Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 29) (bot
Tomkudirka (talk | contribs)
148 edits
No edit summary
Line 808: Line 808:
Are you the paige owner of rise <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wonderdisk 93|Wonderdisk 93]] ([[User talk:Wonderdisk 93|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wonderdisk 93|contribs]]) 23:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Are you the paige owner of rise <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wonderdisk 93|Wonderdisk 93]] ([[User talk:Wonderdisk 93|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wonderdisk 93|contribs]]) 23:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Are you talking about [[Rise Against]]? Wikipedia doesn't have page "page owners", but I do mediate conflicts there, yes. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:Are you talking about [[Rise Against]]? Wikipedia doesn't have page "page owners", but I do mediate conflicts there, yes. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Do not delete my page if you find an error, correct it. If you want to know more about me Google my name.

Tom Kudirka

Revision as of 03:58, 23 June 2015

Vandals

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User_talk:46.11.39.149 Vandalism only.

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

Vandalism pt2

Extended content

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

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

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

I'm sure you are often busy! Yes User_talk:Falongen has been offending on exactly what you warned them against, and deleted my most recent warning from their talk page (which I reverted back onto the talk page). — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 74.103.250.78 has quite a history of vandalism warnings, deliberately blowing them off and deleting the warnings. Then contributing to the junk about the alleged and unsourced PS3 Cell OS 4.65 here.
The information i put was sourced so im not sure why Smuckola decided it was vandalism. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid source. This article requires only the topmost reliable sources WP:VG/RS, which is pretty much Sony, of which there were none as of a few minutes ago. "Before adding information to this article, READ THE FOLLOWING: A reference must be provided for any system software version not yet released. All references should be from a reliable or official Sony/PlayStation 3 source. The reference cannot be from any other source. Any software news or rumor that is not from a Sony or PlayStation 3 reliable source will remain on the discussion page until verified." — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright but you could have just posted this on my talk instead of going to an admin and trying to get me banned or whatever your goal was also some other ip just put all that information back so you might want to revert them and try to get them banned to right ? 74.103.250.78 (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 174.19.209.252 has been removing sourced content and adding inappropriate "citation needed" and "unreliable source" tags to the Navajo language article. It seems he thinks I'm racist against the Navajo people for including text about the language having no single word for "cell phone"; as I see it, the language simply hasn't had much official recognition since cellphones and other modern technologies have come about. I'm not necessarily requesting a block, but I'd like you to intervene or, if I'm in the wrong, tell me why, because this is really getting disruptive. Tezero (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the page, and warned the IP to assume good faith on the "racist" accusations. Now that it's protected, the IP is discussion on the talk page a bit more, as is another user. I'm not expert at the Navajo language, so I'd rather wait until you give your stance/input there before I really intervene any further. It's a start, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's stopped since your final warning. I do agree that most of the edits are so bad that they must be bad-faith edits. (Like attempting to add a picture of the Beebs as that actor's image, for example.) Let me know if he breaks your final warning and I'll block him. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's back at it. I guess I'll look again to ensure that he's been reverted. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone beat me to blocking him. What a bizarre hoax... Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's had several in the last 30 days, all blatant vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/169.199.67.13 — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I just meant he literally only has one edit in the month of September. His edits are pretty infrequent though, and they're so stupid about their edits that Cluebot or any good edit reverts them pretty much on the spot. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yippee!  :-o — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ya never know if they mean it racially, hatefully, or just stupidly! I assume the latter (not that it matters), but treat it as the others!  :-D — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and that's part of what I was getting at - none of those scenarios could be considered a good faith mistake. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism pt3

Extended content

New section, so I don't need to scroll so much on my phone. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked. Kept it short because I thought the other user was an Admin and I didn't want to step on their toes if they were planning on handling it. Now I see the other editor isn't an Admin. Oh well. I'll block them again if they keep up their disruptive editing. Let me know if you witness it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aye aye, mon capitan. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User_talk:Nintendonix You've already blocked him for exactly the same thing as what I just placed another warning for, and he's doing other offenses too. I know that there is a procedure for allowing a non-free image of a deceased person for whom there is no likely source of free images, but that's not likely the case for one of the biggest bands in history, right? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since we missed him by a month, I think your warning is good for now. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: This guy racked up another several offenses and warnings since then. He's clearly absolutely defiantly incorrigible. Period. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Protected the page, because I do agree that the edits should stop, but I didn't block, because I think the IP was probably making them in good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, normally I prefer to handle things myself instead of tattling, but 50.153.173.22 isn't listening, repeatedly adding the statement that Sonic X is currently airing on the CW to that show's article. In reality, the entire block it was on has ended, replaced by a live-action block, and there is ample evidence of this. Mind intervening? Tezero (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected. Since I believe the edits were in good faith, just misguided.) Feel free to ask me for help on stuff like this. I know it can take forever sometimes at places like RFPP, AIV, SPI, etc. I like to provide faster help, since I always appreciated it when admin did it for me back in the day. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one really is vandalism. 98.215.83.148, in the same Sonic X article, is repeatedly restoring the article to an old (though post-FA) revision with a few misspellings, uncited information, and ambiguous wording, having given no explanation when asked. Looks like it's saved on this person's computer or phone and they just don't want the page to change at all. Tezero (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looked into it. I agree. Blocked for 2 weeks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to let them off with a warning, due to having so few edits, but looking over the deleted edits, it seems they're solely here for making offensive edits, even if its not very often. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I actually edit conflicted multiple times with you over his edits to Mario Kart articles. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I protected the page, because I think collectively it could be warranted, but I don't think anyone's done enough individually to warrant a block or anything. Their edits are bad, true, but they don't seem very prominent, and its the stupid type of vandalism that seems to be cleaned up pretty easily. I'm not entirely sure I'm catching all three IPs you're talking about though, so feel free to let me know if I'm missing how bad one of them is... Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dyk408 ranting, babbling, reverted
  • I...really don't know what to do with this person. Its almost like he goes in and out of coherent thought or something. I'd hate to block him if he's just really bad at communicating. Let me know if he keeps causing trouble. He could at least use a WP:NOTAFORUM warning or something... Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism pt4

Extended content
  • Its hard to justify blocking it with the edits happening so infrequently, and them being the childish sort of things that gets caught by editors or bots right away. Still, they are clearly bad faith stupid edits. I left a final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the heads up. I saw him return from the last block and make edits that, weren't great, but weren't outright against I had just blocked him for, but rather just "bad decisions". I hadn't noticed he had returned to his old habits today. Re-blocked. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha. I agree that nothing constructive comes from the IP, but I'm also hard-pressed to block an IP that has made only 9 edits in the last 2 years. The edits are so stupid they're always instantly cleaned up, so I don't think he's really doing any damage. Let me know if it ever becomes more active though, it would almost certainly warrant a block if the edits were anything like whats been done so far... Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • RMc "Threepio!!! Threepio!!!!! Oh, where could he beeeee?!" Happy Groundhog Day, Serge! We're being helpfully informed of all the world's things that are interesting, important, probable, possible, likely, parenthetically trivial — and if we're lucky, what just might even be somehow real. It's alllll over again, like a machine. I just wasted a huge amount of time combing over this edit history since the last series of rants and bans. That's probably more than half of the new content. And just look at that gigantic history of repeatedly deleted disambiguation link warnings, for which I don't see any corrections. I hope I'm mistaken, because there's only so much garbage I can stand to wade through. I checked this history because today, I noticed that the article where it had all originally come to my attention, had been anonymously edited to re-un-delete some of his verbatim key trivia. If you care to check my work or note the offenses, it's my edit history from Al TV on up to this page. You've been fantastically tolerant and optimistic in allowing this gratuitously defiantly WP:NPA flaming troll back in. To say "recidivist" would be a compliment, implying that the person had ever had the slightest intention of changing. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's a very kind way to put it. The whole time, aside from wishing I had my time back, I was wishing that we could make these people fix their own mistakes for which we get punished. There's no community service program that forces someone to undo their graffiti here. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iddymokom This is a caution report for anyone who reads here. This is a brand new account which suddenly began a litany of deliberately similar and extensively strung out edits. They're so extensive that my first concern was to verify them but I don't think that I can do them all. So I didn't know if anyone else has seen this particular pattern, in case of sockpuppetry. On a humorous note, the following is an unbelievably deranged exerpt from something else; just read the whole thing. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, yeah, all that genre tinkering is usually more of a problem in music related articles, but it looks like it shows up in video related areas too. WP:GENREWARRIOR sums it up pretty well. Anways, that IP doesn't seem to be obstinate about it at least, so I don't see it as too much of a problem. Keep it if it looks like a net-positive, or revert it if it looks like it was a downgrade in quality. Your second link...yes, is very bizarre. Someone felt it was necessary to explain how internet browsers work? Definite violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same as always before! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oranjelo100 This guy has been massively tendentious, belligerent, unencyclopedic, disrespectful, spammy, battlegroundy, and generally terrible, for a long long long time. He's a nasty, mean, dull busybody. In the rare case that he ever makes a citation, it's literally to angelfire.com and such, mostly stirring the dreck of questionable articles about retrogaming and emulation, but sometimes important things like DirectX. He's definitely WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:TEND WP:NOTHERE WP:OWNER WP:NPA according to many people who've issued countless warnings and have undone countless edits over the years, but they're not about to battle ANI about it. They've documented it, and further linked to other docs, in the link I just gave. After his edit war to deluge the Dolphin emulator's article, he's one of the reasons that I had redoubled my efforts to find a cool admin like you, but I forgot about him until his latest onslaughts. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any questions on this one, bro? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I wasn't ignoring this one, I just didn't know what to do with it yet. He's belligerent and difficult, but there also seems to be a bit of a language barrier, and while incivil, I don't want to be too harsh. I personally don't agree with it, but there's a number of prolific editors who are ruder, but still are around, (or were around for years before being blocked.) Unsure how to respond yet. (Feel free to chime in, (talk page stalker)s!!) Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I hear ya. But this isn't just about being rude. There is no real language barrier; he understands what everyone's saying, and is fully functionally literate in English. But his only response is unilateral combat. No matter what. Zero accountability warpath. He's done years worth of WP:3RR, WP:NPA; making 30 edits in a row of a couple characters each; a million edits with inadmissible sources, no sources, and no edit descriptions. His edits are often impenetrable and unmaintainable. This is total WP:BATTLEGROUND, the death of a thousand cuts. I'm kinda confused here; every other guy, you'll rightfully warn or ban them based on a few obvious violations in one day, but this guy you're not even warning after a million existing violations and warnings for a year.— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 and Dsimic: Again, ignorant contempt for all encyclopedic concepts and policies. Edit warring, garbage content, garbage prose, garbage formatting, often inadmissible sources (if any). Pumping junk into many articles which should be drastically slimmed or deleted. WP:TEND WP:BATTLEGROUND Dsimic can chime in, if Serge hadn't read his exhaustive long-term attempts at rehabilitation on [User_talk:Dsimic]. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! As visible in User talk:Dsimic § Uop Cache and User talk:Dsimic § Number of edits (Oranjelo100), there's unfortunately little use of talking to Oranjelo100. I'm just lucky that he (or she) moved away from the articles I'm involved with long time ago. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it again tomorrow, when I have more time to look through it again. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking it over, yes, he's a bit abrasive, but I really don't think it's anything blockable. I'll give him a warning to try be more civil and careful with his edits, but I think that's all that really makes sense. He makes a lot of small edits (annoying but not policy breaking) so it's hard to delve that far, but I haven't seen any difs showing that he's breaking 3RR or making actual personal attacks. He should be better about using reliable sources, but honestly a ton of his edits are small additional "bloating" to articles, that isn't great, but the article's weren't in good shape to begin with. His additions are without sources, but so was the original content much of the time. If you want to give more difs as far as particular edits of his you object to, I'll look at those, but much of them so far, like this are not anything that would go towards needing a block, and interactions here don't really show that he really understands what the problem is. Anyways, feel free to find better examples, or take him to ANI if you want. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree...but technically, while belligerent in the discussions, he did stop after he was warned about edit warring and what he had done wrong, and hasn't edited again in the last week. I did give him a final warning though, letting him know that his views on how to edit an article were fundamentally wrong, and that any more of this would not be tolerated. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Thank you, sir. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: So he switched from vandalism to major personal attacks.
Well, he didn't really "switch", that's still from the original issue, of which I already warned him. Basically, I'll likely block him if he starts ranting again, but so far, he hasn't edited again since January 10th, as far as I can tell... Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it looks like he's ready to share his Mario Kart trivia with the world. I added on a bit to what you said on his talk page. I think what you said is sufficient though, for now. This editor may be more misguided than anything, I don't think he means harm. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism pt5

Extended content
  • Wasn't there someone with a similar name making similar edits like a week or so back? He seems awfully familiar, but his contribs didn't. Anyways, I reiterated your final wording, though didn't block yet. Also, try to be careful - we can tell people to make better edits, or to stop unconstructive edits, but we can't tell them not to edit on a whole unless they're blocked/banned. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I only said that particular reiterative idea fragment as part of the context of having repeatedly explained exactly why. So effectively "please stop editing like this". But I know what you're saying and I'll remain just explicit, thanx. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding. I knew what you meant, but I wanted to make sure other newbies do too. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might be thinking of Special:Contributions/MarioWario91, listed above. Those two guys comprised my daily watchlist for about a week. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think name-wise, I was thinking of him, and edit-wise, I was thinking about Supermrmario's edits from a week ago. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:He's doing it again. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this one. They haven't edited again since the 30th. I left another comment on how to handle this. I want to give a little more leeway, though, if he returns and tries it again, without even attempting to fix his edit or ask for help, then I believe we may have a competence issue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget this one, brother. :) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was one I was waiting to see if the disruption continued...and it definitely did. Blocked. It is crazy that someone from Justice.gov is making those edits. Must be a bored worker out there somewhere I guess? Not that that's an excuse. Let me know if it returns to these edits again, it looks like this one has gone a long time unchecked in the past... Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of fall into the same line of thinking as Lukeno on the IPs talk page, the edits were not good, but its hard to tell if they were in good faith or not. The IP also seems to have stopped since the warning, and hasn't edited further in 5 days, so I'm not going to block for now. But if he returns and is unresponsive, they potentially yes. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wii U I don't know what the heck is going on here but ViperSnake151 has apparently gone berzerk, with multiple mass deletions. He blanked pretty much the whole article, replacing it with the letters "nm" just now! And then is just unilaterally chopping up Wii U and Xbox One, with no real explanation. Deleting stuff this way or that, I don't know what's going on. He has tons of complaints and requests on his Talk page, having responded to zero of them. I'll ask you to look at it freshly, if you would, please. It's kinda important. Then, he devolves to the childish and belligerent. So, we have major changes with no explanations (to an incomprehensible degree), and responding to definitive corrections with belligerence (edit warring and personal accusations). — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think his edits were a little careless, especially considering its a rather high profile article, but I don't think its vandalism per se. He was was a bit hasty, but his overall intentions seem to just be to trim the article a bit. I'm sure this can be hashed out on the talk page... Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe it can be hashed out once, now that other people and I have taken all that abuse, pushed back, and forced it to happen once. And obviously will need to again someday, because his idea of WP:BOLD is WP:OWNER. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I finally caught up on the backlog, Smuckola! Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not great contributions, but the edits essentially lead up to just one bad addition to the article, and the person's received 0 warnings. Not great, but I don't think its enough for a block yet. It's also been 3 days since the last edit, maybe they're done causting trouble? Salvidrim! what's your opinion on the user name? Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like I missed this one as well (I guess I was kinda busy and distracted last week.) Anyways, usually I'd write this one off as an inactive IP, but looking through the block log, it has received a lot of blocks in the past. One was even 6 months. I reapplied a block, as it seems that the problem at that IP has apparently still not gone away... Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, thanks for edits like this, there has been a lot of garbage added over the years. Since it's such a slow but consistent addition of junk, I added the pending changes status to it, so these terrible IP edits would need to be approved before being added, like at the "List of games notable for negative reception" article. Also added it to my watchlist. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
kthx. Also from that fallout, can you block the offending IP range? The same edits are coming from 75.165.64.38, 75.165.62.152, 75.165.91.56, and possibly more. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't know how to do range-blocks. If their only target was lousy Daisy edits, then we should be fine. If they're causing more havok than that, then maybe Salvidrim! or somebody can help. He's been in Admin-beast-mode lately, judging by all his SPI/unblock/AN type edits ;) Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
75.165.64.0/19 would cover all of it but I need to check range-contribs from home later before doing anything. But yeah, in this case protection may be preferable. And "admin-beast-mode"? More like "2016-arbcom-election-precampaign-mode"! Just kidding, really! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim! and Sergecross73: They're still at it, nonstop, and this has also long since constituted WP:3RR, in addition to WP:OR WP:NOTHERE WP:TEND. Whereby "OR", I am speaking generously to include "nonsense". Doing page protection still means that this person wastes everyone's time in dealing with it. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 67.139.40.166 WP:TEND for sure, with edits consisting almost exclusively of reverts. At the same time, he's constantly labeling anyone who disagrees a "stalker" or "vandal", usually with no explanation at all in the edit summary, and never responding to any Talk page warnings and requests (except with hateful insults). The talk page history for the IP address is a cesspool of reverts with WP:NPA insults and general hateful invective at anyone who attempts communication. Even when I issued a warning template with a request for an explanation for edit warring, he called me a vandal! Of the public Talk page! lol. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'lol' to your actions, neither is your misrepresentation of my edit history going to fly. I'm in the process of filing an administrator complaint regarding your behavior and that of Asher196- your harassment of me on my talk page, your belligerent insults, the following me into articles you haven't ever touched before just for the sake of reversion and the removal of sourced, referenced information from articles that is tantamount to vandalism. I'm taking my time and making sure everything is written out, but attempting to get an administrator prematurely involved is quite a conflict of interest, to say the least. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented at the ANI report. Smuckola has done no wrong in contacting me though; if you haven't noticed, we're in regular contact, but even if we weren't, he'd free to bring it up here anyways. There's no "conflict of interest" in that. The fact that you say that, and your flawed ANI report in general, makes me think you probably need to slow down and learn a little bit more about policies here, and how things work. You're not using basic terms like "conflict of interest" or "vandalism" correctly, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was since my warning before that one. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He spammed the link again at another site yesterday, so I've blocked him now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another one where they didn't make any other edits after you gave them a final warning. It doesn't really make sense to give them a final warning and then block them anyways, even if they stop, does it? I can block if the vandalism restarts again, but this is another one where the edits are relatively infrequent, and the edits are so stupid its caught by Cluebot almost instantly... Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was edit warring in November 2014, which he just rekindled now (all about OoT and "greatest game of all time"), in a way that overlaps with the additional offense of WP:OR of critical reception after warnings. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, he keeps altering the wording. I mean, you're in the right here, But I don't think his edits are in bad faith. I think he probably just needs to be explained in a little more plain English that the sources say "best game", not "one of the best games". Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, brah. It's been explained to him. The problem is not one article, nor any writing style. He's got a mass history of editorializing the critical reception of several articles in the last few days, after having been warned. He qualifies as an OR warrior and needs to be blocked. <3 — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd call it "mass"...he's made 50 edits in about the span of 6 years... Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I hate all of those stupid "mixed to positive" type phrases, the IP's edits don't seem so bad as to block him yet. However, that article does seem to get a lot of bad IP edits, so I protected it for a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism pt6

Extended content

New requests to Serge's AIV sub-board go here! ;) Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never seen this before - pretty sure it's disruptive page moving, and definitely something that can only be read as a personal attack. Tried rolling back but it only removed the personal attack. I've moved it back and left the mover a note about civility (and disruptive page moving) on their talk page, just hoping it doesn't backfire on me now. The other editor does have a history of weird page moves/move warring on one page, but seems to have settled down to doing more editty things now. Just making a note so someone else is aware. Mabalu (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's weird. If I'm reading this right, he moved his talk page to the draft space? I have no idea why someone would want to do that, unless they don't quite understand archiving or something. Looks like the editor has already been blocked once recently. Let me know if you notice any further disruptive edits from that user. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, the person left the "I hate your editing!" barnstar on the other editor's talk page, and THEN moved that page to draft space. It wasn't their own page that they moved. I think it's probably a hissy fit flaring up between two editors, hopefully not going any further, but will keep an eye on things. Mabalu (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. Got the 2 names confused, since they're both kind of gibberish-like. Still very bizarre choices for edits. Anyways, you've handled it well so far, but let me know if you'd like me to step in if things escalate further. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they deleted my posts on their talk page sans comment. Hopefully we'll see no more of this behaviour. Mabalu (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think Amortias is mistaken with some of his/her edits and warnings. A number of the changes the IP made were, while not perfect, were probably a net positive in the direction of improvement. For example, general instruments and roles in recording music are not proper nouns, so edits like this are actually a welcomed change. It doesn't look amazing, but it was an improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not edit warring the user above is refusing to let me edit the Nintendo 64 articles based on what he wrote I also warned him about making personal attacks towards me. I think the user should take it to the talk page, instead of crying to you because someone edited his edit.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also I didn't violate the 3RR rule I stopped at my limit. --76.107.252.227 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP, it can still be edit warring even if you don't breach 3RR. I'm deciding to instead protect the page, and discuss on the talk page instead. IP, you should practice what you preach and take it to the talk page yourself. Per WP:BRD, that should have been your next move, not your second or third revert. Also, log into your account, you're not fooling anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's impressive, isn't it? I just reported it via email to the network abuse admins of the University of Nebraska, while conceding that Wikipedia has a ludicrously and abusively open policy in favor of enabling what is effectively a perpetual botnet of abusers. He already replied that he'd look into it, but this is probably the bazillionth thing on his plate every day. This also goes toward the essay I'm writing to hopefully someday help change the basic editing policies. — Smuckola(talk) 21:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 74.95.224.17 He just doesn't get it. He's spamming irrelevantly-sourced stuff as you can clearly see, but I painstakingly explained to him that he alone is edit warring, that there's no tolerance for it, and that he'll be blocked. I lost track of how many more violations. I helpfully performed a final revert, thinking the situation was clearly resolved at the moment, but no. Oops. Wikipedia is a tarpit to which everyone has been solicited, where he has fallen in, thinking it's a swimming pool. And he's just paddling around, thinking everyone else is either playing around or trying to dunk him. Nevertheless, as with the Higan guy, the end result is WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:TENDENTIOUS. As they are vocally committed to absolutely never stop, I recommend that they both are blocked. — Smuckola(talk) 23:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ferret - The IP is blocked for 3 days. I was going to protect the page too, as I saw another IP join in, but another Admin already did. He did for a rather short time period though (just a few hours?) so let me know if it expires and it comes back. I'll protect it for much longer. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) I've been kind of following this myself. The issue of the "High fantasy vandal", as I like to call it, has been happening off and on for a few years now. In fact, I may have been the one to request pending changes on that page, which is currently in effect. Seems like it may not be working as intended. However, I addressed the recent two pending edits for "high fantasy" that were approved on the reviewer's talk page. I wouldn't say that one specific instance of repetitive, perennial vandalism isn't grounds for indefinite semi-protection, but ... it doesn't seem as though pending changes is working unless all reviewers are somehow warned to not approve the "high fantasy" edits. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it seems as though I was the one who requested the original "pending changes" protection on 3 October 2014, which was then extended to indefinite pending changes on 3 January 2015, both protections done by HJ Mitchell. Yeah, a bit odd that someone would go to such lengths to keep that link in there, but I've seen crazier. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After I looked at my protection request, I recalled that this vandal not only tried to add high fantasy to the lead, but also fantasy, as seen here. Steel1943 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Yeah, I sort of recall coming across the IP who obsessed over fantasy/high fantasy inclusion as well, as I think I've seen it pop up at Super Mario and Legend of Zelda. I mean, I can kind of see how one could give it those labels, it seems plausible, but the problem is two-fold - sources don't seem to typically use that label, and there seems to be a consensus against using the label - so the IP is definitely being disruptive. And I agree, because it does seem plausible at least, it seems the "pending changes" isn't working.
Neither of our "pings" got any response, so I'll likely soon boldly change it to semi-protection soon. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that my ping didn't work since I forgot to sign in the same edit as the ping. So, I'm attempting again to ping HJ Mitchell. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did get the first ping, but hadn't had time to look into it. I just replaced the PC1 with SPP due to the high traffic on Super Mario. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. Amazing just how persistent some people are! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sjones. Sorry I missed this before, it must have gotten lost in a period of a lot of talk page messages and "pings". Anyways, it looks like just about every name mentioned as a suspect or problem has been blocked, so I imagine this is now taken care of... Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serge could you look at 177.75.149.35? Appears to be block evasion stemming from 187.45.120.20, they are engaged in mass reverts in revenge against another reviewer. Noticed on Alan Kardec while running through Pending Changes. -- ferret (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any examples or difs of ways the two act the same? Not that I doubt you, it's more just to get me up to speed here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply based that on SLBedit's edit summaries at Alan Kardec, appears to be a series of reverts between the two IPs. This is my only experience with the article, and only through PC. It appears PC1 was set in response to this user. After SLBedit's last revert at Alan Kardec on the user, it looks like the IP opened their contributions list and began running down the list mass undoing. A quick review it appears it partially revolves around mass undiscussed changes to date formats. -- ferret (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I see what you mean. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He should probably get a warning, but I don't think that was really bad enough to warrant anything else. I'm also not sure who would be right in this scenario. Does it need a [sic]? It's kinda "Engrish-y", but not really an error or misspelling like that usually denotes. I could be wrong though, I'm not expert on this one... Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can agree it's pretty fringe, but I don't think it's wrong either, as Tomorow is misspelled that way on the soundtrack. I guess I'll just leave it be for now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=> Hello. Thank you. They make so many personal accusations with no proofs... I am not "disruptive" at all, but the people who ask so many "citation needed", reverse yet the sources that I add to answer to that, and reverse everything that increase the quality of the content, are "disruptive". As an example of my good faith (again), I noticed that there were 2 errors in a table in an article, a van put in cars, and a car put in vans, so I made the change, but the man who thinks that he owns this article reversed. So I gave him some explanations, and gave up... So the article is still false... http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mariordo&diff=prev&oldid=648177901 The 4 people who block all my relevant changes on the Renault, Citroen etc. articles, never contribute positively to the article, they are "watch dogs" to make that the article will continue to be denigrating, and the "cage à googoo" (box for gogo dancers) tabloid article put in first position is one of the proofs of this... Nothing to do with a car company. This source is even not in the first 200 entries from Google, so how finding such a specific" source, whereas hundreds of others are available and more directly connected...? Half of the characters in the article are "sources" and in the previous months 10 000 characters of text have disappeared from the Renault article... I added an independent study that has no interest to lie, as then they could not sell it to several carmakers, and they say that it is false yet... Have a nice day or evening. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're still a bit hung up on how many accusations you've thrown out at them in the past, you may have created some bad tension there. I'm trying to get them to discuss some more specific problems with your content. I really don't believe they're trying to do anything bad, I just think they don't see eye to eye with you. The tabloid source, for example, while not great, didn't actually introduce any bad content into the article... Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=> As "no consensus exhibited to erase (my) relevant content and reliable sources", then they removed them !! Will you support this inconsistent behaviour ? In addition, they continue to erase, but the page is still blocked to some other improvements. So would you like to add this relevant content and sources to the "Renault in UK section", please ? Thank you.

Renault is known in the UK for its support to the British architecture and design innovations by hiring the young architect Norman Foster in 1980, in order to build the Renault Distribution Centre[1] in Swindon, UK. Therefore, the headquarters that Lord Norman Foster designed for Renault cars has been given Grade II*-listed status in 2013 by English Heritage, in order to "protect post-war architecture".[2] This Renault warehouse had some full glass walls, a metal structure -yellow steel "umbrella masts"-, a floor area of 24,000 m2 and was structured by twenty four square modules, which if needed could be extended to 30,000 m2. The yellow colour was chosen for this building, to fit the Renault's graphical identity. The Renault Distribution Centre was chosen for its innovative and futuristic shapes,[2] for some scenes of the 1985 James Bond film, "A View to a Kill", staring Roger Moore and Patrick MacNee.

  1. ^ "Renault Distribution Centre Swindon, UK 1980 - 1982". Retrieved 12 March 2015.
  2. ^ a b "Renault cars has been given Grade II*-listed status in 2013 by English Heritage". January 21, 2014. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
If you aren't willing to take my advice (discussing with WikiProjects or starting up WP:RFCs), then I am unwilling to help you any further. I've told you the correct actions to take. Go do it. If you wish to add further info to the locked article, do an "edit request" on that article. For more information, see WP:EDITREQUEST. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=> I do obey you. And no progress is made. No consensus to erase, so it is removed yet ! I gave a MIT source in addition to the Oxford UP source, they are not take into account : article blocked ! If some people always deny, as you know, it is a "disruptive" behaviour. RfC ? If the community was balanced, then the Renault article would be like VW or Ford, not poor and non-representative of what is really this company. M.Choppers told himself that the VW article is very promoting, and VW is over-cited in the general articles, because there are many VW "fanboys". The same for GM or Ford by the way. But I will try to ask for an RfC. I bet already that no good result will come, as you know ;-) Some people say "when a lamb asks to the wolves judges, if it can be left alive, the answer is always : have a nice meal, buddies"... It comes from an old poetry that denounced the non-democratic society at the Lords times. If there is no consensus to erase, then it is erased ! And you told them that you agree with that. I will do an edit request, and you can read the source about "the headquarters that Lord Norman Foster designed for Renault cars has been given Grade II*-listed status in 2013 by English Heritage, in order to protect post-war architecture" =) Interesting input. But some people refuse to add such facts to some specific companies, for personal opinions. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're not making any progress with the current editors is the very reason why I keep recommending RFCs and WikiProjects. They bring in fresh faces and opinions. They may help get some progress or compromise. Conversely, if you're not making any progress with a larger group of editors, then it may be a sign that your changes were not meant to be, and that you chose a different approach. I guess you'll see once you try one of these other avenues. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I read this entire frustrating thing, but at least now I know what the constant "cage a goo-goo" quotes were about. Yikes.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he wasn't all that clear about that. It didn't help my understanding either that initially my browser didn't load the entire article, so I didn't see that quote in there anywhere... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! I suspect I have been targeted by someone with a dynamic ISP: I have recently reverted a whole batch of random reversions of my edits by a bunch of different users all with ISPs starting with 151.20. I can't help but wonder if it may be related to an ongoing dispute on Elsa Schiaparelli where anonymous editor(s) aren't willing to accept that she had a rather unusual but pretty well-documented pronunciation of her name. The Schiaparelli editor was 151.20.80.160 - I suspect they may be the same person as 65.196.51.10 given the fact both ISPs made pretty much similar edits. The obvious revenge reversions were performed by the ISPS 151.20.106.171, 151.20.105.201, 151.20.104.221, 151.20.104.30, 151.20.96.229, and 151.20.89.202. Mabalu (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And MORE!! 195.31.24.186 is the most recent one, the others fit in with the 151.20 pattern: 151.20.82.26, 151.20.80.234, 151.20.79.118, 151.20.75.157, 151.20.19.76. Mabalu (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't think 195.31.24.186 is connected, it's just a coincidence. The others are almost definitely the same disruptive editor. Mabalu (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has been resolved with a temporary ISP block on the range by the fabulous people over at Admin Noticeboard, so we'll wait and see if they come back after the block. Mabalu (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mabalu. Sorry I wasn't able to help much. It's been a busy 24 hrs. I did protect the page you were talking about a little while ago, but hadn't had the chance to say anything about it here. Anyways, I'm glad AN worked for you. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
He's returned (90.220.46.171). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here (176.248.106.194). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and reverted both. Thank you, Dissident93. Let me know if you keep finding them. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hey, I'm sorry about what we've got into with the Meghan-related articles. It is great that you want to fight for what is right. You deserve this gorgeous cat.

All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It bothers me when editors seem to put their person opinions ahead of what reliable sources say, so sometimes I get sucked into disputes like this that I don't have any personal interest in, but still want to make sure policy is carried out right. Same thing has happened regarding Nickelback and Cash Cash in the past. Also, I figured I should participate, since I was the one who encouraged you to take the RFC route in the first place. Hopefully things'll wind down soon, and then I can leave the work to people like yourself, who really care about the musician. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since you are an admin, could you look once through WV's user space? They are making blatant WP:POLEMIC attacks at my expense. One attack's even got a file attached similar to the one I keep at my user page. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's...a lot going on with that user page. Anything in particular you find offensive? Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The column "Funny Stuff" and similar columns. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, following my AN/I report and RfC report, the posted this referring to me as a diva. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it. Those comments are so vague, generic, and pointless, that I don't think anyone would associate them to you (or even bother to read them.) I'm sure the arguments with him that would ensue would just lead to more endless bickering, and it doesn't seem like either of you are strangers to ANI - it may be best to try to stay away from things that may escalate to there for a bit. Editors/admin get tired of repeated offenders, and may start laying down repercussions after a while. I'd just focus on the two discussions going on right now, and even then, there's not much else to do until others comment - it doesn't really look like consensus is on their side in either instance, so far anyways. I recommend working on an article completely unrelated to anything WV. It'd probably be more enjoyable anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:@Sergecross73: Another blatant polemic attack, [2] was posted just a few hours after [3]. Can you please help me? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 07:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you should just remove his user page from your watchlist and not look at his contribs. His little writings don't mention you by name, and resemble the ramblings of a teenager venting through their Xanga/Myspace blogs or something. I doubt anyone bothers to read them, they're boring and vague. The only reason he does it is probably because he wants to passive/aggressively bother you. Please, take the high road and just ignore it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Type-0 Query (no Caetuna reference intended)

I've been looking at the article once or twice recently, and something has struck me. It's.... getting quite large. I am wondering whether it would be wise or not to split the HD-centered elements away into a separate article or not. You know, like having the information concerning Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster separated into its own article rather than spread between the two original articles. The Last of Us Remastered is another example. In most cases, it wouldn't be practical, but Type-0 HD has very much evolved into its own development story instead of just a subsection. In fact, it's almost a separate game. Then again, the original game was not released outside Japan, meaning the references for the plot would need to be removed, and we would need to consider whether to use the original or localised versions of names and such. A second opinion is wanted and would be much appreciated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support a split, I think even after the split you've dug up enough dev section info for both - the creation part could be more for the PSP, and all the content about the HD Remaster could be the dev section for the HD one. The PSP one could document the fan translation a bit more too, something I've wanted to include, but felt it was a bit UNDUE considering the scope of both version collectively. That being said, I'd just go with the official translation terms/names for both, they really didn't do anything crazy in regards to changing things other than translating them, right? Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The split has been achieved. There is now the original and its HD version. A scan from another pair of eyes would be appreciated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I'll look it over shortly. Quick thought: Do you think it would be good to have some sort of hatnote at the top, something along the lines of "This article is for the PSP version of FFT0. For the HD version of the game, see FFT0HD article"? I just wonder if more casual fans may not even realize that there was a PSP version, since it never came out in English, and the PSP wasn't super popular in English regions. They may keep trying to add HD info to it. If you don't agree, or there's some sort of specific/obscure guideline to using hatnotes that doesn't allow for that, then I'm fine with not doing it too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked it over, ProtoDrake. Everything looks ver good, as always. I personally think I'd put less of the localization info at the HD article, as most of that was more for the PSP version, but that's really splitting hairs. It's good either way. Side note: I've just started playing the game today, and whether or not I'm motivated to continue writing on a subject is often dependent on if I like it or not. I'm happy to report that I'm really liking it so far. I'll try to keep helping with them. Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User you have blocked has returned?

I can't seem to find the post anymore, but I believe either this is the same guy who's returned or just a user who should be monitored, as he keeps incorrectly changing the game's developers and publishers. All of the info can be checked via the game's credits, as a company who only supplied legal support and marketing should not be credited as a co-developer. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serge, I can't seem to find the previous data, but if the IPs are documented, AND within a similar range, I might be able to look into a rangeblock. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's that same IP that has been making all sorts of errors with video game categories, developers, and publishers that we've been tracking at WP:VG. Thanks for pointing it out, he's blocked now. Not necessarily all edits are bad, but an upsetting number have errors, and he's been basically block evading for about 2 months, so I revert them all. Let me know if you find any others. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not seeing that post, I thought it was under another name. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine, it's not like you need to be aware of everything going on everywhere, and it doesn't matter if people alert me to these IPs here or at WPVG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. Have you found any more sockpuppets of User:Jakandsig? Just asking a simple question for updates on that sockpuppet situation. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, long time no see. No, I haven't noticed any socks of Jak in quite some time, probably not since you left. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Playaz

Hello. I've undeleted this article that you A7d yesterday. I agree that it was an A7 candidate but they are a very important label in the history of drum and bass, though sources are hard to come by. I've added a couple of sources to demonstrate their importance. SmartSE (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree, but I won't stop you from trying. I think you're going to have an uphill battle if someone takes it to AFD though... Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Very Much!

I'm pretty much getting fed up with the i.p telling me to shut up and pointing fun out of my *Humanly Spelling Mistakes* because I've done explained logically enough to the i.p. how impossible it is for it to be Isaac Marshall's voice as anyone can perform roars and have special effects used on them to make them sound epic! --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sometimes all you need in times like this is some third party input. I don't mind helping. I don't usually especially watch the Bowser page, but I do work on a lot of Nintendo related articles, so I don't mind helping. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with an anonymous user

This is outside of what you normally help with, but since you're an active admin I'm familiar with, could I request that the Atlanta Falcons roster navbox template be protected from anonymous edits? There is this user who doesn't follow standards the 31 other team roster templates have set and reverts anything he doesn't agree with. For some reason, nobody else has stepped in to give their opinion even though I requested help in the NFL Wikiproject months ago. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected it. I see you've started a discussion on the talk page - hopefully he'll be forced to discuss now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, yes. These team roster navbox templates should all follow the same standards as the regular roster templates do. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Falcons

Why did you lock the Falcons roster box and not any others ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfanatic (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion directly above. It was the only one I was alerted to. There was a dispute and the IP was not discussing on the talk page or adhering to precedent. (From what I've been told anyways, I don't usually work on sports pages.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Falconfanatic: Have you read the talk page? I made a comment there 8 months ago, but it was ignored by the anonymous user who doesn't follow template standards and reverted anything I did to combat that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Falconfanatic may be the same user, as he just added back the nonstandard grouping. For comparison, this is what the template is like for the rest of the league (31 other templates), and this is what the Falcons one was like during the season. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now fully protected it, and started a new discussion on the talk page. Hopefully there will be discussion now. Full protection means now you can't edit it either, though I'll remove it shortly, especially if you are intending on making non-controversial other changes to it. If you don't mind, on the meantime, please explain your stance on the template talk page. Not for me - I understand your stance - but just for documentation's sake. Sergecross73 msg me 01:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, I've asked on the NFL Wikiproject twice now, but was ignored for some reason. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are they very active? I know the video games and music ones are, but I know a lot of others aren't. Then again, Footballs pretty popular, so it seems like there'd be a presence there... Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are, recently the NFL player infobox was updated with a lot of discussion about it, so I don't know why some requests are just ignored (similar to how my videogame infobox composer suggestions...) Dissident93 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not right for this roster box to be locked and 31 others are unlocked I have been doing the falcons roster for about 2 years now I am a die hard fan and I would like it to be decent that's why I fix it up.

  1. RiseUp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfanatic (talk • contribs) 05:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I lock every template if there's only a dispute with one? There's a dispute on how to organize, and no one is discussing on the talk page about it like they're supposed to when this happens. Locking it forces the discussion that was already supposed to be happening. I'll unlock it one there's a WP:CONSENSUS on how to handle it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical-man

So about 6 hours after you issued a final warning on AN/I that Subtropical-man would be blocked for any further personal attacks, he posted this snide remark "- in the USA they do not teach in schools about the European Union?" which I ignored. Then you repeated the block warning you posted at AN/I on Subtropical-man's talk page. The very next day, he posted this, "By the way, I know, the EU is a competitor of your country - USA but if you came here to fight with the European Union (I suspected this before), I report it to administrators according to the WP:BATTLEGROUND and few other rules. The rules say that Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, conflicts, carry on ideological battles, nurture prejudice, hatred, or political views. PS. (Yet) I not officially accuse you, just inform."

As if he deserved yet more warnings, BeenAroundAWhile tried again to warn him to cease personal attacks. And so he backhandedly strikes out some of the offensive comments, and justifies it because I described a map which literally includes two versions of the same view as "silly".

Note that just prior to this, at User talk:Subtropical-man#Friendly advice a sympathetic editor agreed that Subtropical-man is being on uncivil and should stop, and he responded as if he had no clue. If it 's not WP:COMPETENCE, it must be WP:IDHT, but either way, this guy is not going to stop his disruptive editing. A block is necessary, and I don't think he should be unblocked until he gives some evidence that he gets it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis_Bratland I'm the editor you're referring to (the one that left the note "Friendly Advice"). I don't think it's a competence problem, I really think it's IDT, sounds like he doesn't want to hear it. It would be sad to see him get blocked or worse, but if he won't listen, he'll have to learn some other way. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you both say, but I'm giving him one last chance because it's technically a little different than what I final warned him about. He's on the thinnest of ice though. Please keep me posted. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has reached the point of disruptive editing. This guy has taken ownership of the Malta article and reverts even the tiniest improvement in the map. You can't talk to him. Can you make this stop? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again calling everything a "personal attack", because he doesn't understand what is an isn't a personal attack. Does this have to go back to AN/I for another round of bickering to deal with violations of WP:OWN? To me this is a simple case of disruptive editing in many forms: 3RR, personal attacks, AGF, and now OWN. Every time he gets told to stop violating one behavior norm, he switches to another. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You insulted me in his post, this is personal attack or/and slander. I explained in a courteous way [4].
  • You wrote: "tiniest improvement in the map" - you entered a completely new map to infobox without discussion and consensus (ostensibly change of ring) [5]. This is completely new map (with Mercator projections; other colours, file extension, proportions etc). Please stop make changes to the maps without consensus.
  • I corrected my behavior [6], no personal attacks. Please stop still trying to convince that I break the rules. I do not break any rule of Wikipedia.
  • You breaking rules, you entered a completely new map to infobox without discussion and consensus! If I reverted this edition according to the rules, you accused me (own etc). Please stop. If you want change of map, discuss and consensus. Sergecross73, please help. Please mediation and block of article - in order that Dennis not can change map without consensus. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean? I've tried to reason with this person. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be a problem if you were not breaking the rules. You still trying to enter a new map to the article by your changes/your opinion. There must be consensus, it's not my invention. If there is consensus, your map will be introduced to the article. But you still trying, trying, trying enter a new map without consensus. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you guys should try WP:3O or mediation or something? Or work with a Maps/Geography Wikipeoject or something. I don't know enough about Wikipedias stance on these areas to make a good call content-wise. As far as conduct goes, Subtropical Man's actions do seem irritating, but I really can't block on those grounds. The frustrating part of Wikipedia policy is that if you keep things below a personal attack and don't violate WP:CIV, it's hard to block, and I think this is one of those times. STM may be at the end of the line when it comes to warnings about personal attacks, canvassing, and innappropriate tangents in discussions, but nothing's he's done violates any of that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Costumes table again

Remember the issue I brought up to WPVG some time ago regarding the Hatsune Miku: Project Diva game series, where IP editors are often inserting crufty tables of in-game player costumes? Well, it's happening again. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP, as I imagine its the same person. If another IP pops up to re-add the information, let me know, and I'll protect the respective pages. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My relevant info about WTCC

Hello Serge. I did no war. I added some some true, relevant info. Here a user added a vandalism tag https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661103892&oldid=661103236 but it was an abuse removed by the WP robots !

  • obviously I did no vandalism : you already perfectly know that all my actions are accurate and right. I added some true and relevant info. like a visual sum up of the circuits of the season, a sum up of the victories, podium and pole position, the fact that a driver left the WTCC during the season. I also added some info. about the compensation weight that were missing to have a clear view of the final results. Nobody thought to that before, so you could honestly congratulate me to have done all these actions : only some true, relevant info. and connected to the subject !
  • this user had no right to add this tag, because first my actions are certainly not vandalism -all this info are true and relevant- and the robot removed this tag automatically, because it is not a protected page https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661172760&oldid=661103892

This user "used" a rule to remove my stats. But this rule is not relevant here , because only three sums are NOT "an excessive amount of statistics" ! So it was just an false excuse. Yet he continued again and again to remove these THREE stats.. You could blame him for that -removing some true info, using a rule that cannot be applied here, because 3 is not an excessive amount *LOL*-, not me. Your position towards these facts describes your "spirit" !

I also added some info. about the fact that a driver left the WTCC, it is relevant, but this user erased this true and relevant info. This is considered as a vandalism, not my actions =)

All my actions are good for readers and Wikipedia, but if you want to support some lies saying that I would do vandalism or dispute, please do : I don't mind if WP is poorer and if you want to support the people who don't want to cooperate and create a dispute whereas I have all the proofs that my actions are good.

On the contrary, I explained that I create no dispute and I pointed out that a little wisdom would be necessary here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661087161&oldid=661084691

You want to blame my positive actions ? You want to block this IP ? You want WP to be poorer ? You let a user and its friends to remove my true and relevant content ? Yet, some other users accepted it ! I don't mind that you support the users that make WP poorer and remove the true info, what is considered as a vandalism. I was cooperating to make WP more relevant and richer. So, people will read some articles on some others sources to get the right info. ! =) Removing some true and relevant info. is certainly not a mean to support WP !

On the contrary, you could ask some users to stop childish dispute and to remove some relevant info., what is considered as vandalism, not adding some like I did. You do what you want, and what you do describes your "spirit". Some people just want to prove that they are important, and remove the relevant info. Some people have a biased view and don't want some info. to appear. If you want to support that, it is your responsibility =) You want to take a false opportunity to blame me ? Please do !

One more proof for my publications =)

Thank you =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read WP:EW and WP:3RR. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, the problem is that you keep on reverting other editors over and over again. Its undeniable that you did this 5 times here. That's technically enough to block you right there, but I went with a warning since I assumed you didn't know policy. Now you know, so next time its a block.
I'd also like to remind you that you're also at your final warning for bad faith assumptions of other users, and you're getting dangerously close to violating that. Use talk page. Discuss content, not editors. Final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user accused me of being bad faith, by adding a "vandalism" tag, whereas I did no vandalism ! But you don't "warn" him for that. Why ?' I would like to understand your point of view. On the contrary, why warning me again and again whereas no bad faith and no false info. from me were proved, OBVIOUSLY ? I would like to understand your point of view. Some user create a dispute by removing again and again some relevant info. As to me, I almost never remove some info., easy to prove this. I save each of my modifications. Some other users reverted more than 5 times (Cybervoron -the name that he used to describe himself !- reverted NINE times, much more than 5 times ! But you don't warn him for having reverted NINE times either. Why ? I'd like to understand your point of view. Finally he ACCEPTED my relevant info. about Borkovic, a PROOF that I was right to insist =) You are welcome ! =) Even this sudden opponent had to accept my adding, because it was "impossible" to continue to remove it a 10th time =)Thank you to explain your choices to blame me for 5 "reverts", but not another user that did NINE reverts =) As I wrote previously, I absolutely don't mind if you prefer to support the people who remove some relevant info. and make WP poorer. People will read some other sources, instead of WP, that's all ! Not good for WP and readers, yet... To bad, but no drama ! In addition, you do not count all the users that accepted my adding, you count only the 3 ones who suddenly appear there and revert, one after the other. Would you like to remind the policy to the user who reverted NINE TIMES ? You did not yet, did you ? Have a nice day =) 83.157.24.224 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now warned him as well, though I don't understand where exactly you're getting 9 from, I only see 3, maybe 4 times, at the article I'm talking about. But that doesn't excuse your actions, it just means you're both in the wrong, when it comes to following policy. I did not warn them before because I didn't see he had reverted you as many as 3-4 times, I thought it was less, as there were multiple other editors there who were having problems with your edits.
Regardless, with that out of the way, discuss on the talk page, and only move forward if there is a consensus to do so, as I've instructed you many times in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serge. It is a pity that you refused to explain your choices. The 2 pseudonyms did not open a discussion, just suddenly removed some true info. even assuming that THREE sums are an "excessive amount of statistics". LOL =) Anyway, once again, I will not insist. Some people remove some useful info. on WP what makes it poorer ? Too bad for WP and readers, they will read some other websites, that is all ! You could intervene in a good way, but if you don't want to, no problem. WP is penalized ! I did my best. You know the situation. You let do this. As to me, I already know these info. that I share. I don't mind if some people want to erase them in WP and do as if they did not exist. It is a pity obviously, but people will read the websites where they find some more complete info. !

Stats. are useful, so look : When one "stops" temporarily to revert, the other one continues. You noticed that too ;-)

IvanEurope :

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661007046&oldid=661003807
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661084488&oldid=661083803
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661084659&oldid=661084488
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661103236&oldid=661087819
  5. adds "vandalism" tag ! Strong accusation... maybe you could warn him for that ? What is your opinion ? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661172760&oldid=661103892

Cybervoron :

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=660880820&oldid=660843335
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=660926917&oldid=660926233
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=660996637&oldid=660996024
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661362301&oldid=661314517

NINE reverts, by this couple of "pseudonyms"...

A user validated the relevance of my new "compensation weight" §. He transformed my text into a table. I did not think that this change of mu initial text was bad against me. I am not childish. A table can be good to see the info. in a more little space =) So I did not remove his modification. As to me I cooperate ! And it is extremely rare that I remove some info., yet some are FALSE, some other not really relevant. But I think that WP is there to represent different opinions, so maybe among readers, some people will be happy to read some less important info. Therefore, I don't remove the info., even if they seem poor.

Have a nice day =)

Stop arguing with me, and start discussing with them. You undeniably and objectively have been edit warring according to its very definition. So has Cybervoron, and he was warned as well. I have no interest in any of this other than eliminating the edit warring. If you keep doing it, you're blocked. There is literally nothing you need to be saying to me other than "Okay Serge, I'll stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page." I can't comment on the your comment about them tagging your edit as vandalism because I can't find the word vandalism present in the link's you've presented. But it doesn't matter, even if he put that somewhere, it doesn't excuse all the reverting of edits without talk page discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes, I've been implicitly accused of vandalism : here is the right link http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Touring_Car_Championship_season&diff=661172760&oldid=661103892 => {pp-vandalism|expiry=10 May 2016|small=yes}} word "VANDALISM" ! I added some true and relevant info. directly connected to this page : NO vandalism obviously. All my actions are relevant and honest. And you should support me, if you thought to WP interests, by the way. They began a "war". Suddenly they remove some true and relevant info., invent that THREE sums are "an excessive amount of statistics" and theyr created no discussion, before ERASING FIRST my true info. A poor content on WP is good for the other websites ! Too bad... Bye. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see the word vandalism now. His edit summaries said "trivia", but he did use the word vandalism once, which isn't right. That being said, as I just said, it doesn't give you the right to edit war. Additionally, he has even attempted to discuss on the talk page. You still have not responded it discussed anything, instead choosing to bicker over little details with me. I can't stress enough how you're arguing with the wrong person here. Discuss your content issues with the people you were edit warring with, not me. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-english articles and lists in reception section

Hey there, admin. Just one quick question. When I was searching for more reception lists for Ogre from Tekken, I have found some non-English (Spanish) articles in which he appears: https://elseisdegerardo.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/mexico-en-los-juegos-parte-1-los-personajes/ https://elseisdegerardo.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/mexico-en-los-juegos-parte-1-los-personajes/ Maybe I'll find later some more, but never mind. Is it allowable if I add those other-language lists in his (or in some other character) reception lists? And also, some guy posted on my page this:

(Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Disturbedasylum. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia: 

   Introduction
   The five pillars of Wikipedia
   Contributing to Wikipedia
   How to edit a page
   Help pages
   How to write a great article
   Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (Disturbedasylum (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.[reply]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.)

Was that what I think it means (nothing special :D) or was he trying to tell something more with that? He also posted some picture. You can see it on my talk page. Thanks. Disturbedasylum

(talk page stalker) @Disturbedasylum: Non-English sources are acceptable if they're otherwise okay, but that Spanish page looks like a blog to me that isn't subject to editorial oversight and wouldn't be considered reliable. The message that was left on your talk page is a standard greeting with some links to pages you may find helpful and some general advice. For example, signing talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~), as that message suggests, is a good idea because it will make it much easier to tell who said what, and when, than manually adding your username to the bottom - the default signature cotains not just your username, but a link to your talk page and a timestamp too. Huon (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disturbedasylum - Hey there. Huon's response above is correct. Spanish-language sources are usable in theory, but those one's you've presented are not. A tip - anything with "Wordpress" in the link is generally not a usable/reliable source, just because any old person can start up a wordpress blog, and write whatever they want about a subject. I could go make a NFL Football Wordpress blog right now if I wanted to...and boy, I am not an authority on football. Huon, thanks for the assistance, I always appreciate it when a TPS helps people on my talk page, and I did not know you stalked my talk page. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Deleted Number Userbox

Did you use a tool to generate the user box on your page with the number of CSD deleted articles? I am interested in having that as a user box on my page as well. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chrislk02 - I wish I had, or knew of one, but no, the way I figured it out was much more manual - I went to the deletion log and filtered it to only deletions done by my name, and then roughly gauged how many it looked like there were. I know that I rarely if ever close AFDs, so they're mostly CSD's by default. I just started working at CSD consistently, a month or two ago, so this works right now, though I recorgnize it may not really be a sustainable approach I suppose. So definitely tell me if you happen to find a better method. :) Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I used to patrol CSD heavily several years ago, then I took a break for a while and am just not getting back into it. It seemed like a cool user box to indicate that one worked in the CSD area. I will just do what you did, and maybe do a search for deletions with AFD in it to narrow down the ones from CSD. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Glad I was able to help a fellow editor who likes statistics! Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created a rough templated version as User:Chrislk02/userbox/csdcount (I prefer to avoid raw template like content on my user page) Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, your version does look better. I'll use that too - thank you. Yeah, the rough version I had before was just taken from the AFD ones on my talk page that I created years ago back when I couldn't find any existing ones that covered what I was trying to express. I don't even know how I came across the raw version, I must have copied it from somewhere, as it was before I really knew much of the Wiki-markup like I do now. Regardless, yours looks better. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to type

As soon as I geolocated that IP at Talk:Sega Genesis, knew who it was. He's back to personal attacks. --McDoobAU93 20:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its that Technotopia guy, right? Did we indef block him? Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His second personal attack is enough alone to block him even if he was new, though, like you, I don't believe he is. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May be in need of revocation of talk page access now ... --McDoobAU93 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Just did it. (And he's back to his trademark insult "Yanks" so I'm sure it was him...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, IP pages do not "belong" to the people who post on them; that privilege is reserved for users who create an account, right? --McDoobAU93 20:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that's right. I personally don't really care when IP's remove posts (as long as they're not doing it to misguide what happened in an unblock request), but every time he was reverting it to a version with personal attacks present, which is obviously a problem. Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/* Proposed merge with Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt */ Oppose

How are the administrators who arbitrate these proposals chosen? Does participating in the discussion disqualify you from being the arbiter? I agree with you that it should be WP:SNOW, as evidenced by my Speedy keep, but I have enough experience to know not to look away when minority viewpoints are expressed as virulently as WV and Snuggums have done. You may think article's are protected, so you pay attention to other things, and wham, the article is gone because we were caught napping. So any way I can help, please ask. Thanks.MMetro (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there MMetro. Generally, it's any Admin who is WP:UNINVOLVED in the debates. Since I've been commenting in the AFD for it, yeah, I wouldn't be able to close it. Keeping an eye on things is a good idea, but I wouldn't worry too muchabout this. They've drawn a lot of attention to this debate, between the merge discussion and the AFD discussions. I think they realize that they'd be in all sorts of trouble if they acted against a consensus that had so much visibility on it. They may not be above badgering every person who disagrees with them, but I don't think they'd outright edit against consensus like that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? We're not idiots, we're not inexperienced editors -- acting against consensus is something neither I nor Snuggums would do even if there wasn't "visibility". Further, there is nothing wrong with trying to explain your case or state your side of the discussion in such a situation as this. No one is badgering anyone. Both of us are "above" doing so -- if you think otherwise, then you clearly haven't paid attention to how either of us defend what we believe in. You non-AGFA comments here are out of line and over the top. Especially for an administrator, Serge. Further, MMetro, I'm fairly certain claming both speedy keep and snow at the AfD is inappropriate, as there are two delete !votes at the proposal page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When people respond to every single !vote, saying pretty much the same thing over and over again, I feel it elevates from "arguing" to "badgering", but that's just my 2 cents. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedy enough of a keep for me. Thanks. MMetro (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ops III protection?

Hey, do you think activity Call of Duty: Black Ops III warrants semi-protection? No substantial changes in the last 10 days with over 100 edits. Some background vandalism coupled with unsourced additions regarding platforms and zombies. Unsure if it would pass RPP muster though, since the clear vandalism isn't too high. -- ferret (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess so. :P -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, sorry, I acted first, and got pulled away before I could actually respond. I probably fall more on the lax side of page protection requirements, so I agree here that it's necessary here. I've protected it for a month, so that it runs through E3, and then we can take it from there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tales of" series

Yes, Narikiri Dungeon was released for the Game Boy Color, but the game was backwards compatible with the original Game Boy. I believe that Game Boy should be displayed as a platform where people can play a game from this series on. The same could be said about Star Ocean Blue Sphere and Grand Theft Auto for their respective series. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not wrong, but it just kind of strikes me as redundant, just the same that we don't list DSi or PSP Go even though Tales of Innocence and Tales of Vs. are playable on them... Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GBA games were playable on DS, but we don't describe GBA games as released for both consoles. Cross-compatibility doesn't change what the intended/principal platform of release was: it's what's written on the box! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Even the respective Star Ocean article given as an example doesn't use the suggested approach its supposed to exemplify... Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it IS clearly stated on the box that the game is playable on the original Game Boy. GBA games were playable on SOME models of the Nintendo DS, while Narikiri Dungeon is playable on ALL models of the original Game Boy. There is a huge difference. There are two types of GBC releases: games that were compatible with the Game Boy Color only and games that were compatible with the Game Boy Color and the original Game Boy. The Grand Theft Auto (series) follows this approach and it has not been contested by anybody so far. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually list "backwards compatible" systems in infoboxes though. GB/GBC are more closely related to the DS/DSi example, which we don't denote when its compatible with both. Nor do we in the actual GBC game articles, like Grand Theft Auto (video game) or Star Ocean: Blue Sphere. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respect this, but I insist that it is not valid to compare the GB/GBC issue with the way DS/DSi games are listed. DSi games have never been made with backwards compatibility in mind. If one happens to own an original Nintendo DS or a Nintendo DS Lite, there is no way a DSi game could work in one of these systems. Now, if one happens to buy Grand Theft Auto or Star Ocean: Blue Sphere, the games could be perfectly played on any previous version of the monochrome Game Boy. There are no limitations whatsoever. I find it interesting when you label this kind of information as redundant, since backwards compatibility is not true for most of the Game Boy Color releases. The GBC version of Tomb Raider does not work with the monochrome GB, for example. This is why I believe backwards compatibility should not be taken for granted. Also, should not we provide the information that ToP:ND also works on all the orginal GB models only because people should assume this could be a possibility? This information could hardly lead to some confusion, so I can see no reason for it to be removed other than "we don't do that", which so far has been applied to completely different systems under wildly different circumstances, anyway. Narikiri Dungeon was developed aiming for full compatibility for both Color and monochrome versions of the Game Boy system, and while I understand the reasons for people to debate over this issue, I still can not see any harm to add this information on the Wikipedia article. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

need protection

Hi, Rock Out with Your Socks Out Tour is being seriously vandalised by various users. Please protect it.— Supdiop talk 18:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another Admin beat me to it. I would have done the same though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Queen

I just spent an hour making Green Queen acceptable and now because I chose to review the page, all the content has been deleted. If you can recover it, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmarytalt (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it at Draft: Green Queen to the draft area, though it is far from ready to be in Wikipedia proper. You need to write it according to what third party sources say about it. See WP:REFB for some beginners help, and check those links on your talk page about how Wikipedia works and whatnot. You'll need the approval of an Admin in order to take it out of the rough draft area. WP:AFC is a way to do this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP issue

Hi. Can you please take a look at the following: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. According to the histories I provided, the IPs appear to be a dynamic hopper which geolocates to the University of South Florida. I believe that it appears to have issues with WP:NPOV, WP:INUNIVERSE, WP:N and WP:OR. I think we should file an WP:SPI if its necessary, but do you have any thoughts about this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjones! I've looked it over. I definitely agree with your actions thus far. I don't know if SPI would help much, since a number of them haven't been very active recently. I can protect any pages being targeted though. I protected Xion, and it looks like someone already protected Eureka. Were there any others? Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at the moment, but can you take a look at the contributions of Liftboard Rider (talk · contribs)? It appears that the user, whom I believe is an obvious fan of Eureka Seven and the Kingdom Hearts series, intends to recreate articles that were merged using those IPs months earlier in different name spaces. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe he's allowed to have copies in the draft/sandbox space, if he think he's able to work on it and make it meet the GNG. I, like you, don't really expect it to go that way, but he can technically do it though. If he starts moving it into the article space without a consensus in his favor, then I could always up the protection of any possible names, but I'd have to wait until he does that first though. I can also speedy delete the drafts once they've been sitting there without improvement for a while... Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You deserve this. Thanks for giving me this advice Bsliangel (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let me know if you have any questions or need help. (Also, a reminder, your rough draft was moved to Draft:Fantasy Forest: Land Before Dragons.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimono111 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for the message. This is my gift for you Bsliangel (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Forest

Thank you for helping on the article fantasy forest. If you could, please help on improving it. And I was also wondering how to submit the draft.


Bsliangel (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)BsliangelBsliangel (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submit

How do I submit my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsliangel (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the articles for creation tag back on to your draft. If you click on the spot that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!", it should be submitted for review. FYI, I would not submit yet if I were you, as I don't think it would pass a review. I'm saying this to help you out - not to criticize - but there are a number of issues with it currently.
  1. There's many formatting issues - for example, your headings/section titles "Habitats" are in boxes because you put a ton of spaces in front of them in efforts to "center" them. That's not how Wikipedia formatting works.
  2. You need to use reliable sources, and directly cite the information (see WP:REFB). Websites like Wikias and Gamefaqs are not usable sources because the info there can be submitted/written by anyone. You need to use sources that are written by actual writers/journalists. Like that example I gave you a while back - http://www.148apps.com/reviews/fantasy-forest-story-review/
  3. You need to show how the article meets Wikipedia's standards for having its own article. It shouldn't just be all a guide informing people how to play.
For an example of how an iPhone game article should look more like, see an article I made - Sonic Jump. It's not the best article in the world, but it meets the bare minimums. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Fantasy Forest: Land Before Dragons

Do you think you could keep helping me on this? Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimono111 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can try to help some more...but as I was saying above, its kinda going to need a lot of work to get it to pass. See my points 1, 2 and 3 in the section above this one, here on my talk page, for starters... Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I drove by the article and did a tiny bit of cleanup. I also added two sources to the talk page, you should attempt to integrate the information they present and reference them. Remember to not copy them verbatim! That would be a copyright violation. Unfortunately didn't find any usable reliable sources when I looked... -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ferret - The 148 apps review is usable. The Touch Arcade one is too, though its rather brief and a database entry, so it wouldn't count towards notability. It could help with some details of a gameplay overview type sentence maybe... Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, note that there's apparently two games, "Fantasy Forest Story" and "Fantasy Forest: Land Before Dragons". The 148apps review appears to be for the former, I could find no review for "Land Before Dragons". Touch Arcade specifically notes "No Review" for "Land Before Dragons". -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or do they use it interchangably? There seems to be separate app listings for both... -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that one was just a shortened name for another. When I'm in the app store, I search for both, and I only come up with one hit with both terms, and its the same one. I don't get a second listing either either search term. That's all I had been basing it off of though, I've never played the game before, nor is it really my type of game, so I'm not entirely sure...but these new editors were asking for help at WP:VG so I was trying to give a bit of guidance... Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah guess so. I just feel like I saw someone recently refer to them as distinct titles. Not a lot of sources here but found one more that might help with gameplay. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its going to be really close as to if it's going to meet the WP:GNG or not here. Not entirely sure how strict or lax AFC is either. I've personally never used it as a creator or a reviewer. (I didn't start creating articles until I had been here a few years, and knew pretty well what an article should look like... Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Brogue (video game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brogue (video game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogue (video game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Anarchyte 00:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest contribution was just declining its speedy deletion tag months back, but thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Trainor

Hi Sergecross, if you get a chance, could you take a look at edits I recently made to the Meghan Trainor "early life” section? These were edits originally added by Lips Are Movin, which I trimmed and copy edited. I took the time to do so because her recent efforts were mass reverted [13],[14],[15] and I’m concerned multiple editors are being run off the Meghan Trainor suite of articles due to the ongoing battleground and being accused of “fancruft” (But who else but a fan is going to bother reading all the sources involved in writing a good comprehensive early life section?) I seem to recall you had a moderate position on that article in regards to the past concerns regarding length and bloat, acknowledging bloat, but also thinking there was music snobbery at play. If you get a chance, would you mind taking a look and seeing if you think this needs further trimmed? [16]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am not a fan or anything, I just stumbled upon one if the discussions at random, so I could help make a call on fancruff type info. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll look into it in a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonron

That indefintetly-blocked user Dragonron is back again, this time as Looks nice guy! I'm back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hoo! rock me back! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just wanted to inform you about this in advance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked them, and a few others, and protected the page. Even if its not DR, it's still obviously someone making new accounts to continue an edit war. Let me know if it this recurs, and I can look into it again. Sergecross73 msg me 11:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for dealing with this matter. I repoted Dragonron at META[17]. @Sjones23:Could you start the sockpuppet investigation on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron? --Infinite0694 (Talk) 14:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Do you suspect for there to be more socksout there? If not, we don't really need to do an SPI if I already indef blocked every one that edited at that article they were vandalizing. You guys can do whatever you want though, just my 2 cents. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semicolons

Hi there. I noticed you replaced a header with a semicolon in this edit. This generates broken HTML and causes some browsers, such as screen readers for the blind, to have trouble. Semicolons should only be use for definition lists, not for pseudo-headers. It's not a huge deal, but I've been trying to get rid of all the errant semicolons on Wikipedia lately, and it's a pretty huge task. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate Oh, this comes as a surprise to me, as the semi-colon approach is pretty widely used as a method of sectioning off credits in band or album articles. (See WP:GA's like Green Day or Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album).) You may want to consult with some of these Wikiprojects, like music related ones, and their MOS, before spending too much time on this. Otherwise, its going to increase faster than you can try to fix it... Also, do you maybe have any alternative suggestions? Similar to your efforts, I commonly go about trimming out unnecessary sub sections that have little to no content to warrant sectioning off, which also clutter up the TOC at the tops of articles too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't care at first, but then I saw it increasingly used all over the place. I just fix them when I see them; otherwise, it would be a pointlessly huge task. I don't want to go on a Giraffedata-style crusade. At first, I replaced semicolons with bolded text, thinking it was the lesser of two evils. I ran into trouble when MOS enthusiasts pointed out that it was against MOS:ACCESS. Being something of a fellow MOS enthusiast, I gave up on that. Since then, I haven't really had a good solution, but the TOC can always be limited if it gets unwieldy. Sometimes it's possible to strip out the headers completely, and other times it's easier to reword the subsection so that it doesn't need a header. Sometimes you can simply remove the errant semicolon, and it works as an introductory sentence for the following text. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Vita games

On this page, we're nearing the template transclusion limits apparently, and this will definitely be a problem once it happens. We've already had to remove navigational templates which are normally placed at the bottom of such articles, for instance {{Video game lists by platform}} and {{PlayStation}}.

Would it be a good idea to replace all instances of {{dts|date}} with plaintext dates (i.e. replacing {{dts|2015|02|25}} with "February 25, 2015") to alleviate this issue? The majority of transclusions on this page are automatic date format conversions, and although such a change would make future editing/updates to the page slightly more tedious (and the raw wikicode more messy), we can have the page functioning normally. This can be easily done with an automated script, by the way. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benlisquare - I see no problem with that. I know another approach I've seen would be to split the list into 2 articles as well - something like "List of PlayStation Vita games (A-M) and List of PlayStation Vita games (N-Z) (or wherever a split would make the most sense.) Either way, its up to you. Usually, it seems like these sorts of lists are usually just maintained by an editor or two, and aren't the type to be brought to "Good" or "Featured" status, so, with little opposition out there, you're probably free to take some liberties on the approach. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SCE Japan Studio page protection

An anonymous user keeps re-adding his (badly written and formatted) version on the SCE Japan Studio article. It doesn't seem neutral and it has TM symbols for every game, so since I've reverted him around 3 times, I'm proposing that the article be protected for a bit, if possible, thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Do what you can to discuss though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try next time, but I don't think the user will respond. The edits he keeps reverting too look like a copypasted pamphlet about the company or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand, I just mean, if there's proof somewhere that you at least tried to start a discussion, then that usually alleviates you if any blame or trouble in edit warring/content disputes. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest

I was checking the new pages for video games and I noticed that two articles, Tom Kudirka and 2015, Inc., were made by User:Tomkudirka, which has me thinking there's a COI on these articles. Thoughts? GamerPro64 21:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Going by File:Tom_wiki.png, he claims to be the photo's copyright holder and then states the photo's "author" as Tom Kudirka. Questionable.. Яehevkor ✉ 21:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a COI, definitely. The article definitely has some "puffery" going on too. ("some of the most talented developers") Also, a lot of parts are unsourced. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So should I take this to AfD or nominate it for Speedy deletion as advertisement? GamerPro64 22:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can always try a speedy, and if it fails, send it to AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GamerPro64 - So, it looks like both speedies failed. Looking through the sources a little closer, there does seem to at least be an attempt to claim he's notable, so I suppose that makes sense. Its up to you if you want to nominate them for AFD. I don't think they'd survive, honestly, but I'm also content personally with just hacking up the article to remove all the promotional content too. Your call. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, 2015, inc. wasn't made by the user. That was an error in my part so I undid my speedy tag. I think User:Hakken, the creator of the article, could improve on it for the better. like taking out the MobyGames citations and replace them with reliable source. I might pursue an AfD on the individual, though. GamerPro64 15:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advocate a redirect of the individual to the company too, if you think the company is notable enough to maintain having its own article. The only reason I didn't do it sooner was that I kind of thought they'd both be deleted. I admit I haven't looked into "2015 Inc." much though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editor on Sega related articles continues to ignore issues on the talk page

I'm sure you remember Tripple-ddd, the editor that has had multiple people reverting his mass changes on Sega related articles. Well, recently he states that since he "Hasn't got a response on the talk page...", that somehow gives him the right to continue to ignore what he's been told to stop doing. If you just take a gander at the Sega article talk page, you will see the massive walls of texts dating back months in which we try to help he see what he continues to do wrong, so he's wrong when he says this and is just edit warring at this point. We're all getting tired of babysitting him and reverting his edits that clearly go against consensus set on that talk page, so I'm wondering if something else can be done? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very tired of dealing with him as well. You're like the third person to complain, and all of them have been warranted. Blocked for a week. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

I've just baked a batch of brownies (OK, Sainsbury's did; I just bought them! =D) and thought of you; hope you enjoy them, they're nut free. Kandiwell 22:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thank you Kandiwell. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox360

Question, I'm an old WP user, as you can tell by my account, but you were proposing deleting the section showing that the xbox one game console was using deceptive tactics to market their game device, why? I mean I feel that is a major important milestone, if nothing else it would be like mentioning Microsoft without mentioning the misteps of Windows ME.Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because no reliable sources cover it in any of the ways people are trying to use it in the article, and no one has given a counter-proposal that didnt sound like they had an axe to grind against Microsoft. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly for the record, why is Gawker media considered reliable, when they are being sued in the the United States for behavior that was slanderous, Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VG/S for the complete list of sources that are currently deemed usable or non-usable. Gawker Media isn't listed there as always being reliable - that's not the current stance. Kotaku specifically is usable, but even then, there's the "you need to be cautious when using it" type clauses with it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rise

Are you the paige owner of rise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderdisk 93 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Rise Against? Wikipedia doesn't have page "page owners", but I do mediate conflicts there, yes. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete my page if you find an error, correct it. If you want to know more about me Google my name.

Tom Kudirka

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=668235593"