, I would be happy to consider a request for SPP (for the GA page) or for a rangeblock but I'll need a clearer explanation of what exactly is the problem with that user. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked all the difs, but most of the original ones provided from Tezero were more along the lines of making comments that, while not terrible, were not very helpful either. Being melodramatic and saying that "this is so bad scholars are laughing at Wikipedia" type stuff. He's focusing a little too much on editors and hyperbole instead of the actual discussions. I gave him a warning for it, no response yet, the last time I checked. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you listen a lot russians...are you not partial?Watch the talks now.Many people are against Russia and Brazil in the article. There are posted some academic sources against Russia.Have a look..i want to see if you are so quick in acting as if you acted in favour of russians.Spashibo tovarish.151.40.12.61 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I don't care about world powers or politics or any of that. I'm not siding with anyone on any of that. I'm warning you, as an Admin, to cut it out with the accusations and the melodrama, or you're going to get blocked from editing. Last warning - cut it out. Comment strictly on the issues, not editors. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer...151.40.12.61 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today the anti Russian ip is 151.40.12.61, yesterday he was 151.40.45.125 and the day before he was 151.40.13.161. All the same person making anti these Russian statements and edits, please stop this nonsense of making arguments on why Russia is not a superpower when it is.--204.15.111.27 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 I am reporting the continued ip hoper is now Gladio4772[33], the hoper has hoped ips since July 17 till today. If you can please step in would be appreciated.

ip history here: 151.40.120.34 July 19, 2014[34] 151.40.123.202 July 19, 2014[35], 151.40.117.74 July 17, 2014[36], 151.40.13.161[37] , July 7, 2014 151.40.45.125[38], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.95.82[39], April 2013 - Bocca Trabaria[40], March 2014 - 151.40.24.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.24.9], March 2014 -151.40.7.192[41], Sept 23, 2013 - 151.40.18.30[42], Sept 15, 2013 - 151.40.55.125[43], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.35.236[44], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.9.149[45], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.72.141[46], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.14.179[47], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.83.17[48], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.69.199[49], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.34.218[50], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.120.19[51], Feb 4, 2014 - 151.40.63.30[52], Feb 4, 2014- 151.40.16.167[53], Dec 28, 2013 - 151.40.107.93[54], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.27.25[55], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.64.77[56], Dec 25, 2013 - 151.40.54.32[57], Dec 23, 2013 - 151.40.41.170[58], Dec 22, 2013 - 151.40.9.139[59], Sept 8, 2013 - 151.40.102.200[60], August 14, 2013 - 151.40.125.50[61], May 10, 2013 – Mediolanum[62], Oct 22, 2013 - Glc72[63], May 21, 2013 - 151.40.11.180[64], May 14, 2013 -151.40.59.151[65], May 14, 2013 - 151.40.60.108[66], May 11, 2013 - Bocca_Trabaria[67] Thanks--198.23.81.141 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with him either...but I blocked him for a week 2 weeks ago, and I haven't noticed him do anything blockable since. By all means, update me if Gladio says anything inappropriate though... Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had an idea this morning while I was driving back from a community college where I tutor: What if we placed a notice at the top of the article that said something like:

This page is merely a summary of published academics' opinions. It is not intended as an original, critical assessment of countries' likelihood of becoming superpowers.

The page isn't getting any more stable, and this is unorthodox, but it just might help to cool the flames. Tezero (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(In case you didn't see this among ProtoDrake's edits: Sergecross73)

Tezero - No harm in trying it out. You could be bold and just add it, and if challenged, see if you can a consensus for such a thing. If it looksije it'll just be the source of endless fighting, you can just drop it. It could all depend on who happens across it. I once put up a simple, non-controversial notification on a super obscure game, only to have it break out into a huge argument. Sometimes you never know what will or won't set people off. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll do it now. I wouldn't expect it to be the cause of more fighting; what I'm trying to say with it is "Hey, we know you have strong opinions. That's fine, and these academics are wrong sometimes, but our hands are kinda tied in not allowing open debate here." Good that you brought that possibility up, though. Tezero (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:PiEditor314

Hi there Serge! PiEditor314 (talk · contribs) is a problem. After the junk at Hyrule Warriors, I checked his history. OMG, it's a train wreck warpath. I just posted a welcome/warning to his talk page and I will now have to tediously undo countless things.  :-( I just thought I'd let you know because I foresee administrative action. Thank you, thank you, thank you Wikipedia for allowing absolutely anyone to do absolutely anything to absolutely anything. I'll also alert @Arkhandar: of this.

Update: I have undone his damage to Hyrule Warriors, The Legend of Zelda (2015 video game), and The Legend of Zelda so far. He had spontaneously undone two days' worth of dozens of edits, resulting in giant additions and removals, giving a non-explanation, and nobody did anything! That's just one of countless obvious examples if you glance through his history. Hours of my time, down the tube.

Thanks for everything you do. I've been a fan.

— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smuckola. Thank you very much for cleaning up his messes while I was busy and away. I appreciate it. I'm going to wait on warning him until we see how he reacts to your comments. On a related note, since the issue is recurring, can you leave a comment on Hyrule Warriors talk page about gamecruft and not having a character list. It is pretty basic interpretation of policy, but it'd be nice to have both policy and a consensus to point to on the talk page. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Well, did you see how he helpfully corrected your last instructions to him already? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. But you left your warning on his talk page after that correct? Sometimes newbies don't notice edit summaries, but acknowledge talk page messages. We'll see. Thanks for the note on the article talk page too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well. He did deliberately click 'undo' right next to it. I hope you read his User page. <3 About the Hyrule Warriors junk, let me know if anything I wrote is not optimal and I'll change it! ^_^ — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wellp. You got your answer, as predicted, a big fat shiny middle finger. Congratulations, fellow censor! We're in a special new club now! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, guess I was too hopeful. Warned. (Kinda funny he choses the word "censorship when he's writing about Zelda fiction mostly. Why the heck would that be "censored"?) Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EYES OF GANON ARE EVERYWHERE BE CAREFUL — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Extended content

You might wanna check out User_talk:Aidan68945 for abuse. About five blatant vandalisms this month. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a vandalism only account. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Superjake50 is basically vandalism-only, with lies and 3RR. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. There's a long history of these "Jake" accounts where all they do is add fake release dates and talk about hoax Blues Clues and Winx Club games. Very bizarre. Please let me know if you find any others. Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Falongen — Hey bro I don't know if this is within your topical scope, but this is a new account with a list of WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, almost all immediately reverted, amongst a very narrow scope of highly political subjects. It is a major POV editor, and I'm not sure if those tons and tons of redirects are all valid or if it's just another method of POV. Many of them were instated by unilaterally blanking a lot of valid pages. Many edits are simplistic jibberish or nonsensical rearrangements, and others are detailed POV-pushings. I scanned each one, and very very few are valid, only those containing a few words. Possible sockpuppet? Normally I'd just manually submit video game related abuses to you, since I know your topical familiarity makes you able to quickly address them. This one, I wasn't sure how to file so I hope you don't mind. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my specialties are video games and music, but you can always run other stuff by me. With this guy, it looks like the bad ones are being caught and undone, while the others, I'm not sure if they're really necessary, but they seem largely harmless overall. If you look at his talk page history, he is racking up some warnings, he just keeps on deleting them. Since it doesn't look too serious, and it's outside my normal area, I think I'll leave this one up to others this time. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but to who? Shall I file a report at ARV? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had just meant it in more of a "an admin will catch him someday if he does enough bad things" type way. Not entirely sure where to report it to. I'm not sure if it counts as "vandalism" or not. Vandalism, by definition, is a "bad-faith action". Some of his edit make me think that he could be a misguided good faith editor rather than a vandal, but I'm not sure. There's always ANI, but that place really can be like rolling the dice sometimes. Sometimes you get great help, other times you just get a bunch of sassy responses, its harsh. Personally, I guess I'd just keep an eye on him, and let me know if he gets worse... Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your universally-held assessment of ANI, yes, you have the *real* reason why I stay in contact with stuff like this.
Falongen's account definitely isn't a vandalism-only one; it looks like most of his/her edits are good-faith redirects. (Ayyyyy, I'm back.) Tezero (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight, Tezero. FYI, I ended up blocking that IP who kept making disruptive comments. (Accusations of propaganda, pro/anti countries, etc) Then proceeded to block him from several other IPs. The block is probably up by now, but let me know if he starts up with unnecessary comments again. I didn't notify you last week because it looked like you were on your break for a while. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: No offense, Tezero, but that's just a cursory contradiction, not insight.  :) Good-faith redirects are not done by unilaterally blanking pages with no reason or discussion, nor targeting them with stuff that changes the meaning. And it's continued quite a bit. I found out why some of his writing wasn't so insanely horrible -- because it's plagiarized. This is a blatantly WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:POV assault, plus breaking the law. Another user has joined in with the User_talk:Falongen warnings.— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll admit that I only looked at about the first page of his edits. What you said is more serious. Tezero (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: He has quite the warpath, having blanked out his Talk page's accruing warnings several times (since restored by someone else). One unilateral redirection was so extreme that Cluebot fixed it! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gave him a final warning. (Though, for the record, he is technically able to blank his own talk page. It's considered bad form on an informal level, but it is allowed. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Serge. I have a followup question as part of my interests as a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Does policy allow the blanking of one's Talk page, even when it's obviously for the purpose of trying to subvert CVU's accountability tracking? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll agree that it's rarely a good sign if they do it, but it is technically allowable. It says so somewhere, I think someplace at WP:TALKPAGE. So technically, they're allowed to do it. That being said, you can stil use their pages "view history" to prove that they've been warned prior/have ignored warnings, so it's not like they truly delete it from existence. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vandalism-only account too. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:46.11.39.149 Vandalism only.

Blocked the last two. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:50.179.168.189 it's like a perpetual tradition of storm vandalism. Amazing.
True, but since I'm not allowed to block IPs for long amounts of time (because they can change/be redistributed to other people) and this one is relatively inactive (hasn't edited in 2 weeks), I don't think I'm going to block this one. Good to keep an eye on though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it seem like this is a long long long term IP address assignment somehow? Exactly the same topical type of vandalism for ever and ever? lol I just saw an IP get blocked for six months. And there's no mandate for IP editing (especially when it's the primary enabler of their abuse); they can make an account.— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know. You're not wrong, i just usually don't bother if their that inactive. If he makes one more bogus edit, he's blocked for a while. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:66.169.151.85 We have another winner! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he didn't do anything after your final warning. I'll block him if he has any more bad edits at all. Let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is granted! Two more. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Doesn't look like anything good tends to result from the IP... Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Blocked. Let me know if he comes back. Editors that overtly bad aren't generally opposed to sick puppetry either. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked earlier, forgot to say something. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User_talk:66.169.151.85 as stated above, had done two more vandalisms. This kid here has been divebombing Cliff Burton with admittedly copyright infringing photos all night, which have been taken down with warnings. He's filling out the upload forms that state that it's a free image whose copyright he owns, with a description saying that he ripped it off and knows that it's wrong. Something is seriously wrong with him and he can't be stopped. :-( Thanks brother. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't block the first one. They're not very active, and some of them, like the Castlevania one, while not great, could be still seen as good faith. Blocked the later 2 though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it's acceptable to upload fair-use photos of dead people if free alternatives aren't available. Tezero (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, but not sure how much it'll really affect things. He's not all that active, and there weren't enough bad edits to make it very long really. Let me know if he persists though. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI like I said, almost all of that IP's edits were vandalism, for the last year or so, in case that affects your outcome. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, either a spam account or probably a COPYVIO or something too. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty terrible edit...but it was just one. I don't think its block-worthy (yet). A warning is probably good for now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked both. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Is there a Shannon Sixx at all? Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda doubt it, considering that "Sixx" is a fictional last name for Mister Frank Carlton Serafino Feranna, Jr. ;-) I say that mockingly in that context, but the latter sure is a "boss" name nonetheless. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism pt2

Put new ones under here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible edits, definitely, but also common newbie problems too. I'm going to wait and block only if he keeps at it. He's been properly warned at this point at least. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Mario (series) is receiving a recurring edit war campaign from probably the same person. For years, somebody has wanted to label Mario as "fantasy, "high fantasy", and "magic". — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've noticed this before too. Page protected. Might be good to start a talk page discussion. I agree with you, but I feel like there could be a good-faith argument in favor of high fantasy. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'll look into things shortly. Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good, bro! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 12:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I agree, this one is being disruptive again, and has made bad edits since your final warning, so I blocked him for a week. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other outstanding ones at the moment? I thought there was, but I can't find it. I thought that Falonen guy was causing trouble again...? Or maybe that's just something I happened to observe on my own? Or I'm confusing editors? Sorry, I've been in a few heated discussions lately and I'm trying to catch up on all the smaller requests... Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are often busy! Yes User_talk:Falongen has been offending on exactly what you warned them against, and deleted my most recent warning from their talk page (which I reverted back onto the talk page). — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 74.103.250.78 has quite a history of vandalism warnings, deliberately blowing them off and deleting the warnings. Then contributing to the junk about the alleged and unsourced PS3 Cell OS 4.65 here.
The information i put was sourced so im not sure why Smuckola decided it was vandalism. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid source. This article requires only the topmost reliable sources WP:VG/RS, which is pretty much Sony, of which there were none as of a few minutes ago. "Before adding information to this article, READ THE FOLLOWING: A reference must be provided for any system software version not yet released. All references should be from a reliable or official Sony/PlayStation 3 source. The reference cannot be from any other source. Any software news or rumor that is not from a Sony or PlayStation 3 reliable source will remain on the discussion page until verified." — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright but you could have just posted this on my talk instead of going to an admin and trying to get me banned or whatever your goal was also some other ip just put all that information back so you might want to revert them and try to get them banned to right ? 74.103.250.78 (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 174.19.209.252 has been removing sourced content and adding inappropriate "citation needed" and "unreliable source" tags to the Navajo language article. It seems he thinks I'm racist against the Navajo people for including text about the language having no single word for "cell phone"; as I see it, the language simply hasn't had much official recognition since cellphones and other modern technologies have come about. I'm not necessarily requesting a block, but I'd like you to intervene or, if I'm in the wrong, tell me why, because this is really getting disruptive. Tezero (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the page, and warned the IP to assume good faith on the "racist" accusations. Now that it's protected, the IP is discussion on the talk page a bit more, as is another user. I'm not expert at the Navajo language, so I'd rather wait until you give your stance/input there before I really intervene any further. It's a start, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's stopped since your final warning. I do agree that most of the edits are so bad that they must be bad-faith edits. (Like attempting to add a picture of the Beebs as that actor's image, for example.) Let me know if he breaks your final warning and I'll block him. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone beat me to blocking him. What a bizarre hoax... Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse

  • User:BGC is problematic. This user has a history of writing editorializations, of constantly changing tons of factoids such as dates without any comment or citation, of edit warring, and of refusing and blanking from his talk page any discussion whatsoever. It's driven some people batty [68]. Just take a look at the contribution list and the constantly blanked Talk page history to see what I mean. I couldn't even begin to guess whether the dates were correct before or after his edits. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAZORS.OUT/SUICIDE MUSIC

Hey, I wanted to know why was this page deleted. I asked this on the talk page of the soundtrack and I was told it was created by a user who was block evading while being blocked. So I wanted to ask whether it can be created again? Or should I create the page? Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 09:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why it was deleted, on addition to the fact that it was terribly written and sourced and didn't meet the WP:GNG. You can recreate it, but I wouldn't recommend it without a few good, dedicated sources giving it significant coverage, and working pretty hard on it, as it's already on multiple peoples radar as an article that doesn't warrant an article. It could be sent to AFD pretty quickly otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You, and I would try to find any reliable sources, and see if the article can stand. Thanks. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 05:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on sources

Hello Sergecross. Can you offer a second opinion whether Goldmine and NewHampshire.com are usable references for Megadeth? Please leave your response bellow the comments from L1A1 FAL. I would appreciate a quick reply. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Serge, can you post a comment about the second one, or perhaps you're not sure about that one?--Retrohead (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute on Russia

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! This is not to imply any error on your part. You tried to reason with another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template advice

 ThanksRobertBolan (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single-platform games

I reverted an edit on Mario Kart 8 that removed the parent category only to have it reverted back [69]. This isn't the first time this user has removed the parent category from articles [70]. Can you explain to him how it was decided years ago to have both categories in articles? SNS (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that you're not talking with him directly on this? The only interaction I dug up was you reverting him without an edit summary... Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tales series

In response to you thanking me for the edit on the Tales series article, that is just the start. I'm planning and gradually performing a major remodel and general fixing of the article to stop it languishing in "start" class. Any help you cna give in that department would be greatly appreciated, if you are actually interested in the Tales series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ProtoDrake, I actually was the one who had cleaned it up to how it is now - prior to my edits, it was an unsourced, unorganized mass of fan cruft, a few years ago. I will try to keep helping with it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, I've done a huge edit on it. It's taken days using my sandbox to create it, and there are probably still fillable gaps. But I am feeling exhausted and frankly tired of working on the article, and doing giant article revamps (I think I've done... three to five over the past half-year, and one of them involved getting an article from "Start" to "Featured" class during that period). Perhaps someone else could manage tidying up and the Reception section? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ProtoDrake I totally get it. It's the reason I hadn't gotten farther than I did when I took it on years ago myself - it's a massive undertaking, not to mention it's more difficult than handling a single game because there's so much different content to cover, and harder to find examples of other ones done well too. I also went through a phase of lessened interest on the series because no games were being released for my preferred systems. Perhaps Tales of Hearts impending release will change that, and I'll pick up where you left off. Thanks for doing what you could. I'll at least be there maintaining it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73 Update: done a massive update on the reception section, done some editing on the lead and archived the 1Up references as that site is threatening to go down permanently soon. Am going to the WikiProject to see what rating it merits now: we can at least get it off Start. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: I'm planning some work on Tales of Hearts, in light of it being released fairly soon. I've just gotten started in my sandbox, and if you could provide some references for me about the game's development and reception. I heard that at least Hearts R was reviewed by Dengeki (not sure about the DS version of Hearts), but I haven't found any direct references. If you could help me with that, I would be very grateful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm excited about its release too. I've been watching it and making some small edits on it since it was announced for English localization. I don't know how much time I'll have short term to do major work on it, but I'll definitely help maintain it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The series article has been promoted to GA. You were a definite source of encouragement. :) --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Heart (Stone Temple Pilots song)

Should I create an article for the Stone Temple Pilots song for "Black Heart" on this website? I'll have plenty of sources for it, if necessary. Skylar3214 12:37, 21 July 2014

  1. Why don't you post your sources here. I can advise on if the sources look reliable and cover the song in enough detail.
  2. Did the song chart anywhere? While it's not a guarantee that the article is kept, it usually seems to deter people from attempting to delete or redirect it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those questions are the ones I am able to answer. I'm getting to work on it right now. Skylar3214 1:15, 21 July 2014

Here are a few resources for the articles that may or may not be reliable for the article to be made:

As for the chart position, see Stone Temple Pilots discography for the singles discography. It charted at 15 for U.S. Main Rock. Skylar3214 2:16, 21 July 2014

Oh wow. Yeah, if it charted, and they're playing it live on national television, and have a bunch of those sources, I think you're in pretty good shape. I'm kind of surprised that it hasn't been made yet. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Serge. Skylar3214 2:56, 21 July 2014
I'm making it on my Special Page, which will take me time to finish up in a couple hours or so. Skylar3214 3:39, 21 July 2014
All finished with the article. See Black Heart (Stone Temple Pilots song) and see what you think of it. Let me know when you're done reviewing it. Skylar3214 4:27, 21 July 2014
I apologize, I looked it over yesterday, but forgot to respond. It's looking pretty good. Good job Skylar3214. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Serge. I will never forget this. It's also one of my very first articles I've created. And there is no need for apologies. I understand what you mean. Skylar3214 1:25, 22 July 2014

Cash Cash

Serge, I'm here to help...Please be reasonable with me. This article was in very poor outdated shape before I took initiative to add relevant content. I've spent a lot of time researching them and took it upon myself to step up this page making it a detailed up to date cited and sourced article on Cash Cash. I'm not here to delete old content, I'm here to expand. My objectives were simple. #1 To throughly explain all the transitioning they've gone through over the years which is a lot given their history...It was very confusing and vague. I truly believe I succeeded in fixing that problem. #2 to add some relevance to the page as the last 3 years were obviously their biggest one yet. Their recent chapters were nowhere to be found on their page with regards to new touring, releases, members, styles, remixes, labels, etc....It lacked a lot so I spent months fixing that and I'm so proud of my contributions. My intentions are good and I hope you can see that.

~ Lauren

And that's great...But I really think you need to take a look at WP:OWN. You did some work on the article...but that doesn't give you any special authority over it. Especially since you seem pretty unfamiliar with policy and guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 10:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been tracking a IP vandal

Since I noticed you had blocked one of the IPs, and I have suspicions it might be Lar409 not logging in anymore... please be aware of the case page. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn't realize I got into such a big deal. I thought I was just deleting obvious hoax articles. On one hand, as disruptive as Lar was, he mostly just made bad judgment calls on organization, and couldn't work with others, rather than outright hoaxes, right? Or am I forgetting some of his work? Or maybe he's gotten worse over time. Regardless, thanks for the heads up Salvidrim. I'll help however you'd like. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my mind is connecting too many dots; a red flag goez up when you look at the history Template:Wario series with the tool thingy that striketroughs usernames of blocked users (which I assume you have). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming (2nd nomination)

Thanks for nuking Heaven Sent Gaming. Since you've done that, could you also close the associated AfD? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone could close it on my behalf. I've only got mobile access until much later in the day... Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Someone else closed it, and I just revised their closing comment a bit. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the talk page. ;) -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I thought I had. Fixed. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stone Temple Pilots Out Of Time.jpg

I recommend deleting this image, including File:Stone Temple Pilots Out Of Time.jpg. The very first image I uploaded for the Out of Time (Stone Temple Pilots song) article is being currently used with permission. The file that Theo's Little Bot uploaded for the article in the past is absolutely not the right image because it only has an STP logo on it, and it is not used on iTunes anymore since the single posting for "Out of Time" is already deleted from the website, and just takes you straight to High Rise that's currently available on iTunes for purchase. Thank you, Serge. Skylar3214 2:39, 24 July 2014

Hi Skylar. I believe you can nominate images for deletion just like you would an article. I'd recommend that, partially because image policy is an area I'm less of an expert in, and partially because, while deletion may be the right choice, I don't know if it's bad enough for me to speedy delete like that. See if you can figure out nominating it for deletion. I can try to look it up if you're completely stuck. Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please try to look it up for me? I'm completely stuck with that part. Skylar3214 1:59, 25 July 2014
Yes, I will soon Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, would this be a reason to delete it. Do any of my (talk page stalker) know? Salvidrim? ThomasO1989? Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. The image is not currently used in the article it was intended to be for (or any articles for that matter), which makes it a fair candidate for deletion on that grounds alone. Whether or not the image itself is useful if it had been included in the article... there already exists a fair-use image that appears to more closely related to the subject, so this image would be redundant. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never actually got that ping, Serge; I just put the old one up for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been deleted after yesterday (August 4, 2014), and it's still there? Skylar3214 3:28, 5 August 2014

I think it's gone now, skylar3214. It takes seven days to be tagged to be ready for deletion, but then it takes a little more time for an actual human to work through them too, that's all. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Serge. I mostly appreciate it for the file to be deleted. If anyone else uploads it again, then it will be redone. Skylar3214 5:53, 5 August 2014
No problem. If it's re-uploaded, and not used anywhere, then I think I can speedy delete it. (That's how it works when articles are recreated with no change after a deletion, at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Hey, have a look at this edit history...does it look at all curious to you?

[71]

Chubbles (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly is bizarre, that they're conspiring together at a sandbox. I can't help but find it suspicious - 2 relatively new editors with the exact same type of stances, basically showing that band in their favored POV rather than what RS's say. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, but I really get the vibe that those 2 are like people from their label, or fanclub, or fansite, or something like that... Sergecross73 msg me 03:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, that was my thought at first, but they said they weren't, so I guess I have to take their word for it. Chubbles (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what do I do? Where do I go? The editwarring continues; they are tag-team reverting me and stonewalling with the same stale, bad reasoning. I am, by my approach, teaching them how to talk to me so that I end up on the ropes. I tried DR, that didn't work; I can't file a 3RR report because they aren't reverting fast enough - and for that matter, I am eventually reverting them, too, though of course I believe I've done so after leaving much time for discussion and referencing (so much for watching that reasoning fly in front of a tribunal, though...). So...what do you suggest? I'm so tired of this. Chubbles (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected it so people are forced to come to consensus first. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technotopia

Might want to make it a month to match his IP. --NeilN talk to me 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I launched a report at SPI noting how Technotopia returned after a months-long absence mere hours after the IP got blocked and their first act was to undo the revert of the IP's biased RfC. Quacking ensued, and wouldn't block evasion add to it on both? --McDoobAU93 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and his last block for edit warring was a 2 weeks long one too, and they usually escalate, so it all around should probably be longer... Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If most of his edits are about this one issue, and he isn't likely going to ever leave it alone, why not make it permanent? Look at his total contributions. [72] Most of them are what he got blocked for, four times already. [73] No reason to think he is ever going to do any constructive editing on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 00:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my plan if he comes back and starts up again after his block, as he said he plans to do. He's on the thinnest of ice, don't worry. Just let me know as soon as you catch him anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GearBox Software

I just visited GearBox Software to edit in their most recent lawsuit however it appears all my past contributions to the page have been edited out. Interestingly the page is being heavily edited by IPs rather than registered users. It also appears most of the criticism if not all of it has been cleansed. I trust you are the man who will address this issue?--Cube b3 (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes, this the type of thing I could help with. However, no one has edited the article in almost 2 weeks, and there are no on-going arguments on the talk page or anything. I don't think you'd run into much opposition honestly. I'd recommend you taking a stab at it, and then come to me if you feel you are coming into opposition you feel is being wrongly handled. Sergecross73 msg me 10:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting that I discuss this issue in the talk page first? Because I don't have the energy to go back through the articles history and copy paste all my edits into the new one.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a very active page. I'd re-apply your changes, and discuss on the talk page if they're removed again. I'll step on if you feel people aren't making policy-based decisions. It looks so inactive I don't think I especially need to get involved as an admin, and I'm not especially knowledgeable about their lawsuits or history, so it'd probably be better if someone more knowledgable, like yourself, made the changes. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I spent about a whole hour editing the Gearbox article. I have added all the controversial stuff back complete with corresponding references matched by WP:VG/RS.
I realize this sort of censorship happens over long intervals, but I don't plan on watching GBS like a hawk. I really don't care for it at all but I don't like the idea of companies hiding notable criticisms. I am positive that many of the edits by unregistered users are employees or executives from the studio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.65.108.134

As you can see many of these ips have only edited Gearbox articles. I have requested in the talk page for unregistered users to stop deleting stuff from the article. If this continues I would request we block unregistered users from editing. best regards--Cube b3 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 104#Excessive in-game detail in Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA related articles

It's starting again, see the article edit history for Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA 2nd. If you could help out here, it would be great. Affected articles include Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA Extend, Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA 2nd, Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA (video game), and other Hatsune Miku articles; the IPs involved seem to rotate each time. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I remember those discussions. Protected all three. Let me know if it comes up elsewhere. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello Sir. Am just too young to issue a warnning to an highly experienced, distinguish administrator like you sir. Your recent edit at WP:Articles for deletion/Sonic Highways (album) had a minor error sir which I had corrected. You can check the edit history for verification sir. But I understand that mistake is inevitable in life. Cheers Wikicology (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for correcting it, though I'm not sure why you'd feel it necessary to warn me over it a simple typo that was obviously accidental and led to zero miscommunications.... Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Powerless

The song Powerless is a promotional single according to the article. But on iTunes-Japan the song is said to be released as a Single, and iTunes is supposed to be a reliable source. Please reply a answer if I am wrong please correct me. Thank you. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 05:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with citing iTunes isn't that it's not reliable (what else would be more reliable concerning an iTunes release?); it's that listings for singles are frequently deleted and redirected to the main album as soon as (or even before) it is released. I've never tried hitting up web.archive.org for iTunes, but that's about your only shot at a stable iTunes reference. Tezero (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does iTunes ever distinguish between single and promotional single though? Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't mind about Powerless being a promotional single, and it's going to stay as a promotional single. The website Golu gave you (Serge) is in Japanese, and it can be translated so easily. The title isn't right when translated, so it's staying as a promotional single. Skylar3214 11:46, 15 August 2014
If you all say its a promotional single, It's ok. I'm wrong then. The reason why I made you all bother about this is promotional single is a song which is distributed for free as a stream or at radio station, but here Powerless is being costed for about 250 Yens. So I was confused about it. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 05:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

I've put the Tales series article up for GA review. I need help looking through to do copyediting and such. Can you help please? The whole thing feels extremely daunting to me alone. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not helping you in your recent efforts. I will try to help with this, but I'm on vacation until Sunsay so I am relegated to what I can do on a mobile phone in the meantime. I'll try to help though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interview request

Hello Sergecross73, The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter is looking for editors to feature for its first and second quarter of 2015. This sounds like it's a long way off, but time catches up to us pretty quickly. The WP:VG Newsletter has spoken with most of the admins that regularly contribute at WP:VG, but you remain elusive and unaccounted for. :) The Newsletter would love to rectify this through an interview with our last brave mop-wielder in the trenches. What say you? If you have time for an interview please let me know at my talk page and then either I or GamerPro64 will contact you with a set of interview questions. You can get a sense of the kinds of questions you will be asked by reviewing the featured editor interviews at the Newlsetter's index, and of course you'll be notified when the interview runs in the Newsletter. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs, Yeah, sounds good. I was always jealous Salvidrim was asked way before me! ;) Let me know what you want me to do and I'll do it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, come on. I posted a short while after my own interview recommending you and a few others as likely subjects. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's even worse! I was even on the radar, and still was passed over until now! ;) No, it's fine. I'm pretty active in the community, but I don't do much in the way of working closely with others on rewrites (because my focuses are always random and whatever is interesting in that given passing moment) or GA/FA reviews (because I don't really deal with much of that) so I don't tend to make very many long-term buddies on the project. And thus, I'm last in line. :) Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last perhaps, but certainly not for lack of merit. Indeed some of the algorithms used to generate likely candidates for interviews weigh involvement in special subtopics of WP:VG heavily so the kind of broad-focus involvement that comes with random interests (my favorite style of involvement too) flies under the radar... But no longer! Your actions have caught the attention of the WP:VG press and the interview is hereby scheduled. It will run in the 1st quarter 2015 issue and WP:VG Newsletter staff will contact you shortly with the questions. Hold onto your mop and prepare to be grilled! :) -Thibbs (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thanks Thibbs! Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prisencolinensinainciusol

Hey there. Would you mind helping out? This user is going to every single article with the wikilink Luigi and unnecessarily changing it to Luigi (character), which actually goes to Luigi (disambiguation), which is completely counter-intuitive to his goal. While I am assuming good faith, he is also providing a broken link in many articles, so I would consider this disruptive behavior. Would you mind intervening? I would go revert everything myself, but I was wondering if you have access to a tool that reverts most changes by a single user that would make this quicker. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he's already changing it back? Check out the Mario talk page though, it explains what he was trying to do. You may want to give some input there. Sergecross73 msg me 10:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a BTW, I've reverted the edits he didn't self-revert yet, and supplied an explanation on his talkpage as well. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I found a few as well, and left some comments for him at the Mario talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Stick Man:User_talk:Prisencolinensinainciusol The guy that has just been group-reprimanded on Mario, is an absolute warpath of crap-slinging behavior across the site. Even just from the last month or two, his talk page is an endless litany of exactly the same and totally obvious complaints. He constantly admits to committing the same constant major and minor errors with staggering levels of willful obliviousness and unilaterally disruptiveness, and then asks how to stop being notified of them. Including the very same junk you just saw him nailed for. I am flabbergasted. Heck, he unilaterally deleted a deletion notice, in blatant defiance of a discussion! Just look at what poor User:The Stick Man has put up with, in an elaborately futile attempt at personal rehabilitation.  :( Just imagine what it'd take, to check all his edits for fallout damage. This seems like a candidate for at least a short term block just as an escalated wake-up call, because he's been given countless ones already. I think this is the height of WP:TENDENTIOUS, under the category of widespread disruptive editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is so bad that I'm even considering AIV; yes I know the ramifications of what I just said, lol ;-) but he absolutely must be stopped. :-< Big sad face here, Serge. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't paid much attention to Prisen lately and was under the impression that, besides the countless number of bot messages that he at least tried to address, he was at least improving in less trivial areas (relatively speaking, of course). If it's true that he's still being disruptive after all this time, then I'd agree that a short-term ban would be necessary, and would support a much longer one if he continued his behavior. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Stick Man: You were unbelievably charitable and tolerant and logical for a very long time, that's for sure! I didn't even look into his editing history to see if his warpath (bot-reported or human-reported or unreported) had been addressed. He darn well had better do it. My goodness I've never seen so many error messages, and I've never seen anyone regard the error messages as being the problem. Are you saying that he fixed them?  :( — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 12:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a bot leaves a message for him then I've found that he does go back and fix it later, usually. My issues with him (early on, at least) were more along the lines of "Don't use sources to cite things when the sources don't support what you said", "Stop writing in bad English", etc. He hasn't been editing the articles I have on my watchlist recently (some current-ish stuff I have seen from him have been harmless/actually kind of helpful), and I don't watch his talk page, so I don't know what he's up to these days. If his behavior is still troublesome, I'd back a ban.
I should also mention that he has received a 6-month ban on a different wiki for disruptive behavior after having already received two two-week bans. I'd link it here but that site requires users to use their real names, and I don't think would be right for me to reveal his. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'm looking into his edits. I'll keep adding thoughts.
  • Regarding the Luigi/Mario stuff, it looks like its mostly been cleaned up at least, and he's not gaining any sort of consensus at the Mario or Luigi move discussion, so I think that one is resolved unless he starts going against consensus there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smuckola, which deletion notice did he remove? Was it this one? Because you're actually allowed to remove WP:PROD's, that's how people contest them. It's not great that he didn't leave any rationale anywhere, especially if he's the article creator, but its technically allowable. (Though actions like that will probably backfire on him if it gets taken to WP:AFD.) Anyways, if you were talking about a different edit, then nevermind all that, and let me know which one you were talking about. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:Yes that's the one, so never mind. ^_^ Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, it looks like he's making some mistakes (changing wiki-links before the article is actually moved, missing a lot of brackets, etc) but I don't believe its anything blockable really. He could be warned to be a little more careful, but I don't think its at WP:COMPETENCE levels of concern, and it seems that he's trying to fix his mistakes and adhere to consensus once they do pop up. I'd say keep an eye on him, because if he becomes obstinate or combative, I think it'd be a different story. But right now, just keep an eye out, and let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Hi, Serge. How are you doing? I have a bit of a concern here. I feel that it was partially my fault for causing the situation with Lucia Black in the first place. I know I was trying to help her but in the end, she felt that the recent AN discussion was basically a site ban, as she only edited articles related to Japanese entertainment. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SJones. Long time since I've talked with you. Anyways, I would NOT blame you in any capacity. Lucia did this to herself over and over again. It was her long history of not getting along with others, having a battlefield mentality, and a general lack of self-awareness or willingness to change that caused this, not anything you did. Please don't feel bad, Sjones23 -- Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, Serge, but I have worked with her on various articles and had mostly no problems since we were here for over 7 years. I admit that I along with some other users was only trying to help her and work with her on various articles like Sailor Moon for example, but her interactions with others did not work out. I think that given her actions, she should consider taking a retirement or doing some article work in other subject areas rather than Japanese entertainment topics. I just don't want to encourage her violation of the topic ban. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't seem interested in either one. Again, you're less at fault than, like, anyone else here. Tezero (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tezero. I consider this whole incident was a bit of a witch-hunt in the first place and given her contributions, she should retire with honor rather than leave in disgrace, or appeal her topic ban in the future. I know the full picture of what happened as I saw the events unfold. Other than that, I'll probably continue my work on Japanese entertainment related articles. Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Her talk page seems to indicate she blames me and Hastuer, (I didn't start it or participate in the last weeks worth of discussions, but I suppose I did support things) so don't lose any sleep over. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) I see, but this whole incident was actually started by ChrisGualtieri and Lucia Black on the Ghost of the Shell articles and I had nothing to do with all of these incidents, since I'm a bit opposed to the topic ban myself. Don't worry, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally not the only one, but what's done is done and only she can prove herself a responsible citizen now. Tezero (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as there's a closure review going on now. I don't want to cause issues with Lucia Black and not everyone has agreed with the topic ban, that's all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin's Barnstar
Well done. I do not envy your task, sir. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Cash - Private Concerns

Hey Sergecross73 - I would like the chance to talk to you privately about our wikipedia page. I voiced my opinion on the talk page a few times in the past because this is my career and passion being spoken about. I have some things you should hear directly from me, the founder of the band. I’m not asking you to make any edits or changes on my behalf. I just want you to hear me out in private to better understand the situation. It’s easy to make this happen officially so you know you're actually talking to me. If you follow the verified cash cash twitter and tweet at us, I will follow you back and dm you my personal contact info. I just want to express my concerns directly and privately with you. That is all I ask. I would appreciate that a lot. Hope to talk with you soon. Thanks for your time. *Jean Paul* — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPcashcash (talk • contribs) 12:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what would be needed to be discussed in private. If it is about a legitimate direction for the band's article, then it should be discussed in the open.
  • That being said, I understand the stance of the band and your "helpers" on the talk page. I'm well versed in the music world, I get it. There's lots of times where band's aren't exactly thrilled about their original sound, or try to distance themselves from a genre that has fallen out of mainstream popularity. I'm sure Alice in Chains isn't especially thrilled with their beginnings where they were lumped into the glam metal movement. Linkin Park has gone out of their way to distance themselves from their original nu metal sound. Same as Sugar Ray as they went from alternative metal to pop rock. There's no problem with that, whether it be changing of musical interest, trying to make it big, money, whatever. And its fine to change your image, your Facebook page, your Twitter, whatever marketing and communicating tool of your choice. But it's not alright to do that on Wikipedia. You must understand - Wikipedia is not a tool for advertising. You have a Conflict of Interest when it comes to your own Wikipedia article. It is not for you to be documenting. The entire basis of the website is to document what is said about a subject through reliable, third party sources. First party accounts can be a source for small, non-contentious details, like whether or not you played a certain concert or something, but they're not to be used in the interpreting the general history or career of a topic. That's the role of third party sources.
  • That brings us to the recurring issues with the article. Two very prominent, reliable third party sources, have referred to the band's sound as emo pop. I understand you guys are moving more into an EDM direction. And that's fine. And you can distance yourself from that as much as you please, in your concerts, Youtube account, social media, whatever. But on Wikipedia, that's not valid grounds for removing what two prominent reliable sources have said in the past. Other editors may add more information on the band's sound section, citing other reliable sources who use other descriptors for the band, to make "emo-pop" seem like less of a prominent viewpoint. (I've even suggested this, though no one took me up on it. WP:ALBUM/REVSIT is a place where a bunch of acceptable sources are listed.) But you can't just remove it because you don't like it, or its not helping your new direction, or anything else related to your vision of the band.
  • While I've assumed this is in regards to the emo pop arguments, this response could generally be applied to any of the on-going arguments at the talk page.
  • Anyways, let me know if you have other questions or concerns, though I'd prefer to keep our discussions on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely there's a way to compromise. Is it still a thing to write it out like "Emo pop (early years), EDM"? Tezero (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tezero, If you check the article, you'll see that emo pop is not mentioned at all in the lead or the infobox. It's just a sentence or two in the "Musical style" section of prose towards the bottom of the article, where its clearly talking about their earlier work. Sourced by both Allmusic (in the prose) and Popmatters, both deemed useable at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. (That's pretty much the music equivalent of GameSpot and IGN saying it in the video game world.) The compromise you're suggesting is already pretty much in effect, if anything, more in their favor. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, okay. Well... emo pop isn't necessarily a bad thing. Tezero (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, yes, that's a point that has been brought up as well. Thank you for another voice on the matter. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Quinn

The BLP Barnstar
Thank you.Yakushima (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


and for good measure:

The Video game Barnstar

Yakushima (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All the admin/BLP type discussions have become a little draining at the moment, so the kind words are appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Shadows Resurrection 3.0

My latest news post summaries all the coverage the game has received from American tv channels to Russian websites. http://www.seganerds.com/2014/08/24/elysian-shadows-kickstarter-funded-150k-goal-reached/

Check out the hyperlinks for more info--Cube b3 (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...I'll look into it... Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, I am pretty busy during the week with my real life job (you know the one that pays), so I want to work on the page on the weekend. I think national television coverage makes it fairly notable. Also the Kickstarter is funded.--Cube b3 (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://kotaku.com/a-16-bit-rpg-that-promises-a-modern-twist-1626228329?fb_action_ids=10152660044382464&fb_action_types=og.likes
Why don't you go state your case, and list off all of your sources at the main talk page at WP:VG. If there's a consensus that the sourcing meets the GNG now, then I'll unsalt the article. It can be a good way to get all your stuff together if it goes alright. If not, then it can be a good starting point for a future "Resurrection 4.0". (Though I think the community is getting tired of discussing it, so I certainly wouldn't recommend a 4.0 any time soon. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've pledged my case, I have regularly updated the page in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cube_b3/Elysian_Shadows
Honestly, I am much more exhausted then you and I really do not enjoy working on a page that I had perfected the first time I created it and I much rather other fans continue to update it. I want to work on other upcoming Dreamcast games. It is also very hard dealing with admins who are completely oblivious to Dreamcast and Ouya because the game has been at the top of those platforms charts and websites for months. If you can get a few Ouya and Dreamcast websites on the list of approved references it would make your job easier.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, if it was perfected the first time, then it wouldn't have been deleted multiple times. It's also not my fault that the Dreamcast/Ouya sources you have suggested so far do not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Life would be easier if you took the time to learn how things work around here. You seem more interested in fighting things every step of the way... Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has only been deleted twice. The first time you all had a point that I understood. The page was constructed with primary references. I created a second page with secondary ones from the approved list but you took out technicalities such as oh there is a press release in there. Now I have even addressed those technicalities.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you didn't realize that a press release is first party information? Sergecross73 msg me 10:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I didn't realize was that sharing something doesn't make it a secondary reference. Apparently a website has to paraphrase the press release in order for it's notability to be elevated and honestly I understand it, but don't agree with it. If a notable institution has chosen to share that information shouldn't it do the trick. What difference does it make? Not arguing or being aggressive help me rap my head around it.--Cube b3 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conceptually, it's just not third party. Beyond that, we don't want to be writing articles based off of press releases anyways because Wikipedia isn't a place for advertisement. Its okay to use press releases for small details, (release dates, for example) but you don't want to base an article heavily off of it or it'll start to sounds like one big ad. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree, we don't want advertising. We want objective information however that is where our rewriting comes in. I think if a reliable source had shared the press release that is enough now it is our job to write an article that does not come across as an advertisement.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special pages for deletion

Hi, Serge. Could you delete these two following special pages for me? Those two include User:Skylar3214/Part Major and User:Skylar3214/Black Heart (Stone Temple Pilots song). Obviously, they're of no use to me at all. No topic for my rap project, "Part Major", has been covered or resourceful since I blanked it and made a decision to have it gone. The second special page for the Stone Temple Pilots song "Black Heart" already has an article since I have a couple resources still on the article itself. I'd do it myself, but I'm no administrator, only a Wikipedia user. Thank you. Hope you take care of those two problems for me? Skylar3214 8:48, 26 August 2014

@Skylar3214: Hey dood. FYI, all ya gotta do is add this to the page: {{db|1=obsolete draft}}. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Smuckola. Skylar, I've deleted them myself this time, but you can always do it Smuckola's way in the future if you want, or if I'm not around or something. Either way is fine. FYI, I believe citing speedy deletion rationale WP:CSD#U1 would apply as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I am very much appreciated. Skylar3214 12:02, 27 August 2014

Shinedown

hello my name is Alvaro, the edit page of Shinedown is news that the band has posted on Facebook about his new album # Shinedown5 thanks. Stayheredusttodust (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2014

That's fine if its announced and there's sources to support it. But you didn't add any content or sources, you just made a new subsection with nothing in it. You need to wait until there's actually information before making a new subsection, that's all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Zoe Quinn article

I cited the original Zoe Quinn scandal blog post and the Reddit post because they were referenced in the reliable sources and were the original sources of the claims reported on by the reliable sources; the Reddit post was the specific post which was noted in the reliable source and was about the removal of the posts, and ergo, strikes me as being perfectly acceptable to cite as it is the original post being cited explaining the removal. This certainly seems appropriate to me, and other articles link to press releases by organizations, which this resembles.

The blog post was cited by all the RS's on the subject matter as the source for their claims, and thus I felt that it was legitimate to link to given that it is the original source of the claims which all the RS's were reporting on. If you feel that I should remove that cite, that's fine. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone rev-del'ed your edits, so my concerns were not off base... Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming whoever did it was right. We commoners will never know. Tezero (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. It was the right choice. I probably would have done the same had I the time at that given moment, but I was on my way out then. It was filled with Reddit posts and blogspots as sources. The most basic failings of not using an RS on a BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falongen is back,...

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

Blocked again. Let me know if you catch him again a month. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

Hey bro. I have a few incomplete essays that I'd like to see about getting contributed upstream. I guess I should post this one on the talk page of WP:TENSE once I finish it. I have spent cumulative *days* correcting the irrationally nostalgic past tense from classic gaming and media articles, including majorly that N64 programming one. You should check out the first two paragraphs of this one anyway real quick: [74] ^_^ — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I was saying on the talk page, upon looking at some examples, I think you're right. I still wonder about a few of the instances where you were discussing the challenges of the developers. It seems like, as the system is no longer actively being developed for, it is no longer an active challenge to anyone, and would be more of a past tense. This is when referring to developers as the subject, not the specs, which themselves, would not affected by tense. I could be wrong though. I think I tend to write more about things that happened historically when I write things, (Band X released album Y on date Z, IGN reviewed the game and stated... - etc.) so I don't think about these things as much as you do. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:But again, logically speaking, you've got to ask what it is and why it's important. "the developers" or "actively being developed for" implicitly arbitrarily defines some existential criteria, as being a flourishing commercial market. There is no reason for its validity to be based upon a market, for it to be commercial, for it to flourish, or for it to continue at all. It's not based on any people or any activity whatsoever. Its validity is purely theoretical, and notability is forever. They don't even need to be games. In encyclopedic tone, "the developer" is a totally theoretical concept, like "the royal 'we'". You know what else is notably theoretical? "The reader", because free encyclopedia authors have no idea if anyone will ever read half of what we write.  ;) The next new N64 apps could be autogenerated in the year 2050 by AI in two seconds, and a paper could be written about how inordinately difficult or how easy it was for that AI. In the meantime, as a trivial fact, yes people are nonetheless overall developing for it and almost all other consoles. But to an encyclopedia, it wouldn't matter if it's one person reverse engineering Ocarina of Time in a hex editor for speed running, or replacing all architectural problems in an emulator, or writing a demo, or writing a new game, or nobody at all. People are developing multitasking unix-like operating systems for 8-bit consoles, and other impossible things. Carnegie-Mellon University had a course on NES game development a few years ago. I know that you know that there are massive amounts of homebrew and secondary commercial markets for the most obscure and difficult systems, such as Atari 2600 and whatnot. It's not for us to dictate. These arguments are all biased attempts to defy or make exceptions to *basic* logical encyclopedic neutrality, and I really appreciate your discussion on it because it's making me explore how to make the most helpful tense guide possible. The only way I learned many neutrality issues was due to extensive examples, case by case. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All that aside, the wording in the article is a little awkward. It sounds like a personal essay (or just personal musings) and I believe that is what leads it to people questioning its notability. I fear it's something you may have to fend against if you leave it as is. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:It's hard to imagine anyone else being so far out of touch (either with the subject or with the obvious reason for having created the article, as is stated right there in the log) as to question the subject's and article's actual notability. As for the wording and such, yeah. I have really struggled with copy editing it several times, due to not being a programmer. It might require expert attention, and it definitely requires a more robust set of sources which are somewhat available and which I've only begun to look up. I could possibly expand it myself once I find more clearly written sources, at least in terms of a detailed industry reception. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo! Threats!

"If you don't stop this sort of disruptive editing, you're going to get blocked again, because your block log shows you should know better by now."

Hilarious.

If anyone's being "disruptive", it's your pal Schmuckola, who seems determined to follow me around like a puppy and revert my edits. You need to be chastising him (and his nauseating brand of self-love and internet badassery), not me.RMc (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm instructing you to use sources. The foundation of the entire website. Do it or get blocked again. (Smuckola knows and does this. And this, I'm not warning him.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RMc, it's not against policy to "stalk" users as far as I'm aware. If you want Smuckola off your trail, give him a reason to be. All content additions to Wikipedia articles have to have sources or be unchallengable (and if one is challenged, it is by definition not unchallengeable), and this goes for everyone. Two wrongs don't make a right, so existing things being unsourced doesn't mean it's okay to add more - however, on the flip side, you also have the right to remove unsourced statements you didn't add. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Daisy for Super Smash Bros 4 for Wii U and 3DS

  • I would like you to talk about Princess Daisy being Confirmed for the Super Smash Bros 4 game if you go to the Super Smash Bros Wii U Talk page and the Super Smash Bros 3DS Talk page then if you want to write something about Princess Daisy go to the Super Smash Bros 4 talk page. 71.175.79.183 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until she is actually confirmed, it should not go in her article, or the Smash Bros. article. Edits like this do not belong in the article, not only because its not sourced, but because I don't believe its even true. The game is out in a few days in Japan, so any of these character questions will be pretty certain by then. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which... Serge, would you mind protecting Duck Hunt, Dr. Mario, Bowser Jr., Koopalings, etc for the next 2 days? IPs are already starting to add unsourced information regarding the game's release to the articles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it vandalism/inappropriate content? Or just stating that characters from it are going to be in Smash Bros? I've seen a lot of articles from RS's in my Twitter feed writing articles about them being in the game? Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to semi-protect anything

Look, We were editing the Type-0 entry based on this blog post right here: http://www.elotrolado.net/hilo_hilo-oficial-final-fantasy-type-0_1565002_s2940#p1736832737

No need to threat anyone or protect the page, since that doesn't give a very good image of yourself. We just want to have all the information at Wikipedia as accurate as possible, right?. Now I see the erroneous information is gone from the Wikipedia article and I thank you for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.117.107 (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myltiple times, the IP had been asked to explain their edits, and yet the didn't. And a random blog isn't a reliable source, so... Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see that's the fan translation thread? You didn't even take the time to read the post I linked xD. In any case I take my thanks back: it's up to you to have the wrong information posted, lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.116.0.189 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a random forum isn't a reliable source. It's not even Sky's forum/website. You need a better source to counter all the other sources that report otherwise. Anyone can register for a forum and say whatever, so that's not usuable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what's going on: The C&D business is BS, is that it? You can go straight to (Redacted) and see how the team is still working on the translation. How come it's down when you can still build it from Sky's site (Redacted) And download the last updates from the team here: (Redacted) I'm currently playing it, 100% recommended for classic final fantasy fans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.49.42 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no answers for the situation you pose, only information on how Wikipedia works. We only go by what reliable sources say. WP:VG/RS has a large example of useable websites, but in general, the IGN/GameSpot/VG247 type sites. VG247 says there was a cease and desist given. Your counter evidence is a random person on a message board who can't even write a proper sentence. (I assume the sentence you're referencing for your "proof" is " In no moment he received any C&D, that would have made sense BEFORE releasing the patch." right? That's rough. Anyways, messageboard post type stuff, is not useable as a source - it violates WP:SPS. (There are some few exceptions, for example, if there was a corporate Square/Sony messageboard post from an account that could not be faked, might be able to be used. But not just a random account on a random website.) Unless a reliable source, the type I was talking about above, writes an article or retraction, then we stick with the original story. Its how things work here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't know we belong to the fan translation team. I hate to be this guy, but if you want your source, check your GameFaq inbox.

STOP NOW

Do not threaten me anymore!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayheredusttodust (talk • contribs) 11:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you keep adding false information to Wikipedia, you're going to be warned by Admin like myself, like it or not. If you don't want warnings, then don't be disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=625237855"