User talk:Sergecross73

Vandalism pt 31

Serge's 30th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

WanakoDX (talk · contribs) This is a totally robotically pointless 3x edit warrior over violating the MOS in Donkey Kong. Plus using virtually no edit summaries, and never responding to Talk page. Including not explaining how he just started an account with moderate skills as if like a sockpuppet. He only edits in trivia or tiny vital details like release dates and sales figures[1], and never with any sources. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 19:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I can really take any action beyond the warnings you've already rightfully issued. He just made some questionable edits at Super Mario too, but he seems closer to "new and misguided" than "vandal". Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay but bro I can't imagine why you'd think that. You've basically disavowed enforcing WP:3RR, which says 3 is the limit and the limit of the edits shall be 3. Four is right out. This guy is edit warring so hard that he's done *multiple* edit wars, each beyond 3 edits, and then you warned him on his second edit war. You warned him long after his third time of that second edit war, then he continued doing it anyway on an IP address. If you can't block him right at the first report I made, then nobody could ever be blocked for anything. This has continued specifically because not only does WP:3RR tell you to have long ago already blocked him, but it tells me not to keep reverting him and to report him to you for blocking or else I can be blocked. OK? Then you also simply didn't revert his violations that I reported. So you tried nothing but it hasn't worked! This has happened many times over the years with different users! I can't keep reverting! So again, he also pointlessly deleted the "start date and age" and edit warred the "Main series in '''bold'''" violation of MOS:NOBOLD. And I can't figure out if the sales stats change was done by him in yet another one of his source-less sales stats changes. — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with my efforts, I recommend you start reporting edit warring editors to WP:AN3 instead then. But please note that this editor has not edited in 4 days, and all their troublesome edits were undone through reverting and consensus-building on talk pages. Disruption was completely prevented. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As I very carefully enumerated, no his edits were not all deleted or I wouldn't have specifically named them and asked you to delete them. :) OK I'll do it. And I didnt know about that AN3 notice board, thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 21:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• 69.123.101.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This block evader is back. Immediately identified him from a non-sensical edit summary "Race on!" plus edits to Times Square Ball. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I just came across him too, but got pulled away before I could take action. IP is now blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• 208.104.196.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Using talk pages for bizarre role-playing. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked. Made it longer since it's the 4th block this year already. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• 81.104.128.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is still vandalising Can't Tame Her [2] after the page was unprotected. Ss112 13:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• 208.104.196.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is the same WP:NOTHERE person as above. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked and reverted. At least they seem to relegate their nonsense to talk pages, which get comparatively few views from the general public, so their silly edits are largely going unnoticed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• IP vandals are at Spike and Mike's Festival of Animation — Smuckola(talk) 06:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I missed this one. Another editor got it though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• WanakoDX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm sure you can guess why I'm reporting this user JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, that's as blatant as it gets. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• For two years now an IP editor has been editing Nightmare Creatures to describe the unfinished Nightmare Creatures III as a "third sequel". Initially this could have been assumed to be a good faith edit based on either a mistaken belief in a non-numbered entry or a simple brain fart, but his edit summaries instead feign either an inability to understand that the first in a series is not a sequel or an inability to correctly count to two, and ever since I pointed out that that's not a credible explanation, the editor has simply been edit warring without edit summaries at all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a bit torn. You're obviously 100% right and it feels like a bit of a CIR problem with the IP, but it's such an infrequently occurring issue, that tends to get caught pretty quickly, that it's hard to rationalize page protection for that alone... Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Define "pretty quickly"; on this latest occasion I didn't revert until four months later (checking the article every few weeks just for this issue is hard to keep up for long). I understand that page protection is not something to be used lightly, but the only alternative I can see at this point is to let the baby have his bottle. Say the word, though, and that's what I'll do. Martin IIIa (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, apologies, I kept seeing that the disruption was often few and far between, but didn't realize the cleanup didn't always come right after it. That said, its still a bit tough to warrant protection. I think its best to just keep an eye on it unless it gets more frequent. The other alternative could be rewording it so that even this IP can understand. Maybe something like "second/third entries in the series that continue the story/game" or something like that. (Whatever's true to the series, I'm not super familiar with this franchise.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• 80.208.64.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adding useless crufty tables to Mario Kart articles. Same person as 80.208.69.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), got blocked previously for same edits. ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Speedymcfly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit-warring on the SMB movie article with a plagiarized "official synopsis" from the summary of a trailer YT video, which the user was already blocked for. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thrakkx (talk · contribs) Mass deletion wrongfully, no edit summaries, no response to talk page. See talk page. Thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 21:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Warned a ways back, hasn't received any other complaints on talk page since then, as far as I can see, upon last check. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Not vandalism per se, but OverMindpt (talk · contribs) seems to be connected to Pedro Camacho (probably him), with every single one of his edits (dating back to 2011) involving him. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  He doesn't seem overly active, so its probably enough at the moment to just give him a WP:COI notification on his talk page. There's almost certainly a templated version of that message, though I don't have that one memorized and don't have the time at the moment to search. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Dear Sir. I am not Pedro Camacho and I am not related to him. I am an old person now so I come here rarely but I follow Camacho's work closely and I think his confirmed and award winning work clearly deserves a place in Wikipedia.

  I was shocked to notice this message and it clearly confirms to be @Dissident93 has some kind of agenda I don't understand.

  I have to say@Dissident93 has been actively removing awards - with valid links - removing references to Camacho's most notable works - like Requiem Ines de Castro which were performed many times in the best venues in Portugal and many concerts are available on youtube, and removing bio facts without any factual explanation.

  In fact I can clearly check @Dissident93 has only been removing valid information about Pedro Camacho since 2015, much of that information was placed by me, when my health allows.

  This is not a conflict of interest since all I place here is correctly externally referenced - with multiple references many times.

  There is one key goal here from @Dissident93: remove reference to Witcher 3 from Pedro Camacho.

  @Dissident93 involvement started around Camacho's credit around Witcher 3 since 2015, nonstop, no matter how anyone explains and references Camacho's valid links or information from Interview throughout the years.

  Even though Pedro Camacho has confirmed work on Witcher 3 multiple times, @Dissident93 keeps deleting religiously that information which suggests to me this user has some kind of conflict of interest with Pedro Camacho.

  Seeing this repost just confirms this user has a clear agenda and I would suggest him to start contributing more than always deleting information. Even Camacho's IGF award from 2008 - photographed and with multiple references - was deleted at some point by @Dissident93, without any proof, simply by purely insisting in creating vandalist in this page. I only have time to come back to Wikipedia once per year but each time I come back I sadly check @Dissident93 has attempted tried to destroy Camacho's page. OverMindpt (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  What reliable source says he worked on Witcher 3, as you keep claiming? The source (https://24.sapo.pt/tecnologia/artigos/world-of-warcraft-novo-videojogo-tem-musica-do-portugues-pedro-macedo-camacho) you keep re-adding to the article (seemingly written by an uncredited author) just says "In the area of ​​video games, Pedro Macedo Camacho also wrote music for "Civilization 5", "Witcher 3" and for the "Star Citizen" project, in which he is still involved." The only credible thing I could find is Camacho saying he did "a new arrangement and orchestration of its Main Theme" which I believe was only used in a trailer and not in the final release.

  And I removed the awards stuff it also lacked good sourcing and seemed like it was added to inflate his notability. Award tables are generally removed from biographical articles anyway unless the awards are really notable, of which doesn't apply to Camacho. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  https://soundcloud.com/pedrocamacho/witcher-3

  "Composed by Pedro Macedo Camacho and Gene Rozenberg. Recorded with Dynamedion orchestra by CD Projekt Red in July 2013.". https://musicbypedro.com/ official website plays states the same thing.

  Just saw your link and confirms the credit. Creating arrangements and orchestration is also a valid Work credit on a project. So you are confirming there is a source for the information and still you decide to remove the credit every single time it is added? Since 2015.

  So you just confirmed here you are creating vandalism since 2015. But if you are happier this way... I hope @Sergecross73 comes up with a decision about this matter and makes a stop for people like you in wikipedia. OverMindpt (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  It is misleading and I'm not sure how you don't see that. Making a single piece for trailer whose them isn't featured in the final release does not make him a composer for the game. It can be added back to the article, but should be noted to avoid making it seem like he contributed in a major way to the game. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't meant to ignore this, I just feel like my answer is just going to get buried in the archives before it's ever seen. I think this can just be resolved through the usual talk page means, notifying the Wikiproject, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• 207.229.139.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) We have a BOZ clone. Years ago, I saw on BOZ's talk page, an active conspiracy between BOZ and one or two others, I guess including this IP editor, of joyfully developing a formal template of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing patterns that I know you are far too familiar with. Look at the shamelessly aggressive destruction of prose, section layout, and date formatting that I had already manually fixed long ago.[3] He stopped to deface that amid the infinite carpet bombing. You know the drill and I will refrain from another word at this moment! I'm....so sorry. — Smuckola(talk) 06:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I spoke with them politely about WP:LINKFARM and about just leaving them on talk pages, which is acceptable practice–. They agreed to it immediately. I don't helping out or intervening, but this is one of those times where a calm talk could have resolved this instead... Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Johnhochi Disruptive editing only. — Smuckola(talk) 23:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked. Seeing if they can be coached or not. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• 73.17.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Edit warring over OR. — Smuckola(talk) 13:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Dubstar44 (talk · contribs) Repeated copyright violations in making bus articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  like i said to the others they were not intentional copyright infringements and i went through them and changed them when asked to or needed to Dubstar44 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, OK. Maybe you should try using multiple sources, that could help with copyvio. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I wasn't around last night to address this, but it looks like another Admin did. I also alerted them to WP:NOTNEWS, which also seemed relevant to their creations sent to the draft space. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• SuperMario6467 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems like a good-faith editor but making a lot of problematic/pointless edits. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Warned. I think that's all I can really do at this point. Let me know if it keeps coming up though. Sergecross73 msg me 22:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• 68.194.142.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Macy's Day vandal is back. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• 55-hot-chocolate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sock of DancingChan4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), disruptive editing on Mario Kart 64. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Already blocked by PhilKnight. Probably not worth socktagging. -- ferret (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• GrEgOrYiSnTaRoBoT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems that WP:NOTHERE applies. Returned 8 months after inserting game guide material into an article, now making useless requests to "Delete pls" on different WP guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Final warned. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Make a WP about VG Lists rules

Hey Serge I searched far and wide and I really cant find a proper rules for lists of video game. Because it makes no mention on whether we add the romaji name for a Japan exlusive game, or if we list the NA name first and then the alternaive English name for PAL regions second or vice versa, or if games with numbers particulary sports games like they used to FIFA 2002, and then middle of the decade they switched to 06 insteaf of the full year. So Serge please help me. NakhlaMan (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Also do we exlude bundle compilations like NES Remix Pack and even variants like the Shindo Pak versions for Mario 64? NakhlaMan (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit short on time at the moment, but I know MOS:VG has a ton of guidance on editing video game articles. Can't say for certain it answers your questions but you could give it a look. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Requesting advice

I came across an indefinite user block that seems suspect on a number of counts. The blocking admin used Template:Checkuserblock-account with no further explanation, not even identifying which editor the user is suspected of being a sockpuppet of, and the user's contributions page shows they were never involved in editing conflicts or anything else that might lead one to suspect sockpuppetry. The blocking admin then reverted dozens of the user's edits under the sole justification of WP:BANREVERT, marking all their reverts as "minor". Going by the half dozen of so of the blocking admin's "minor" edits I've looked at, none of them are constructive, and they include cases of blatant vandalism (here's a sample). After I reverted a handful of them, the blocking admin posted this on my talk page, which seems to confirm that they regard WP:BANREVERT as a blanket justification to revert any edit so long as they block the user first. That's not my understanding of WP:BANREVERT, but someone who believes that would certainly have motive for blocking in bad faith. Any advice? I realize that WP generally does not allow third party appeals of blocks, but I've stumbled across dozens of blocks in my years on Wikipedia and offhand I'd say that the vast majority were suspicious or at best insufficiently explained, and I've finally gotten tired of remaining silent about it. Martin IIIa (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Martin IIIa (talk page watcher) I can tell you as a former checkuser, and long time admin in the VG area, this is indeed a TTT24 sock, with all the normal hallmarks. You stated this wasn't declared, but it's been on the user page since the block was placed in December. It was never obscured or hidden. TTT24 is a prolific long-term abuse user. While it's clear that Ponyo hit a couple of reverts while mass reverting that probably shouldn't have been restored, she's only human. Her response to you was simple and direct: You understood she was reverting for BANREVERT reasons, so all you had to do was let her know a few were mistakes and needed undone. To accuse her of vandalism is where you crossed a line. It's clear from the situation she had not intent to vandalize, and simply made a few mistaken reverts doing cleanup. Frankly, calling these Special:Diff/1153964514, Special:Diff/1153964629, Special:Diff/1153965048 edits "Vandalism" probably deserved an even sterner warning to you. There's no world where those are vandalism edits. You cast aspersions in bad faith, period. -- ferret (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Ferret; the sequence of events are precisely what you describe above. Had Martin IIIa restored the edits with an edit summary such as "restore more accurate redirects" or something similar, I would have thanked them (which I often do if I've reverted a banned user and another editor comes along and vets the edit before restoring it). If they have concerns regarding any block (or edit) I make my talk page is available to discuss. But calling my good faith clean-up "vandalism" irked me. My message to Martin may have been terse, but I stand by it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away for most of the last 24 hours, but it appears Ferret and Ponyo just about covered it. Ponyo's reverts, even the ones that may have been accidental, are still compliant with BANREVERT. Hell, even outside of that, it seems most would have been compliant with the justification of BOLD editing. It only would have escalated to problematic if they had reverted you a second time after you had explained that you were restoring because they were valid.

This sort of stuff happens, and it's not that big of a deal. Sometimes you check the first 20 bad edits from someone and you just cut to the chase and undo the next 20 without checking as closely. And an editor like yourself catches some rare good ones and restores them. And everything is more or less just fine.

I will say though, that your classification of Ponyo's edits as "vandalism" is fundamentally incorrect though. Edits need to be made in bad faith to be considered vandalism, and neither the changes nor Ponyo's responses reflect that at all. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The TTT24 identification is declared on the user page (which I somehow overlooked checking), but the block log and talk page (certainly the logical places to look for a block explanation) both omit it. This is one of many instances where better documentation of a block would avert a lot of editor anxiety. As admins you don't have to worry about this, but imagine what it's like for a regular Joe editor to stumble on blocked editors and be unable to find adequate explanations for the blocks.

You guys keep saying "a few" or "rare", but I repeat, I've looked over more than a half dozen of Ponyo's reverts and not found any that were good. The "accidentally" thing is likewise an excuse that you're creating for Ponyo that they have not claimed for themselves; their post which I already linked instead insinuates that their edits were perfectly intentional. And if they were accidental, then what's the problem? If I were in Ponyo's shoes, and the reverts were accidental, I'd just drop by my talk page and say, "Hey sorry, I got into a bit of revert craze and wasn't paying close attention. Thanks so much for catching those!" I'd certainly see no reason to get defensive.

Anyway, I've said my piece; I don't expect it to make much difference, but I gave it my best shot. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

the block log and talk page (certainly the logical places to look for a block explanation) both omit it. Maybe you're just not familiar, but we almost never put that information there, nor does any policy or guideline require we do so. The User Page is where we tag socks. I'd certainly see no reason to get defensive. I promise that if I reverted a bunch of your edits and put in the edit summary that they were Vandalism, you'd get extremely defensive. YOU started this by not just saying "I think this was constructive, so I restored it." It was YOU who went bad faith and accused Ponyo of deliberate malicious vandalism. And it was you, having been made aware of your bad faith aspirations, who then went to another sysop and made MORE bad faith accusations, such as saying the block itself had a bad faith motive. All you literally had to do, at any point, was simply ask Ponyo "Hey, could you explain this block?" -- ferret (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, this wasn't even a failure of BRD, so outside of the failure to assume good faith, I'm not really seeing the problem. There's no active dispute, errors were caught and all content is as it should be. Feels more like a case study that shows that the system works. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Full page protection?

Hi Serge. Could you consider implementing full page protection of No.6 Collaborations Project temporarily? I understand the page history is not that disruptive at present, but since April 26, multiple editors have been changing its status as a studio album to something another source says, despite the last consensus on the number of studio albums by Sheeran at Talk:No.6 Collaborations Project in 2020 deciding No.6 should be counted as a studio album and that no other description (taking into account the sources there were at the time) was adequate. Various editors have also been changing the counts at = (album), - (album) (which was just released), as well as Ed Sheeran discography and Ed Sheeran. I've asked them to establish a new consensus, but a day or two goes by and there's a new editor I have to inform. I understand I could start the discussion myself, but I'm not the one seeking the change, even though I don't personally feel that strongly if a consensus decided to reclassify No.6 and even while a discussion would be ongoing, there'd still be editors changing it. Anyway, just asking if you think it's worth protection until consensus decides otherwise, as I don't believe my hidden notes are going to really stop anything. Thanks. Ss112 03:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sergecross73, on most Sonic games articles when i edit something, why do you and BlazeWolf keep removing the term However and acting like it's not necessarily worth using that term at all. It does not even say you cant use that term. Your just reverting my edits because you think you guys make the rules on Wikipedia or that you guys think things are not worth of anything at all. Just leave it where it is. 156.70.191.162 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ss112 - Protected - I think there's been enough back and forth over it that one could call it a "slow motion edit war" of sorts. Hopefully it helps force a discussion of it.
• 155 - You'll have to give an example of what you mean. Your edit history doesn't show any examples, and I would not revert someone simply for using the word "however", so there must have been other issues with your edits. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

RockabillyRaccoon again

Hi, since your last talk page message to him in December there have been 3 other user complaining about his genre warring (1, 2, 3) and I'm wondering if a sanction would be appropriate by now, especially since he never adresses any of the issues and just blanks the talk page --FMSky (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

On the hunt for better references for 32X games

Hey Serge, not sure if u saw but I vastly improved the list of 32X games and I made it better, cleaner, and corrected some things, but the thing that bothers me is the refs because majority of them are from IGN and AllGame and I wouldnt consider them reliable for anythine that is pre-5th or even 6th gen. So I am just wondering if its ok to removed them and replace them with references like magazines and stuff. Dont worry I wont link them to Sega Retro even though they have some good stuff saved like magazines. Also for Surgical Strike which the 32X was only released in Brazil but Sega published and is the copyright holder but most Sega products or all of them are distrubted by Tec Toy so do I mention Sega or Tec Toy as publisher for the game. NakhlaMan (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, unexpectedly busy today, but I'll try to give more detailed answers over time.

To start off, please don't remove any IGN or AllGame sources unless they're directly contradictory to another reliable source. Both are deemed usable per WP:VG/S. Going around removing them without reason would likely find you in hot water. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A defintitve WP for video game lists.

Also I apolgise for repeating but I looked all over WikiProject and there is NO articles or rules for how to do video game lists and it is driving me crazy that there is no rules for this kind of thing. So Serge I know you dont have a lot of time in your hands but could u please show me an article about the definite way to do lists please. NakhlaMan (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)