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 Mikeis1996 (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 26 March 2016 (→‎Post-grunge wikipedia, it really needs to go back the way how it was.: new section). 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]

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]

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]

Deleting the YouTestMe Page

Hi Sergecross73, I've noticed that you deleted a page that I created - "YouTestMe". I saw the reasons for the deletion were "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)" and "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

Allow me to elaborate why I think this was a wrong call:

First, as far as A7 clause goes - I assure you, it is really important to certain people, since some college students based their master's degree diplomas on this software, and they might need it for reference. And even more important fact is that there are students working on this project who will base their future education upon it. I cannot even emphasize how important it will be for students to show their professors they made an application that is worldwide. This is a unique educational project whose plans are to include tens or even hundreds of additional students and improve education worldwide, by involving children-for-children education.

As far as clause G11 goes, I think the content was written in the most neutral tone possible, without even mentioning promotional purposes. I've noticed that you are a great fan of video games and you like talking and writing about them. I'm a fan as well, I get your passion, but on the basis that you deleted my page, somebody can also see your authoring as promotional content - which I'm sure it isn't since I gave it a thorough look. Also, I'm not trying to pinpoint guilt to anyone but this page Passaggio Wines might even be bigger promotional content than what I've written - and there it is. I've done a lot of research on Wikipedia, and made a concept of that article according to it.

I'm aware that Wikipedia Administrators have their hands full with numerous pages, but I'm kindly asking you to revise this decision. Please, analyze the content I've written again, I will be more than happy to change any disambiguation about promotional content. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilDimes (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please read User:Sergecross73/Why was my article deleted - that may clear up what the issues were. In regards to your particular concerns:
  • A7 - when you and I discuss "importance" or "notability", we're probably talking about different things. What I, and Wikipedia in general, are referring to, is the Wikipedia's guideline for determining notability. It's different than what you're talking about, and the article was not meeting the Wikipedia definition.
  • A11 - One of the reasons it was tagged for being promotional was that there are so many links to "YouTestMe"'s official websites. That gives the vibe that you're trying to lure the reader off of Wikipedia, to your own website. A lot of the wording also makes it sound more like it was written by the company or their PR person, rather than a encyclopedia entry. Things like "aim of revolutionizing the industry of e-learning", "providing excellent-quality tools", comments about it being so simple, completely free, etc. The writer sounds to be an advocate for the product.
I can't restore in to the mainspace in its current state, but if you intend to work on the article and make it compatible with Wikipedia and its requirements, I can restore the article to the rough draft space, where you can continue working on it until its ready for the general public. Let me know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no argument with your points about Passaggio Wines, it's not looking so hot either. I've tagged it as something needing improvement. Anyone would be within their right to deleting that article as well. (I personally concentrate on discussing deletions, or deleting ones tagged for speedy deletion, I don't usually nominate articles for deletion personally, but you or anyone else is free to nominate Passagio for deletion.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, thanks for the info! First, I am definitely ready to work on the article more, until it is completely ready - please be kind to restore it into draft space. I've read the Wikipedia's guideline for determining notability, and still I'm fairly certain this topic suits with Wikipedia well. I will remove the links from the text. Would it be appropriate if I put the links as sources of information in reference section?
I will be completely honest - I am involved with this product, but the main aim with this article was to make a purely informational topic about a new type of approach in the e=learning industry (for example the part about tool over content). I see that I might have been a little heavy with the words.
I didn't mean to point fingers at anybody, my apologies, but I saw this page as an example of something similar to what I've written, and didn't understand why can they be entitled to an article and I can't - a bit childish I confess. Try not to judge, I'm very passionate about this, which is why I might get overzealous sometimes, I will be more neutral from now on.
You have been of great assistance, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilDimes (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, it happens all the time. That's why I decided to write up that "Why Was My Article Deleted" essay I linked you too - its something that is constantly misunderstood about the website by casual readers.
If you wish to pursue this, you should read up on Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. You're not banished from writing about it or anything, but it is strongly discouraged for you to be editing it, for the exact reasons you mentioned above - it can be hard to separate yourself from something you're so directly invested in. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I'll take another shot tomorrow. Pardon my arrogance, but may I post the new article in this thread, so you can give me your expert, neutral opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilDimes (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the article to the draft space, where you can attempt to rework the article. It's at Draft:YouTestMe. Basically, you can take your time with working on it there - its public, but in a state of isolation from the rest of the project, so its less likely to be found. Feel free to notify me when you've worked on it some, and I can come in and give pointers or help a bit if you want. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've changed the article, I think it is closer to the final version now - what is you opinion, where should I make improvements? Draft:YouTestMe PhilDimes (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've done well in removing the A11/promotional elements to the wording of the article, so that's good. If there's any more concerns on the promotional nature, I would think that its minor enough that it would no longer be a reason for deletion, but rather something editors will just tweak themselves, or discuss on the articles talk page.
  • However, of course, the A7 bit is still unaddressed. You'll need reliable sources that are third party - unrelated to the subject - that cover the subject in significant detail. Do you have any of these? I recommend 5 - usually that's enough to deter people from nominated it for deletion again. Any further rewording would probably be dependent on what these third party sources say, as technically, the article is supposed to be written according to what unaffiliated, third party sources say on a subject, in the interest of neutrality.
So far, so good though. Nice improvements so far. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several neutral sources - However, I have 4 only, there is a news article coming. Would it be much of a hassle if the 5th one wasn't added immediately? Draft:YouTestMePhilDimes (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken 7

You can warn me all you want, I'm a wikipedia editor, just like you. And I want the same thing, which is to improve wikipedia and add as much useful and referential information to it as possible. You had your way with the Project X series even though the conversation there wasn't finished. If it's worth it to you you can go see what my last word was. But this is about Tekken 7.

  • First of all, there are several wikipedia articles that use Forbes sources written by contributors. If you're going to remove it here, then you should hunt down the rest of them too. Start a job, finish it.
  • Second of all, the Forbes source in question had verifiable information. Namely, from a Harada tweet, which the Tekken 7 article is full of. So why all of a sudden is this tweet unacceptable? It has to do with a character in the game which someone on Twitter said something about, and Harada defended his stance. That is something that is worthy of being on the Tekken 7 article, just as the information about Lucky Chloe and Josie. Osh33m (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't stop ignoring WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:V, you're also going to get blocked like any other editor too. As would I, were I to continually ignore policy. But I don't do that. And I'm telling you its not acceptable to ignore them just because you don't like them. Its a core principle of Wikipedia.
  • Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If Forbes Contributors are used elsewhere, that doesn't make it right for you to use it, it means it should be removed elsewhere too. There's an active consensus not to use them, and unless you change that consensus, its not usable. That's all there is to it. The correct avenue is to change the consensus,not ignore it. Additionally, whether or not reliable, third party sources cover something, often determines whether or not Wikipedia its an actual "controversy", or just some non-notable internet fans rabble-rousing.
  • The problem with that tweet in particular is that it doesn't verify what you say it does. Its him talking to a fan. It in no way verifies any "controversy" taking place.
Please keep the Tekken 7 discussion at that talk page. The only reason I mentioned it on your talk page was to give you final warning to stop ignoring OR and consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So Tekken 7 aside, amidst all the disagreements with others I've had on wikipedia over the years, so too have I made solid contributions to wikipedia as well, without ever having read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:V - or anything of the sort. I respect them but if my ways happen to not abide by them, I will still defend my position until a consensual decision is made. Once that decision is made, I don't continue to further getting into reverts or edit wars. Osh33m (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, every time you're not following those basics policies when you cross my path, I'm going to start discussions, and if you're not following policy, you're going to lose the argument every time. Eventually the community is going to lose its patience for addressing the same basic issues over and over again, and you're going to find yourself getting blocks. And that's if I don't lose patience first and take this to ANI. The choice is yours. In regards to Tekken 7, I don't plan on further reverts, but I plan on doing a rewrite on the content. If you revert that, then we'll hold a discussion and see which version is favored - the original research version sourced to semi-relevant tweets, or a reliably sourced version, where all statements are clearly back by sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I've made solid contributions to wikipedia as well but if that means nothing here if there are also disagreements then frankly that's quite pathetic. It's not like I'm editing to vandalize, or to make everyone else's job here harder. I'm trying to make wikipedia more informative, and I'm trying to make it better. Just like you. As far as Tekken 7 goes, I agree with you that a lot of the sources there aren't verifiable and the section itself is written very well, so if you want to remove or rewrite it, I think you should. Osh33m (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-grunge wikipedia, it really needs to go back the way how it was.

Post-grunge wikipedia, it really needs to go back the way how it was. Okay, so there is this user called Staik N and he is editing on the post-grunge page and he has a lot of sources but I feel like he is adding whatever comes into his mind. He is saying how post-grunge morphed in the late 90s and how post-grunge was originally a subgenre of grunge and then became a derivative when it always was a derivative. It's really getting all confusing, he keeps putting how bands like Bush are post-grunge then next thing you know, they are grunge. He even came to my page and told me that Bush belongs more in the grunge movement and the grunge page and not the post-grunge page when Bush was never added into the grunge page until he started editing the page. It's a massively confusing mess now. When you told me that leave the post-grunge article alone, I left it alone but this user keeps editing and editing and then he keeps changing and changing. It's really confusing now and I am wondering if you can change the post-grunge article how it originally was, now it's a big mess. Take care. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=712083170"