User talk:Sergecross73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vandalism pt 7[edit]

  • Hello Serge, long time no see! 174.125.247.169 is going to multiple articles and unnecessarily adding the holiday next to every date he sees. Not vandalism per se, but certainly disruptive. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey, good to see you back around! Yeah, I agree, those holiday additions are random and not helpful. I just gave him a warning to stop for now, I'll escalate things if he doesn't stop. Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • He's still touching several articles, even after your warning. ---ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh. (EDIT: I'm sighing at the IP, not you.) I'd really hate to block someone over something so silly, but you're right, the edits aren't helpful, and he's not responding. One last warning. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 74.90.214.164 He and other IPs keep re-adding Bill Trinen's spouse, which is unsourced. In fact, might be a good idea to protect his article through E3. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Protected. (Humorously, looking at the protection log, it was last protected just about E3 2013 time period - looks like this is not the first time.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That guy who changes the developers/publishers incorrectly is back under 90.222.19.76. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Blocked and reverted. I was beginning to think that guy was stopping - I hadn't seen him for a week or so. But now I've caught 3 in 24 hours... Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
He's returned (90.220.46.171). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
And here (176.248.106.194). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Blocked and reverted both. Thank you, Dissident93. Let me know if you keep finding them. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yup, definitely, its the same edits and the same awkward edit summaries as always. Blocked and reverted. Thank you very much. Keep telling me if/when you spot this. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like the page is getting a lot of bad IP edits, so I've protected the page. Let me know if the IP causes any more trouble, and I'll block it. Conversely, it looks like Mario Kart is a WP:TAFI. I'm not familiar with how all that stuff works, but if protecting a TAFI article is frowned upon or something, I'll remove the protection and block the IP instead. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Back again: 94.3.118.187 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked both. Thanks for helping with the reverts too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Back again using a previously blocked IP 77.96.101.235 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked, for 6 months this time, since he keeps returning to that one... Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Satoru Iwata Mind protecting the page? It just got unprotected and it's already getting attacked. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I would have, but it looks like someone beat me to it. They only added an extra week on though - let me know if it persists again next week, and I'll put a longer one into effect. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Gave him a final warning, and he proceeded to edit war with others over it. Blocked him, and protected the page, as another IP was noting that this is a person who's been IP-hopping to cause trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why did you have to protect the whole page when there's only one user adding false informations? There are many unregistered users like myself who enjoy building the database and do their best to add accurate and useful content, like I did with the amiibo cards list. Please just ban that one user and let others help keeping the page up to date. Thanks, 88.68.179.202 (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Its as I just said above - someone mentioned that this person was likely to IP-hop - meaning to work around being blocked, they'd go to another computer/IP/phone/whatever, and keep causing the same trouble. The way to circumvent that is to protect the whole page. I do recognize that there were good IP edits being made, that's why I didn't protect the page initially. I can undo the protection if you really want (its only for a week as it is) but if the IP comes back, it's likely to be protected again. If you intend on continuing to contribute to the page, you ought to consider making an account, so this won't affect you in the future. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And now that person has indeed IP hopped, and returned to cause trouble at other pages he had vandalized in the past, like the List of Mario sports games article. If I unlock the Amiibo page, I imagine the troubles will return there as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but maybe we could give it another try now that the storm has settled (or are they still vandalizing?). Nintendo updated the Japanese amiibo site and compatibility chart with infos about Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer, Super Mario Maker and Chibi Robo!: Zip Lash, but no one seems to have noticed it or feels like reflecting those infos on the amiibo page. On top of that, tomorrow sees the release of the Animal Crossing amiibo cards and I suspect that Nintendo will update the site with a lot more pictures of those cards, which would then need to be translated into the corresponding English character names before being added to our amiibo cards list. It would be a pleasure to take care of it if I had the chance to. Thanks, 88.68.179.202 (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That is a commendable request, so I've removed the protection. I still believe that you should create an account though, so this doesn't happen in the future. These sorts of articles can be magnets for trouble - hoax entries, rumors, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if its protected again someday, by me or someone else. Its up to you though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I hope they don't return to cause more harm. I will keep your words in mind about creating an account, although I've been fine editing like this for the last two years or so. I'm still in the learning phase, obviously, and if I'm feeling confident enough in my editing skills I'll likely reconsider. Anyways, thanks for your time and support, 88.68.179.202 (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • He's back editing Amiibo, and is IP-hopping quite wildly. It doesn't seem like blocking one IP will do anything; he has edited the article as a different IP every time. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Sorry, "good-intentioned IP user". I've re-protected it. You'll have to wait it out, or make an account and wait it out until it lets you edit protected pages. I've also added the article to my watchlist, as I'm pretty knowledgeable about it, but by all means, keep notifying me of disruption. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73: Haha, I like that name :) But seriously, I understand the situation and it's probably for the best, as there seems to be no other way to stop him, as he can seemingly change IPs at will. I'll just wait it out without complaining this time, as I don't expect anything major Amiibo related to be announced in the next few weeks. I've already made all the edits that I told you about earlier and then some, so I'm okay with taking a break. 88.68.179.202 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thomas - protected. IP, thank you for understanding. At least you were able to make your changes before the protection. But still, I hate restricting a good-natured editor like yourself. Like I was saying before, don't rule out Creating an account, its free and pretty easy, from what I remember. The watchlist feature makes it worth it in my opinion as well. Its up to you though. If you still are opposed, you can continue to make suggestions from the talk page, through edit requests. Editors like Thomas or I would be glad to help you through that way as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It is, the guy doesn't even try to keep it a secret. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yup, definitely him. His edit summaries are robotic and awkward in the same way every time. I don't mean to be mean at all, but the person either has a significant language barrier, or some serious issues with reading, writing, and comprehension. The way that he has, on a few occasions where he actually communicated directly to me, threatened to block me after I blocked him, makes me think its the latter. Anyways, blocked and reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Not that I know of. It's fine, you can just report it to me. I don't mind taking care of it. As persistent as this IP hopper is, I think they've made like zero last changes - they're so not-subtle that they are caught and mass-reverted every single time. Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
94.10.214.107 (talk · contribs) This same IP is active again. Seems like the admin only blocked them for 31 hours. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yikes, he had a meltdown there, I had to revdel it. He never got angry like this before, but he still uses the same awkward way of writing, so it must be him. Blocked for 3 months. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, it's nice that he's at least trying to do a little better with doing edit requests, but he's still block evading, introducing a lot of errors into articles, and he disregarded my warning to use references to back his changes from few days ago when he was actually communicating with me briefly. So he's blocked again. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yup. Blocked. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 188.32.107.101 (talk · contribs) Blanking whole articles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ThomasO1989 has reported this IP hopping editor several times above about adding false info to Amiibo and Mario-related articles. I've also noticed them editing Sonic and Sega related articles. But blocking each IP doesn't seem to help as they come back everyday with a new IP address and make several more edits. They continue adding false information to numerous articles. Page protecting isn't always helping either because I've noticed that they just move onto different articles. I've just listed some of their IPs and articles they keep targeting at User:The1337gamer/sandbox#ipvandal but there are more if you look at the very recent edit history of those IPs. I'm getting somewhat bored of having to track this person's edits every single day. Given the frequency of this person's vandalism, IP hopping and clear pattern in the IP addresses they use, is it possible to block this person's entire IP range? --The1337gamer (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to do range blocks (maybe I need to learn) but maybe Salvidrim! does...? Anyways, on the meantime, I don't mind continually blocking and protecting. Usually if I'm diligent at it, they give up after a while once they notice that they can IP hop all they want, but they're still not making any changes that ever stick... Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I was recently made aware that a rangeblock I performed has inadvertently blocked 618 septillion addresses (that's 618,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!), so clearly I don't know rangeblocks as well as I thought I did. :p  · Salvidrim! ·  17:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow Salvidrim!, I know you're pro having to sign up to edit, but that's really escalating things! ;) Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Tripple-ddd's behavior/block[edit]

I didn't have any idea about the (long!) discussion at WP:VG, or that Tripple had even been blocked until today when I found it on a fluke; just had a comment regarding the latter, and I would've thrown in my 2¢ on the former discussion if I'd known. Anyway.

I think there was a misunderstanding re: the edit I think you used as your rationale for blocking him. Dissident misread the diff history and thought that Tripple was reverting me adding something back on Sega, but once I explained what was going on on the TP, Dissident said he was fine with the change Tripple made.

Honestly I know the nittygritty really doesn't matter; if it wasn't this he would've likely gotten blocked over something else, and the main issue is definitely in that he doesn't communicate properly with others half the time or listen when people say he needs to approach things differently. I've gotten along ok with him so far because it's rare for someone to truly wear on my patience; while I'm not fond of the prickliness Luke or Dissident tended to meet him with, I can understand where their frustration comes from. Not everyone wants to spend all their time trying to get through to him, so he's got to learn. BlusterBlaster beepboop 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I'm torn on what to do with him. On one hand, its not quite as bad as I first thought. On the other hand, its still very concerning how confrontational and unnecessarily difficult he is. He didn't argue with me at all about his block, but has argued with me at length about the notability requirements (and shortcomings) of some of the articles he's recently created. He won't listen to anything, and fights every step of the way. The "straw that broke the camels back" isn't quite what I thought it was, but at the same time, it doesn't feel right to unblock someone who has been so combative since the start of the block as well (in regards to things that were unrelated to the block as well, its not like he was combative because he feels he was wrongfullyblocked.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
He needed a break from editing the articles anyway, I mean it's not like this one is permanent. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
He's returned, but already blanked another article into his version without consensus backing it, so I'll continue to keep an eye on him. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep me posted. I'll try to keep an eye on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked, reverted, warned the original account against block evasion, and protected a number of the Sega article's he's usually trying to edit while block evading. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • More blocks and protection. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As a suggestion, you might taken this case to WP:ANI and suggest a topic ban from Sega-related articles, as I believe that's the locus of the disruption. He may edit positively outside that topic-space. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestion. If he ever stops block evading, returns, and keeps having problems with Sega articles, I will likely take that course of action. (Though I don't think I've ever seen him edit anything non-Sega related, so that may be essentially a block/ban for him as well too.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Pardon my late comment, I just checked back here after a couple weeks to see if there were any developments I wasn't aware of. For Pete's sake. Well, if/when it does come to filing an ANI report, feel free to ping me in it and I'll throw my two bits in on the matter. I'd like to think he might be able to contribute positively; he's obviously capable of putting a lot of time and dedication into the edits he does from what I've seen, however misguided they tend to be... but he's shown so little ability or willingness to work in collaboration and shows so little comprehension of what he's doing wrong, not to mention this socking/block evasion nonsense; it's really outweighing what good he could bring unless he shapes the hell up and shows he will. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 15:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Sr.343 looks like another sock. I don't know if there's some ongoing log somewhere. – czar 16:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been informally being documented here I suppose. Did you block this new one, Czar? I'm having a hard time finding this user name anywhere to check/block myself. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Sr.343—nope, just punting it to whomever is handling it. I'lll move this section back up with the rest. – czar 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem, please continue to do so if you find anymore block evading socks. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Now he's basically saying he's gonna keep socking if he doesn't get his way. He expects you to referee between him and Dissident when he's already gotten enough WP:ROPE to hang Earth around the equator before getting blocked. This is just ridiculous. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 13:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, its absolutely ridiculous. Since his "I won't stop socking" clearly indicates that yet another one of the socks are confirmed to be his, I have now indefinitely blocked him. If he keeps socking as he threatens, then it would just be reset into infinity anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure others are doing the same already, but I'll watchlist his sandboxes and any Sega articles I'm not already, and I'll tip you off to any stray laundry. On the subject of the sandboxes, though, are sandboxes of indef'd users usually left alone or deleted on principle? I don't care either way, but on one hand he makes it really easy to spot his socks by going into them again constantly. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh-- never mind, saw you nuked them already. I'll still keep an eye out. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
BlusterBlaster - Thank you, I appreciate the heads up whenever you see anything suspicious. You, Dissident, and 1337gamer seem to catch him faster than I do. And yeah, I deleted the sandboxes since he's indeffed now, so their only function was to enable his socking further. You do make a good point that it made it easy to catch him, but I think as long as we keep an eye on these Sega articles he should be easy to spot anyways. He'll be the only one bludgeoning his way through massive overhauls of the Sega articles and creating one sentence articles on Sega staff... Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
91.114.131.50 might be him, just based on similar edits he's done before. Just a heads up. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't play stupid. It's blatantly obvious. Your first edit is creating is recreating one of tripple-ddd's sandbox: User:Zeroshift3000/sandbox. Either you are him or someone imitating him, regardless it is block worthy behaviour. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. I could outline all the ways I know its a sock, but judging by how closely ddd is viewing what I say ("bludgeoning" is a word I've used regarding him, for example) I imagine he'd just use it as a "How to Sock 101", so I'll just leave it as "blatantly obvious" that its him. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
BEANS, BEANS, the musical fruit... I checked into my watchlist briefly over the weekend, and noticed the IP poking around on Sega-- didn't know if I was being paranoid, so I didn't cry sock. Maybe I ought to be, but good that you semi'd it all the same. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 13:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you look at this, it may be another one of his alts. Just look at all the topics he brought up on my talk page, exactly the same as what Tripple-ddd keeps trying to edit. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Classic ddd writing massive posts. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Does he take us for idiots? He's so blatant and obvious about it. Oh well. Thank you for your help. Please keep notifying me of these popping up like this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Considering the constant reverts and allusions to in-game credits, I'm going to say "likely", but I want to wait a bit before blocking for sure... Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This looks like a copypaste from his sandbox. 99% sure it's him. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request[edit]

Could you take a look at the edit request in place at PC Master Race? I quickly scanned the policies, didn't seem to be anything against asking ;) No offense at all taken if you decline. :) -- ferret (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't on to see this until now. Looks like you got it approved though, so looks like it worked out. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Mt. Helium[edit]

The sources identify Mt. Helium/Apex Theory as a progressive metal band. Industrial metal and nu metal are not in any of the sources. --74.32.168.246 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If that's true, then that's fine. I had no stake or interest in that article, I just reverted it because the same IP who made the change was also making innappropriate genre changes elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

Gringoladomenega is still evading the block. See this edit history and my report. SLBedit (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Have I been involved in this before? Regardless, I don't feel I should take action when the SPI clerks are saying you need more evidence... Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Only because you blocked the user. SLBedit (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I did? Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. SLBedit (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon Sage[edit]

Hello. I'm typing this out because I see that (unfortunately) the pokemon sage wikipedia article still contains many inaccuracies, and (unfortunately) many of my fellow developers who don't understand wikipedia are still posting hostile and unproductive messages in the talk page in an effort to correct the info or have the page deleted.

For context, I previously tried to speak to the author of the page here in an effort to handle this in the way it has to be per wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I think it went to an arbitrator or something, but unfortunately I needed to stop because I had other priorities. From what I recall talking with him and some arbitrator, it was discussed that what we needed to do to correct the inaccuracies was produce a usable source that would clarify that info. IRC, some suggestions provided by him or the arbitrator were that the front page of our wiki be edited to specifically dismiss the inaccuracies present in some of the articles used as sources, since Bulbapedia's article (which, apparently, no longer exists, i'll get back to this later) used bulbapedia's front page as a source (the logic was that if the front page was locked from random edits and only admins could edit it it would be usable), that our fourm admins make a press release to clarify it, or that we somehow contacted the authors of the articles that are used as sources to update their articles or that a new article came out that clarifies.

My understanding, is that all 3 of those things happened: we did get our front page edited, we did produce a press release of source (via a stream where I and a few of the other developers spoke in person and addressed the issue) and another gaming news site did make an article that addressed the inaccuracies came along. I don't have links to any of those things on hand (we overhauled the front page again a few days ago so I don't think that info is present anymore), but reading over the articles talk page I see that other people have brought those up as well: Are those still not sufficient?

Anyways, I think a great deal of us would prefer the article itself be deleted: Is that truly not possible at this point? I understand that Kotaku and the other sites used as sources are considered by wikipedia to be reliable in general, but reading reliable sources and the noticeboard, it seems to me that reputability can be considered in a case by case basis depending on context, that is, that a source, even if it's from a website or publication that is usually considered reliable, can be considered unreptuable in a particular circumstance: if so, then can that not apply here?

I also question if we meet notability requirements: While there are a number of articles about us, I very much doubt that it's substantially more then many other works (official or fanmade or otherwise) that have an equivalent amount of coverage that do not have articles, and, I would guess, have had articles made but have been deleted due to a lack of notability. Could you explain if my thinking here is valid in regards to how wikipedia functions (as in, this is valid logic and I could use it to act on to propose the page be deleted), and if so, how I should proceed on that?

Lastly, I notice that bulbapedia no longer has a main article, but has instead been reduced to a single line on the main pokemon article. Bublapedia was, and still is, a much larger and more complex topic then we are: If it was able to be moved from it's own article to a mere mention on the main pokemon one, could the same not occur for our article? I also know that in the past, wikipedia used to have individual pages for individual pokemon creatures, or listed them more comprehensively then they currently are, so: what's the process for changing how a topic is listed from it having it's own article vs there being 1 article that acts as a list that that topic would be included in vs there just being a section on the overarching subject's page where it's mentioned?

Anyways, I would appreciate a response. I understand that you've been dealing with this subject (as in, pokemon sage) for a while here on wikipedia (in fact, I remember now: There was no arbitrator, I was thinking of this discussion, which I see you were involved with), but unlike many of the other individuals who you have dealt with over this, I understand and can appreciate that wikipedia has a lot of rules, and, even if we disagree with them or they aren't helpful in this situation, they need to be followed unless they get changed, so I would hope that interacting with me would be more pleasant then with them. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell you the same thing I keep telling everyone related to Sage:
  1. You can nominate it for deletion, but it's unlikely to be deleted because it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.
  2. If you want to change any inaccuracies, then we need a new, reliable, third party source to replace existing ones. See WP:VG/S for sources that would work or not work. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, I already know what other people were told regarding the topic, and to be honest, that's not really the info i'm interested in. The only thing you really answered in (to me) a sufficient amount of detail is that what I was told before regarding a press release and our wiki was erroneous and directed me towards the policies that make it so, which I appreciate, and that you you stated that sage meets notability requirements, which is indeed something I asked, but you only said it does, not how or why it does. I also asked some other questions regarding notability, such as how other topics with just as much coverage are deleted, and how many of them were combined into other pages (see Bulbapedia) and how i'd like to know what the process for that is.
So, if you could answer the remaining specific questions and other things I brought up in a good amount of detail. I would really appreciate it. I understand i'm asking for you to commit a good 20-40 mins typing up a reply, and you've already spent a great amount of time having to deal with other people over this, most of whom were hostile and had no idea what they are doing, but I'm attempting to handle this in a much more constructive and polite manner them then, and moreover, I'm not just asking because I want the page to be improved or deleted, but because I find wikipedia to be a fantastic resource and i'd also like to use this as an opportunity to learn more about how it works, and i'd like to know and have answers just for the sake of having those answers or knowledge.
If you don't have the time to answer what I asked in the amount of detail I want, I am totally understanding of that, but then i'd like to be directed to somebody who does. I figured since you were an admin, and you have dealt with us before, that you would be the best person to askJabberwock xeno (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I really think it's as simple as my first response, but if you require an essay on it, I'm going to need 24-48 hours, as I'm restricted to mobile for a bit over here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
If you could, I'd be very thankful. I'm sorry i'm asking for so much, I am just a very detail orientated individual. Ideally, i'd be a paragraph by pargraph (as in, you make a response to everything I stated in one paragraph, then anohter for the second, etc) response to my initial post in this section. If it's helpful to you if I list which points I am most interested in hearing a response to, it's in regards to the process for moving the content of the page to be a section in another article instead of it having it's own page, and regarding contextual reliability, since both the gaming specific page that lists reliable vs somewhat reliable vs non reliable publications and the general reputable sources policy page mention that context is important and a source deemed to be generally reputable may not be considered reputable in a specific instance.
in regards to it taking you a few days: that's not a problem at all. I am fully aware i'm asking a lot from you, so I don't mind you taking all the time you need. I understand you, as an admin, are probably very busy and most likely have real life obligations, so even if it takes you a full week or more, I'd be cool with that. I wouldn't want to be a cause of stress/pressure, and I wouldn't want you rushing your reply to get it done with, either.
Anyways, thank you for taking the time for this. And I apologize for the other people who work on sage who have been a nuisance, a lot of them just don't get wikipedia's rules and how they have to be adhered to. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Alright, here's the long version:

  1. Wikipedia is based upon what can be verified by reliable sources. It can be frustrating, but you've got to keep to what the sources say. One of the main points of Wikipedia policy is to keep things written neutral. This is why your group keeps being told to use third party sources, not citing yourself - as first party sources often lead to promotional writing, and Wikipedia is not a means for self-promotion or self-advocation. In fact, for this reason, it strongly recommended that people closely involved with a subject not get involved with the article. I know you guys didn't make or necessarily want the article, but the rules still apply to editing it now all the same.
  2. If you've got a reliable, third party source to add to the article, then by all means, present it to me or the article's talk page. A list of commonly acceptable sources can be found at WP:VG/S. I just personally haven't seen it.
  3. If you want to attempt to delete the article, then you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Instructions on how can be found at that link. You may want to look up the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions first though, as the proposed deletion nominations when the article was first created, did not have valid reasons.
  4. The General Notability Guideline is the standard we use to decide if a topic warrants its own article. (Also to consider would be WP:NOT and WP:BLP, but those would be irrelevant for this situation.) If you read the guideline, its basically requiring there to be multiple, third party reliable sources covering a subject in significant detail. This is why I keep on predicting that a straight up deletion nomination would fail - there are already 5 sources present, and 4 seem to be deemed reliable by current consensus.
  5. If you believe that a website does not actually meet the requirements of being a reliable source, then you'd want to start up a discussion about it at the talk page at WP:VG/S and see what the consensus is. Keep in mind that No consensus = no change. To illustrate how to do this, I've provided an example - I asked for people's input on "Dorkly", as I see they've also done an article on Sage.
  6. If you want to pursue a merge, you can see how to do that at the merge proposal area. My personal commentary: keep in mind that, this may or may not be the best route if you're looking for less visibility on your project. For example, somewhere like the main Pokemon article, gets far more views than the Sage article currently gets.

In my opinion, I think the easiest route would be to try to get a third party source to correct the content. There's also potential in the merging route: There's no definite, deal-breaking policy that would prevent a merger. It would largely come down to what the consensus of the discussion would dictate. Some may say there's enough content to warrant its own article, while other may feel its better as a small part of a bigger article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, perfect! Thank you so much for explaining it like that, I really appreciate it. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thank you for being understanding and patient as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

harassment on talk page[edit]

Can you please block User:Stevietheman for 24 hours? He keeps leaving harassing messages on my talk page in an attempt to try and provoke me, then claims I can't remove them. A statement that goes against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#OWNTALK He is also claiming multiple users are using this IP which isn't true, all edits are mine.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No, he's right, as an IP, you don't have ownership of your own talkpage. On a side note, I find it troubling that it seems you can't tell the difference between real people and fictionalized versions of them. How can you honestly think Sanders was "revived"? This is why people are giving you warnings. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that I haven't "kept" leaving harassing messages. I left one informative message, and it wasn't harassment. Egads. Thanks Sergecross73 for your understanding. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it wasn't even harrassment. And no problem - Ive come to learn when an IP complains about a long term user and demands blocking, it's usually not a legit request. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
What happened to remaining neutral during user conflicts? I couldn't find anything that said Ip's aren't aloud to clean their talk pages. If that is the case I would like to see where I missed it, Thank you--76.107.252.227 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I looked into it first, and just saw your claims were off base. I'm saying that, in general, when a new person storms in and demands blocks against experienced users, it's usually because they don't understand the website or its policy. Just like here. Please stop wasting people's time on this, be less concerned about your talk page, and more concerned about making constructive contributions. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You're technically allowed to clear the IP's talk page (again, not your talk page), but it's generally considered not kosher, because clearing warnings takes the bite out of the reasons the warnings were placed there, to help ensure that un-wiki behaviors don't continue, no matter who is editing from that IP address. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Fire Emblem numeration[edit]

I need some clarification on this, given your recent edit on Fire Emblem Fates. The source you restored says it's the twelfth entry in the series, not counting remakes. But footnotes in this Iwata Asks concerning the game (footnotes 1 and 6) calls Awakening the fourteenth and Fates the fifteenth entry in the series respectively. I also know that there are sources (mostly reviews) calling Awakening the thirteenth installment. I would go with Nintendo's statement in the Iwata Asks personally, but what do you think? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ProtoDrake - I hadn't done a ton of research on it, I just noticed a ways back that people kept arguing about it, and the first RS hit was the VentureBeat source, which stated it so literally, and I checked it out and it seemed to go along with Wikipedia's list of FE games, so I went for it. If more sources are numbering it otherwise, I'm fine with going with that, it's just that, up to this point, no one has offered any alternative sources or actual explanation/discussion for their changes. If that sentiment is prevalent, then I'm fine with it, I just thought it to be strange to factor in remakes into a series numbering. I wouldn't expect, for example, to factor in Final Fantasy 3s DS remake to make people say "Final Fantasy 15 is the series sixteenth entry." (Or whatever number you'd be at factoring in all the FF remakes.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Done some looking at another interview where other FE games were mentioned. They appear to include remakes as official entries in the series. This Iwata Asks on Awakening refers to Fire Emblem: Shin Monsho no Nazo as the thirteenth game in the series while also stating that it's a remake of the third Fire Emblem game (footnote 2). --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Weird. Okay, I'm fine with changing it, though I do think it would be good to leave a ref in there, to hopefully discourage future tinkering. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Ikes, I've just done some more looking. The Japanese portal site for Fire Emblem only shows thirteen games, including Shin Monsho no Nazo and excluding Fates. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

help[edit]

Hello, I'd like to erase this Gothic-punk page that it is not even a stub - 2 lines created in 2009- and merge it to Goth subculture as it is already covered on the latter article. I've been bringing a lot of content to both Gothic rock and Goth Subculture articles these last years. This page Gothic-punk with these 2 lines should be withdrawn and merged to Goth subculture. Strangely, the almost double Gothic punk has been merged to Gothic rock, but "Gothic-punk" wasn't. We should correct this, could you do it please? Thanks. Woovee (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Pokémon Company[edit]

Doesn't Nintendo own Creatures Inc. and part of Game Freak? I don't understand how it's a three way partnership.--occono (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Occono - Sorry about that, I was thinking of Game Freak's status, not TPC. Feel free to re-add. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

God god[edit]

why did you change "god" into "God" in the sonic colors article? Valehd (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall doing that... Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you must mean this edit from 3 months ago. I reverted it because you can't alter a direct quote. Pretty basic writing stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
it was written wrong. Valehd (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
How is it that you know and can confirm the original writer's intent? Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
well, he said a god not God Valehd (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but he was clearly referring to it being the God if you look at the context. But beyond that, you can't change direct quotes. You just can't. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
he said A god not THE god. if he said " there IS a god and he's a sonic fan, that would be referring to THE god.
Okay, lets look at this another way. How do you think he would word it if he was speaking of the Christian God? "Yes, there is the God, and he's a Sonic fan." That wouldn't make any sense. The context quote clearly shows that its not like he's referring to Zeus or some generic god. And again, even if you were right on all accords, that still doesn't change the fact that you can't alter a direct quote. I can't believe no one has intervened in our arguments over this. Its basic "Writing 101" - you cannot alter direct quotes.
On a separate note, I see that you don't approve of using "Gods" name in vain. That's fine, lots of people feel that way. But its only fine as a personal stance; you can't rewrite other people's writing to comply with that. You do realize this, right? Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Green Couch Project[edit]

Hello I am trying to create a wikipedia page for the Green Couch Project.

Hi there. You're free to do this, but I wouldn't recommend creating an article right off the bat. There's a lot to learn in order to write an encyclopedia, let along create a whole article from scratch. That's just my 2 cents though, I can't keep you from doing it. However, to keep your article from being deleted like last time, you may want to create a rough draft first instead. Check out the Articles for Creation program. If you start up an incomplete article there, it won't be deleted for being so incomplete. A volunteer will even come by when you ask them to, and let you know whether or not the article is ready for public viewing. Please think about this, it could be a good way to work on an article slowly as you learn how the website works. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Loyalmoonie and LGBT categories[edit]

Looked into it, and this editor seems to be pushing an anti-LGBT agenda. They've done similar stuff over at Sailor Moon, and made "official-looking" warnings to other editors. This quote is bizarre, and is quite telling: "To insert those categories would ultimately give other people (who may not even support the LGBT movement) reading the article the assumption that every person who does enjoy Sailor Moon is a homosexual (and/or supports SSM)". I don't personally watch/read Sailor Moon or know much about it, so I'm not confident enough to re-add the categories, but the reasoning for their removal is flawed regardless, and there is a sourced part in the article about female homosexuality.--IDVtalk 22:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I think we were both researching the same things at the same time, as I just mentioned at the Fates talk page that he was obviously canvassed due to his stance on Sailor Moon. And yeah, I feel the same - I know almost nothing about SM, and the talk page references a lot of arguing and RFCs about it, so I think I want to stay away from that mess if I can. Still, it's good to know about the canvassing and the agenda though. Thank you for your comments, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Smoothest Aashu[edit]

Hello Serge,I am trying to create a wikipedia Article for the Singer Musical Artist.

  • Hi there. You're free to do this, But I want to my article Show Undelete.
  • I come from India, its more English so I do not But You Think me and understant my problem please Dear, Serge
  • Am I just want to make an official article One and Only.
  • The article is ready for public viewing. Please think about this, it could be a good way to work on an article slowly as you to learn.
  • Any help-line number.?
  • Smoothest_Aashu This is my lAst Official Article. If You Can Edit My Mistake. Aashuakasinger (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I Want Making My Article Like A Arijit_Singh
  • Also- If You can edit my Mistake. And Solve this Case --Aashuakasinger (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the article to the "rough draft space" - the article is not ready for public viewing. Articles need to be written entirely based off of what reliable, third party sources say. I looked for an example, but quite honestly, could not find one. (A list of commonly useable ones can be found at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. So, you can continue to work on your rough draft, but it may not be put into the main article space until:
  • It meets the WP:GNG - many third party sources are present, discussing you in significant detail.
  • And/or you meet some of the criteria found at WP:MUSICBIO - such as having a single that charts on a respective country's major music charts.
If you attempt to move the article out of the rough draft space without meeting the bullet-points above, then it will be deleted again.
Your article can be found at Draft: Smoothest Aashu. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

GameDesire[edit]

Hi SerdeCross73,

You have got in Wikipedia page about other website like GameDesire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamezebo).Why do You delete my article? We have got article about GameDesire in Poland (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameDesire).

Best Regards Kaszna (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kaszna. The article was deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's standard for having an article - the WP:GNG. For a subject to have its own article, it needs to meet that, which, in short, says that there needs to be multiple, third party reliable sources discussing the subject in great detail. Someone nominated it for speedy deletion, I reviewed it, and saw that it did not. The article was entirely unsourced, with three links plopped down at the bottom, which didn't source anything. The three sources either didn't discuss the subject "Game Desire", or mentioned them in a very brief, passing mention. They also didn't seem to meet the standard of being reliable sources even if they had been discussing the subject in detail.
Some tips for writing a Wikipedia article:
  • Always makes sure you've got multiple, third party reliable sources.
  • 2 is technically "multiple", though I recommend 4-5 to avoid people nominating it for a deletion debate.
  • The definition of a reliable source is found here.
  • Third party means it can't be the company's website or press release. It must come from an unrelated source.
  • For examples of acceptable reliable sources in the world of video games, see WP:VG/S.
  • Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written according to what sources say. So, they should be backing up what the content says, not just slapped down at the bottom. See WP:REFB for help on it, and an article like Sonic the Hedgehog 2 as an article that has sources all throughout it, after almost every sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you input your opinion on this lgbt category?[edit]

^thats being used in a neutral tone right? im trying to understand neutral tone and canvassing. Anyways, i wanted your input on adding the lgbt category, its being discussed on this talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)#lgbt_category 66.25.246.226 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There's two main ways to avoid canvassing:
  1. Word the request for input in a way that doesn't suggest you want them to answer a certain way. Don't lead the reader into taking a stance. I don't think your suggested wording does that, so you're fine.
  2. When asking for input, don't target people that are obviously going to side with you. Its not supposed to be a "lets rally up the troops" type thing. I don't usually ask specific people, I usually stick to general interest areas, like WP:WIKIPROJECTS. (For example, in the Fire Emblem Fates RFC, a different editor had notified Wikiproject Video Games.)
So anyways, considering how much we've disagree' over at the Fates discussion, it wouldn't be canvassing for you to ask me for input - I doubt anyone would see it as you trying to garner up support for your argument. However, I'll probably stay out of it. LGBT debates (or anything sexual/political/religious etc related really) isn't really my interest area, my interest in the Fates article is as a Fire Emblem fan. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Rise Against[edit]

OK maybe they are not american punk but they are Chicago punk rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg9443 (talkcontribs) 03:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please formulate your suggestions according to what reliable sources say on the articles talk page. Essentially, "prove it". Sergecross73 msg me 03:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And despite all of that i have some proof that rise against is a Chicago punk rock band and my evidence shows that when you are punk its not like green day with their makeup or politics or video games and you cannot judge a band with their sound of music and albums because you will be end being wrong and a mater of face here's this they are vegans and straight edge which that mean is that they do not do drungs or drink the only one is Barnes they do talk about animail rights and anti buyling and politics thats punk i got people who agree with my statement in Wikipedia i can come up with a vote to prove it ps 2 things that right is they do have alternative and melodic hardcore but 2 thing are wrong they do have punk rock and meoldic hardcore look at give it all and help is on the way and make it stopJg9443 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S rise Against should be like this Rise against is a chicago punk rock band from chicago formed in the summer of 1999 Not rise against is american punk rock band becouse that is were punk rock is popular from and also united kingdom plus they curetly sigh to fat wreak chords were they only acept punk rock so think about that because like i said their is a lot of people who agree on me in wikiJg9443 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it any clearer to you people - none of that matters. What matters is if it's ehat sources say. See the discussion here. It explains how this works. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

can you tell 4thewayne that can he put rise against is a chacago punk rock band that the descsion we madeJg9443 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you even read the things I say to you? I'm not sure I've ever seen you acknowledge my instructions to you. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
You're a saint, Serge. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to say, Serge, that I hope you think that I handled myself well in this instance. This is now the second big discussion that I've been apart of for this page, and I hope that I've done well in helping you control the situation. Again, I just wanted to say thanks for your help. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both. And yeah, it's fine you closed the discussion. Neither of those 2 were anywhere near a policy based conclusion, and when discussions get that long it greatly reduces the likeliness for others to chime in, so it's not like it was going anywhere. I'll continue to mediate if they return though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My bad[edit]

I didn't realize you were still active, so since you were the protecting admin, would you mind handling my Request for unprotection for FIFA 14? TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 19:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, I did that almost 2 years ago? I feel like that may have been an accident to protect it for so long to begin with. It's removed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Hello Serge, My name is katerina, and I've been using wikipedia for a long time now, especialy when I research music, and this is why I'm leaving you this message, because you seem intrested in music too especialy rock, so my request or a suggestion to make our lifes much more easier if possible of course, is to have a page that seperates different genres of music, so that people can find what they are looking for exacly, without the need to search for a specific band or artist. Please respond to my message as soon as possible and thank you. P.S : You are doing a great job, I read a lot of the articles that you edited, and they were amazing.

-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerina love (talkcontribs) 03:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Katerina. Thanks for the message and kind words. I tend to work on more obscure bands/albums, so I'm always happy to see someone notices my work.
  • So anyways, in regards to your request, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think there's already ways to do this. For example, you could start at List of musical styles. From there, its split into four articles. Lets chose the first, List of styles of music: A–F. From that list, you could pick the genre you wanted to look into. For example, alternative rock. From there, virtually all genre articles have a "list of artists" list. So, if you scroll down to the bottom of alternative rock, you'll see there's List of alternative rock artists, where you could go browse all of the alt rock bands on Wikipedia. Also, you can also look by categories as well. Let's chose Green Day as an example. If you scroll all the way to the very bottom of their article, you'll see categories tagged on to it. Green Day is tagged on things like Category:Alternative rock groups from California and Category:American pop punk musical groups. If you click on those, you can also browse other bands tagged as the same thing.
  • Genre is subjective, and a lot of people have very different views on it, so it may not be a perfect system, but overall, I think it would allow you to do what I think you were asking. If not, let me know, and I can look into it further. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WWE WrestleMania 33[edit]

WWE WrestleMania 33 does not exist. The creator of this page has completely made it up. This page needs to be deleted.
KC RoostersTalk 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've looked into it further, and deleted it now. Next time, don't add so many invalid speedy deletion rationales though, that's what threw me off. You cited it being "purely promotional" and "blatant nonsense" (which means, literally incomprehensible) in your first 2 rationales, when it was neither. Even "hoax" is a bit iffy, considering there's going to very likely be one some day. All the info was hoax, but the event itself probably isn't. Anyways, its taken care of now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Know any good "parody" game articles?[edit]

I didn't think I'd get the chance to do this before someone else did, but I'm thinking of bluelinking Sonic Dreams Collection of all things, since there seems to be a decent enough amount of RS coverage to base an article on, if a bit of a stubby one maybe. Didn't think I'd get the chance to be a big-shot Content CreatorTM for something so profoundly stupid, but here I am.

Thought I'd ask: d'you know any decently-written articles for parody games or anything similar that'd serve as a good reference point for such an article? Obviously I'll hold writing it to the same standard I should for any VG article, but I'm wondering if there's any really solid articles about a similar kind of game kicking around I should model it after. Any ideas? BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 12:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Pyst? It's borderline, but sourced, and survived an AFD.. Яehevkor 12:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rehevkor: Hah, I heard about Pyst recently. I'll keep that one in mind. Haven't played the actual Myst since before I could read (yeah, I was a dumb kid; messing around in text-heavy puzzle games before I could even spell my own name...) BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 12:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'll have to think about it some, as I don't know of a ton of parody games off the top of my head. I know NotGTAV sort of is, and it recently survived an AFD. Regardless, I've seen a bunch of sources for SDC pop up on my Twitter feed, and creating obscure Sonic game articles is kind of my thing, so I fully support you if you want to create it. I'm not motivated to create it myself, but I'd help maintain/cleanup/defend if need be. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. Face-smile.svg I suppose we'll see how it holds up once I've got the thing in mainspace. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you mentioned seeing sources on Twitter and I hardly use the latter, did you happen to see anything RS-wise about this that I haven't already collected here? BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 11:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think all of them I had come across casually are in your list. (That's more than I've seen, actually, I didn't know they got the Eggman Online one to actually work.) In a bit I can search and see if I can find anything else. That's already a pretty good collection though, enough to ward off any deletion concerns in my book... Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I just need to write up a Reception section (a little weird, since there aren't really reviews of this thing per se, mostly a bunch of VG journalists talking about how creepy it is) and fill in the lead a little, and I'll be done for the most part. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 13:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I checked your sandbox. It looks like you're up to a good start. Forgive me if I'm suggesting things you already intend on adding, but I'd personally add a little more to clarify the game's overall premise, that it 1) Is not an official game with any connection to Sega and 2) the premise is that these were all meant to be hoax-like "lost Dreamcast games". Depending on how much we know, we could try to scrounge up a development section based around it. The more out of universe stuff you can add, the better you are to keep the delete-happy editors away. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking of elaborating more on how it was set up as a hoax, as I've found a couple more sources today that I could use for that. I don't mind suggestions, especially since I'm pretty new at this sort of thing and you most definitely aren't. Face-smile.svg
All I have in terms of development info insofar is that it was apparently(??) made in Unity, although it seems to be very differently constructed compared to that Bubsy 3D game they made a while back (that one was browser-based, whereas this one runs off of a couple .exe files that I don't think requires an install, just an unpack from a zip folder-- I haven't downloaded the thing myself)... I don't think there's been a lot of talk from the devs themselves, either, aside from keeping up with the whole "we haxed a Dreamcast" schtick on the site itself-- certainly nothing we could appropriately cite on WP yet. I figure in time there might be an interview or something-- I'm pretty interested to know how they did it, esp. with that "seganet.exe" thing acting as some sort of online client program for the Eggman MMO. All very interesting stuff. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 15:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The deed is done... I'm probably more nervous/excitable about this than I should be, ha. Feel free to take a look and take a wrench to whatever looks like it needs work. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 12:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I understand, I always feel the same way when I create a non-conventional, out of the ordinary type article. I think it looks pretty good. I've got limited access at the monent, but I'll see if there's anything to add later on.

Article review[edit]

Hi there! You recently added on GTANet.com article, that it may not be following general notability guide. I am aware that not every statement has reliable reference. So, if you could assist me, what parts of page should I leave out?Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Basically, what you want to do is write it according to what third party, reliable sources say on the subject. A lot of examples of reliable sources, or non-reliable sources, related to video games, can be found at WP:VG/S. So:
  • You want to remove any fansites, as they usually don't meet the requirements of being a reliable source.
  • Using "third party sources" means ones covering the subject, but not related to the subject. So, like, if IGN did an article on the website, you write it according to what IGN said on it. Its okay to use first party sources, but only in a limited manner, usually sparingly and only to confirm objective facts. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much on your assistance! I found few sources about the subject in google books. I also found this and this on IGN. Do you think these are good enough to be added? Would they go well as source for claim predicting content of the upcoming GTA titles in the article? I will also try to remove all fansites that don't serve as fact info.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Those IGN sources are fine for sourcing details, yes, so that helps towards the "reference improve" tag. However, it doesn't help with it meeting Wikipedia's standard for a subject having its own article. That requires multiple third party, reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. So for this, you'd need sources that are dedicated to discussing GTANet.com itself - the sources above just give the website a passing mention, while the focus of the article is something else (like the GTA leaked soundtrack.)
(And yes, I realize what I'm asking can be hard to find. That's probably why a lot of fansites don't have their own Wikipedia articles. I don't plan on nominating it for deletion though, I don't usually do that much...but you'll still want to try to do this as a preventative measure, because in its current state, if someone tried to nominate it for deletion, they'd probably succeed.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I will try finding such sources. Thank you for helping me.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for being very helpful! Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That's The Spirit lead content[edit]

Hey there. I want to discuss the removal of the this from the lead of That's The Spirit -- it's not a case of reliable sources, more just a case of the sentence fitting in with the lead, especially when there is a lack of content that is there already. Before I removed the sentence, I thought about moving it to the reviews section of the article, but then the article would be repeating itself.

I feel like the "According to Jon Wiederhorn of Rolling Stone" part should be removed from the lead, that would make it look better. Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, My name is not dave. Thanks for your input. My thoughts:
  • If you're okay with just removing the "According to Rolling Stone" bit, then I fully support that. In fact, that actually how I had originally added it to the article.
  • If you want to remove the entire comment about genre from the lead, then I think we should have a discussion on the article talk page. I feel pretty strongly about having it in some capacity - it seems to be a defining aspect of the album, and it's really good content. There's so much arguing about genre on Wikipedia that its really nice (and somewhat rare) for an undeniably reliable source to make such a clear statement about an album's sound.
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
All I want is to get rid of the 'according to' part, of which I will proceed to do so. Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Another sock?[edit]

Looking at the edit here and his other edits I think that Nettodama is another sock op Tripple-ddd. What do you think? The Banner talk 21:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you're the 2nd editor to point this out to me. I think it's likely, but not enough for me to comfortably indef block him yet, so I wanted to keep observing... Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I may as well chip in and say that I think it is him as well. Been watching his edits since account was created. He still uses the same incorrect syntax ([[title|''title'']]) when wikilinking and italicising game titles in prose ([1]) as he did before he was blocked initially ([2], [3]). --The1337gamer (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In fact, quite from the beginning I was more or less (mostly less) following the edits of Tripple-ddd. Reason of that is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYCSlover, a user with many sockpuppets and an interest in games (List of Sega Saturn games, List of Nintendo GameCube games, List of PlayStation 2 games). I still have an eerie feeling but not proof to hammer it down nor to deny it. The Banner talk 22:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
As you know Banner, you and I have dealt with many NYCSlover socks in the past, and at first I thought this might be another, but now I'm fairly convinced it isn't at all. I had kept your report on my user talk for months and looked at him regularly but recently archived it after coming to the conclusion it was very unlikely to be the same person. The commons interest in the VG lists is suspicious but far from implausible (they are quite "central" topics after all), and the behaviour (especially when it comes to interactions) just doesn't match up IMHO.  · Salvidrim! ·  22:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Eerie feelings are strange things... The Banner talk 10:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Special:Contributions/69.108.64.195. All contribs are Sega-related, might not be a perfect match though. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 10:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what you mean. On one hand, they're related to Sega. On the other hand, its not major restructuring of Sega company articles. Then again, just about all Sega company articles are protected at the moment, so that could be why... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Check Overall-ness' contribs. Very quacky based on the VisualEditor use and focus on Sega Sammy. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 12:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Was thinking just the same. He un-italicised all the video game titles on List of Sega mobile games which I recall him doing multiple times on List of Sega arcade video games as User:Mr.Kikuchi. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, another likely one to keep an eye on. Protected the list of mobile page for now at least. Let me know of any other suspicious actions from this one. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you think Sega Sammy Holdings should be protected as well? Notsomuch because of Overall-ness' editing pattern at this point, but just by virtue of it being one of Tripple's pet subjects in general and a very likely target if more socks are to show up (provided they haven't already). It's probably not a very highly-visited article, but still. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 16:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It's 100% him, look at the articles he created (Quest of D) and the terrible spelling he never fixed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm still on the fence on this one, though I can't help but notice that he keeps making short, crappy articles with only 1-2 sources, another trademark of his... Sergecross73 msg me 10:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll point out more evidence. On Toshihiro Nagoshi he re-added Hero Bank to the list of games ([4]), previously done on User:Nettodama ([5]). He removed the Daytona statement ([6]), previously done on User:Nettodama ([7]) and User:Mr.2994 ([8]). On ALL.Net he removed the same 3 sentences ([9]) as he did on User:Mr.Kikuchi ([10])--The1337gamer (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, that's just enough to convince me now. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have email enabled by any chance? I wanted to ask a couple of questions about this mess that might be a little beansy for open discussion. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 14:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I do. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
YGM now. Took me long enough. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A little early to say about Mixi7-- identical editing area (Sega arcade games and Virtua series, piping Sega AM2 and Joypolis within their first few edits), but they aren't quite as hamhanded at a glance... though with this edit, I'm leery... Might need more time, but not 100% convinced yet. (I hope it's not an annoyance that I snoop around every brand-new Sega editor's contribs, though this one piping AM2 and Joypolis have got me on edge...) BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 21:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what you mean, that's dif certainly shows some of the rough-looking prose on an obscure Sega article that Tripple ddd is known for. (Luckily someone cleaned it up right away.) I think its another one to definitely keep an eye on. (And I certainly don't find your efforts annoying, I appreciate your help.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of this-- changing the list from being a console-by-console list to year-by-year all of a sudden? Isn't this something he was trying to do before? I can't remember. Dissident93, The1337gamer? BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 18:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall him trying to do that exactly, but the fact he re-added United Game Artists makes me believe it's him, as I removed that from the article before and he had a problem with it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It's probably him. They use the same code ([[title|''title'']]) for italicising/wikilinking game titles in prose that Triple-ddd and his socks have used as I mentioned above for an earlier sock. ([11]) --The1337gamer (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that every single edit I've spot checked has been on an article that has been edited by tripple ddd or one of his socks in the past. These coincidences are adding up. Unless someone objects, I'm extremely close to blocking... Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, despite block evading, would my edits be considered as proof of constructive editing that is an argument for perhaps rethinking my permaban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixi7 (talkcontribs)
  • No, definitely not. As you were told under your original account, getting caught block evading leads to lengthening of blocks, not reducing them. Please see WP:STANDARDOFFER, that's really your only hope for returning to editing. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's The Spirit - News citation[edit]

Hi there, you stated on your revert of my edit that I have incorrectly cited a news/magazine source despite the citation itself being classed under the Empty citation (help)  tag, please explain what I have done incorrectly otherwise so that I may fix the issue, thank you for your time. SilentDan (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, its just that, as is, the magazine isn't being cited, its just a link to their website advertising that new magazine. The direct quote doesn't appear anywhere at the link, and at the time of me adding the tag, the magazine hadn't even reached its street date yet. Since the quote isn't at the website link, you'd want to directly cite the magazine - the page number, issue, publisher, etc. There's some sort of "cite magazine" or "cite book" type template most people use. I don't recall it off hand, as its not very often I use print media as a source. I was hoping someone with access with said magazine would come and fix it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe WP:N is now satisfied[edit]

Hi. I'm reporting on GTANet.com page progress. I believe the problem with notability and significant coverage is fixed with: 1, 2, 3 as media coverage sole based on GTAforums, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 as media coverage on GTANet content. I understand this is still not an article that would qualify for any special class quality, however the page has enough significant coverage that are not only mentions and the amount of coverage (non trivial) is encouraging. I believe that with addition of these sources article passes the guidelines on wp:n and therefore, I believe you may remove the notability and ref improve notes on top of page. Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Its...really hard to say here. A lot of these sources really are talking more about things that came from the website (like the Google Maps stuff or modding) than the website itself. If you want to try to remove the tags, I don't care...but if other editors that are now involved disagree and re-add the tags, then they should probably stay until they're convinced... Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

After viewing many fansite articles here on wiki and reading through guidelines for adding websites to wiki, this is what I concluded: wp:n of website is almost impossible if we don't take its content's coverage in media as wp:n. Especially if we talk about forum. No reliable source writers will write articles that are based on specific forum and just them. Because there is simply no need to do so as most forums are formatted with well known forum servers. (Contrast to this are websites that use own made servers and may have specific reference because of that software). I believe GTANet passes wp:n per this, especially this part: If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists. And the individual content of gtanet are mentioned contents such as mods.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The basic fact is that most websites aren't notable. And that's why its almost impossible to show notability for most fansite articles: They simply aren't. The fact that the content they cover is notable does not make them notable. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The content is what makes a website. How would any website exist without content? And if that website has been subject of media attention because of its content, than wp:n applies to it.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

INQUIRY?[edit]

I CANT SEEM TO SITE REFERENCES FOR THE PAGE ZIAULLAH KHAN. HOW DO I SITE REFERENCES? And 1 more thing he is a secret. Not many know about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George2016forbes (talkcontribs) 16:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, Ziaullah khan was deleted because it didn't meet Wikipedia's standard for someone having an article. The short version, subjects of articles must have multiple, detailed, reliable sources writing about them. So, being a "secret" and "not many knowing about him" is probably not a good sign for them having their own article.
Anyways, to learn about about citing references, please click here. It is a good beginners guide. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The MoS on animate pronouns: Say or Nay?[edit]

I'm told that not all of my pings went through, so this is to inform you that your name has been cited on a list of Wikieditors who hold the opinion that the MoS should not explicitly state that animate pronouns are standard for fictional characters. If this is not correct, please feel free to remove or alter the entry. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

Hi! Maybe you know about the upcoming free-to-play Wii U game code-named Project Treasure. Recently, the game's final title Lost Reavers has been announced. I've already done some work on the article, but now I could need your help with moving the page. Thanks, 88.68.179.202 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. I saw that pop up on my Twitter feed today, so I know its the truth. Thanks for fixing up the rest of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you and no problem! I guess that's another good reason for creating an account, although it's the first time I've ever had to move an article. 88.68.179.202 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User sub-pages[edit]

Hi Serge. Listen, I have something to ask you. Another editor, IllaZilla, has just nominated my user sub-pages for deletion. You would have seen them before, right? Are they really the sort of things that aren't allowed here, regardless of their purpose? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. Yes, sadly, Illazilla is correct. While standards are more lax in the user/draft space, you still need to be using them in ways related to the project. In your cases, these articles would have to be something that you were actively working towards putting into the main space sometime soon. Absolutely no offense intended, but your band does not seem to be moving into the GNG territory in the near future. I'd be copy/pasting that content into a Word document or something if you intend to keep it for personal uses, as I imagine it will be deleted from Wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That's OK. I just wanted confirmation, that's all. I was just disappointed that, because it's been a long time between now and when I created these pages, this wasn't mentioned before (because a lot of editors have known about these pages for a while), as I put a fair bit of time into them over the last few months. I'd already copy/pasted into a Word document long ago, but not because of the possibility of this happening. Anyway, thank you. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry[edit]

Yeah I'm sorry about the edits ok plz unblock me and I won't do it again 66.61.71.140 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific, I don't even know who this is... Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Block evader[edit]

Hi, Serge. Two days ago you blocked a vandal-only account, User:Diamondcandy. He's returned to make similar vandal-only edits as User:Goldencandy111. (History log here.) Since you're already familiar with the case, I thought it'd be prudent to let you know. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked. Thank you for pointing it out. Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

'Hours...'[edit]

Can you remove adult contemporary? Because it is not a genre, which has been discussed on talk page. 115.164.93.198 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

RE VPN Unlimited[edit]

Sergecross73,

Could you please advise how can I correct the article so it doesn't get deleted?

I've already edited so it sounds less promotional and added links to trustworthy sources, like SoftPedia, CIO and CultOfMac. Am I missing anything?

Thanks! VeVeMe (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like its already been deleted again, although, accessing the last version, it still seems like it really wasn't in an appropriate shape for an encyclopedia. It really read more like like an advertisement, or like it was written from by a Marketing person, not an entry in an encyclopia. Also, articles are supposed to be written according to what sources say. The article looked more like someone ripped the information from the business's website, and then plopped down a bunch of random links at the bottom (which also look promotional - for instance, telling users how they could save money with said project.) Please be mindful that Wikipedia isn't a means of advertising.