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 Andiar.rohnds (talk | contribs) at 07:52, 18 March 2016 (→LOL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vandalism pt 12

Here's the 12th iteration of Serge's personal WP:AIV. Let me know if you like me to look into any instances that you feel may require warnings, blocks, or page protections. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user 87.112.105.146 (talk) is still adding false information to Super Mario RPG and Taalismaan recently, same thing that was done by 81.158.178.107 (talk). -- Hounder4 11:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP, protected both pages. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Let me know if you catch him elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you mind deleting Adventures of Mana/GA1 and Talk:Adventures of Mana/GA1? Duuuuuu has for some bizarre reason decided to create copies of the main page on them. This isn't even the first time someone saved nonsense on these pages - really weird.--IDVtalk 17:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's very bizarre. Pages deleted. I'll try to leave him a note to stop too... Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, IDV I ended up blocking him altogether, as he had done the same thing to another article, and his contested deletion comment on the talk page (also deleted now) was literally gibberish. I only blocked him for a week, but if it happens again, I'll just block it indefinitely... Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really hate to have to ask this, but I think Dreamcast needs a longer term semiprot. Sales figures still being repeatedly edited by IPs, including ones who have clearly read the prior discussion but refuse to abide by it. -- ferret (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Jim Chappell. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer}} This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.[reply]

Unbelievable. The waste of time in sending this to DRN is astounding. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brain freeze challenge

I believe that made a credible claim of significance; created by a notable person. Nor do I believe the thing itself came under any A7 category. Adam9007 (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being a game created by a Youtuber in itself, not a credible claim to importance. Youtuber's do all sorts of crazy stuff, but that doesn't mean it worth a stand-alone article. This is compounded by the fact that there was only one source present - a Youtube video made by the subject, and zero third party sources present. That's a complete failure of the WP:GNG - there's not a single independent source making any sort of claim of importance.
  • See WP:CSD A7 - "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events". Its a game he plays in his Youtube videos. That's like the definition of "web content". I'm not alone, considering RHaworth came to the same conclusion.
Honestly, I'm far more concerned that you felt it was appropriate to recreate this article in this shape. Are you not familiar with the WP:GNG? Did you really feel it was appropriate to recreate recently deleted articles with zero independent, third party sources present? Or recreate sentences like "Thank you, America ;)" in the article?. Seriously - emoticons and addressing America in an encyclopedia article?
Please, no more article recreations in that terrible of shape, continuing to do this will be considered disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing me with someone else; I didn't create the article. Anyway, it wasn't just any old Youtuber, it was a notable one. He had articles on several language Wikipedias if I remember right. Sources are also irrelevant for A7. And I still don't think it's web content; you could claim anything's web content if one can video it and put it on Youtube. Unless I'm thinking of another article, but I'm sure it's this one. Adam9007 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I though it looked like you had recreated it, but you were just the one who declined the speedy. Sorry about that part. I've stricken that part.
  • Beyond this situation and this conversation, you may need to re-evaluate your understanding of "credible claim to importance", (especially considering the result so far.) Probably WP:NOTINHERITED too? A sentence defining the subject as "a game that a youtuber plays on their videos" is hardly a claim of importance in any sense. It only a claim that it exists, which is not enough. The "claim to importance" should somehow tie to the notability standards, that's what we're ultimately checking on here, and that's why sources help determine this. For example, if The Today Show did a nationwide segment on it, then yeah, I'd decline the speedy instantly, because the fact that a news publication focused on it specifically is a credible claim to importance. The content left in the article, honestly didn't even put in a credible claim that it was a notable part of his show. It was nothing more than a bare-bones statement on what it was.
  • I'm also still confused as to how this is not "web content". Is he known for doing this game in any other context other than for his Youtube videos? No sources or content in the article stated otherwise. It may be a game he plays in real life, but it seems to strictly be for video streaming purposes as the end goal. That makes it web content.
  • Also of note, looking at the deleted page history, the article had received 3 speedy deletion taggings, and 2 actual deletions, over the span of about 24 hours. I really think that says something about the inappropriateness of the article... Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're the third (possibly fourth) person who thinks that by removing an A7 tag, I'm implying inherited notability. I am not. A7 clearly states (but not clearly enough it seems, as you're not the first person I've had this conversation with) that its standard is lower than notability. Significance/importance is not the same as notability. It is (they are interchangeable) a lower standard. Significance is, as I understand it, anything that might establish or lead to notability. In other words, A7 is not about having no indication that it does meet WP:GNG, it's about having no indication that it might meet it. There's a difference, and being created by a notable person is a credible indication that it might meet notability guidelines. The Youtuber, if I'm not much mistaken, had an article not only here but on several other language Wikipedias, so I think it's a safe bet he's notable. WP:A7M, although an essay (some people, incredibly, think I should just ignore it on that basis), lists many common claims of significance (some of which might even be claims of notability), and being created by a notable person is one of them. If you look through my talk page, and here, you'll see that there are people who agree with me. I'm thinking about formally proposing a change in wording, as significance/importance is too often confused with notability. Adam9007 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take that into consideration too though - it's just that it comes down to the subjective call on what is a credible claim to importance or significance is, and I just dont feel "game a YouTuber made up and plays" is a credible claim to importance, significance, or notability. I mean seriously, how prevalent of a subject is that for a stand alone article is that on Wikipedia, and if any exist, what sort of shape are they in? Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how notable the person is? Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this article seems comparable to having an article about the chorus of a song, or an article about a particular joke in a sitcom or something. Could it be mentioned somewhere in a parent article? Sure. The Youtuber's article was relatively short, someone could work it in there. But as a standalone article independent from the subject? I just don't realistically see a path (or credible claim if you will) to that. I can restore it to a draft if you personally plan on improving it, but I can't restore it to the main space in that state. Sergecross73 msg me 23:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failure Anthem Edit

Thank you for your message concerning my edit of Failure Anthem's Wikipedia page. The data I added seems pertinent to the section in that it describes how Kyle Odell came to prominence by depending on his girlfriend/wife's financial sacrifices and how he was able to focus on his music because he was required to move into his studio after she kicked him out. This data is easily sourced by the divorce documents at the Guilford County Register of Deeds and Odell's own messages. This is much more easily sourced than J.D.'s cooking for Wolfgang Puck, so I'm not sure what the issue is here.

KSEFOREVER — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSEFOREVER (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are many. For starters, you did not cite a source in your edits, nor have you now, you've merely made some vague allusions to "court documents being out there" or something. Secondly, there's the fact that it doesn't appear to have any bearing on the band itself. We write Wikipedia around what reliable, third party sources say about a subject. If you find music journalist discussing infidelities of the band members being an important aspect of this band, then there's an argument in your favor. If not, then it definitely doesn't belong in the article. (Eubanks working for Wolfgang Puck is easily cited to AllMusic as a noteworthy aspect of the band. Kinda random, I know, but I'd be much more open to removing the cooking factoid than including unsourced WP:BLP policy violating content you've proposed.
Short version - cite sources that deem this to be a noteworthy aspect of the band. Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for finally shutting up in our recent little debate over at the talk page for final fantasy-0. I see that you fairly large contributor to japanese video games and also an admin here on Wikipedia. Rather than debating me over obvious subjects in which you are not being truthful of, and which you are incorrect, please take those moments to evaluate how factual the articles in question should be. Wikipedia is not your personal advertising platform. Generally editors contribute to wikipedia for various helpful and selfless purposes. But you, I honestly believe you expect something in return from contributing so much. You definitely expect certain articles to be biased, which is not ok. I am really going to ride your ass hard until dawn and edit all your work and put everything you have under scrutiny. Once again, please evaluate the factual nature of such articles. Being factual is the number one priority of articles here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - i own you :^) Andiar.rohnds (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated, I did not write the game's reception section. You can check the edit history yourself. - which edits of mine do you feel were overtly promotional? I don't work for Square, nor do I have any connections to them, nor did I even personally like the game, so your accusations are completely unfounded. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So here's where we're at:
  1. You need to assume good faith. No more unfounded accusations.
  2. You need to knock it off with the combative comments. "Thank you for shutting up" or "I own you" comments are not civil or constructive. Discuss the issues at hand, and leave the rest out.
  3. If you continue to, or follow through on your threats, to harrass me, we'll be going to WP:ANI. Judging by your history with your block log there, and the fact everything you're arguing about violates WP:USERG and WP:RGW, I doubt that would go well for you. (And that's if a (talk page stalker) doesn't block you first, you're being so flagrant here, I wouldn't be surprised.) I recommend you stop with the games while you're ahead. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


LOL pathetic. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also really need to watch that little mouth of yours, friend. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Platform naming conventions

Hi! I've been cleaning several video game related pages lately, trying to enforce proper naming conventions for gaming and computing platforms, such as proper abbreviations or spelling, gratuitous use of foreign platform names vs. proper use (as is the case with all JP-only releases on Super Famicom or PC Engine) or just the proper format period (as is the case with all PC Engine games lazily labelled "PC Engine CD" without any indication if it's a CD-ROM², Super CD-ROM² or Arcade CD-ROM², which I'll get around to fixing eventually).

To get down to the point, you've probably noticed with your recent reversion of my edits to the Earthworm Jim 2 page that I've shortened "Sega Genesis" to simply "Genesis". I'm convinced this is actually how the platform's name is officially recognized by Sega, even if the original logo (before the console and logo itself got redesigned in 1993 and they started using red spines on the cartridge cases) seems to imply that it's "Sega Genesis". I've researched most of Sega's official documentations and advertising and they usually just use "Genesis."

I could come up with a few more examples, but these were the ones that stood out for me. At any rate, you can see where I'm coming from now and how Sega themselves consistently used the simpler one word name. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was merely that it didn't match the article title. But then again, the console's article may be at Sega Genesis because of disambiguation purposes too, and I'm not suggesting there be more renaming debates there, that's for sure. Anyways, without a central discussion or consensus on this, I'd think you'd run into opposition, or have your edits undone by passerby editors over time, but I won't personally push on this any further. Sergecross73 msg me 11:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I've watched a lot of Jonny2x4's edits through my watch list, and mostly haven't had an issue. I would caution though against changing many articles to use "official" naming, i.e. "Genesis" versus "Sega Genesis", and keep in mind that we ultimately want to make sure the reader understands what we're referring to... I would suggest keeping the "full name" for the first mention at least, i.e. "Sega Genesis" followed by just "Genesis". I also disagree with changing video game articles to use short hand and abbreviations, again, with the reader in mind. It's fine to do this on many of the console articles themselves, as they list the short hands in the lead generally, but that context is missing in the video game articles like Earthworm Jim 2. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd be completely fine with Ferret's approach. I may do that sometimes already as it is. Would that be an acceptable, Jonny2x4? Use the full name on the first mention, for recognizability purposes (the word "genesis" by itself has a lot of different meanings to a lot of different people, and on Wikipedia, we're not specifically writing for video game fans, but rather general audiences, so their mind may not jump to the correct conclusion right away), and then in any further mentions, just "Genesis" is fine, because its been identified already. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind that at all, honestly. I'm mostly just shortening console names for infoboxes or lead sections in multiplatform game articles (i.e. "Super NES and Genesis" is more concise than "Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega Genesis/Mega Drive"). Using "Genesis/Mega Drive" (or "Mega Drive/Genesis" for that matter) every time Sega's 16-bit console is mentioned seems a bit excessive for me (especially considering most western developed games and localizations were made primarily for the North American Genesis most of the time from my experience) and I'm under impression that most readers know what a "Genesis" is in the context of a video game article. Using "Sega Genesis" I don't mind that much though. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Nice, I knew it would come to this. To you just removing the entire section in talk, for petty technical reasons. But I honestly don't care. [[[Yawn]]] Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it's my fault that you can't formulate an actionable, rationale proposal for change, but if you don't wrap things up real quick here, you're going to be blocked again. Stop wasting people's time with these rants. Propose specific changes supported by reliable sources, or drop it. If you want to complain endlessly with vague complaints, go head off to a message board or start a blog or something. It's not for Wikipedia talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one making endless, frivolous counter arguments against an article which is obviously biased and with very strong possible commercial interests. The subjects I touched go much deeper. It would be impractical to provide sources on everything and you know this. Every key argument I made can still be backed up with credible sources, but that would make the discussion even slower for me. It would take forever. It's very difficult for me to write. This is a discussion, not a wiki article, not everything needs to be etched out in concrete facts. A little common sense would have gone a long way there. Common sense is something which is actually listed under wikipedia policy, and it's something which you are definitely and conveniently ignoring. Unless I'm mistaken and you are genuinely incapable of understanding simple concepts, and well (very well) established facts within the video game world, which you seem to be knowledgeable in. I also have a specific way of putting my thoughts down first, then editing them to be better. I have to do this or I cannot post at all. But the entire section was removed while I was still making clarifications and corrections. So there was never really a chance to finish my case or even provide sources even if I wanted to. I could get the section back up. But honestly, I don't care at this moment. I am not going to sit here and deal with such people with an obvious agenda. You are a policy shopper for convenience, and you ignore common sense and logic. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=710660941"