User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America)

Hey, likewise, McDoobs has no business instructing me to find any sources for him. And you have no business scolding me. Norrk (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling people to provide sources on Wikipedia. ~~|~

He's back

Please review this edit. --McDoobAU93 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. If you find him again, feel free to keep letting me know. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

By the by, I do kinda agree with APL on the Genesis talk page that maybe an unINVOLVED editor should have made the block. But it does look like you have clear evidence of bad behavior, and INVOLVED editors can act in that regard, especially now with block evasion. --McDoobAU93 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was contemplating not doing it. I almost blocked him when he repeatedly altered my edits. But once it went to blatant canvassing, I felt it went into the any reasonable admin clause of it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's true. He's definitely being disruptive, and I think his behavior is pretty clear-cut. --McDoobAU93 19:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I already reverted his edit on the WPVG talk page as block evasion. --McDoobAU93 19:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Gamespot and Gamedaily

Hi Sergecross 73. I've found these two cites Gamespot and Gamedaily and i've found two lists there. top 25 capcom characters of all time in gamedaily and top 10 videogame villains in gamespot and akuma is in both lists. Are those two cites reliable about that stuff . I mean would you mind if i add that information in akuma's reception? Thanks, DisturbedAsylum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disturbedasylum (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes, both of those sources are typically considered reliable sources, so I would think that they would work just fine. You can ask me as much as you want, I don't mind, but there's also a reference guide on which sources are considered to be reliable or unreliable for video game related content at WP:VG/S. It doesn't cover everything, but certainly a lot of them. (You can see that both GameSpot and GameDaily are on there in the "reliable" subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!

For fixing one of my silly mistakes, I give you this!

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi Sergecross73/Archive 11, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! buffbills (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. (It's nice to hear, it seems like far too many edits are with people who want to argue endlessly recently...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

blocking the IP at Mega Drive

I finally checked the talk page of the disruptive IP, User talk:85.211.203.66, and was surprised to see your user id there. As an involved party in the dispute isn't it best to find an uninvolved admin to review the situation and decide whether to block? I'm personally pleased with this block but I'm not sure it was proper. But, more importantly, I think it's critical that uninvolved admins to make these calls. --B2C 16:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said to the others at the discussion itself, I held back in blocking the IP when it was more subjective "being disruptive", but as soon as it crossed over into "blatant canvassing", I felt it fell into the any reasonable admin clause of INVOLVED (third paragraph). Consider the same person came back as another IP, and continued their canvassing, instead of making any effort to defend their actions as "not canvassing", makes me think that this person wasn't here to be constructive, and that it was a good block.

Let me know if you need specific difs, or want to talk this over any further. It wasn't meant to be an abuse of admin power, but rather cutting to the chase of the IP wasting everyone's time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That canvassing was so blatant it suggested ignorance about WP's rule about using neutral language in such posts and warranted a warning. Even if he had been warned about that in the past (which I don't see on the talk page), I feel very strongly that any non-emergency block decision must be made by an uninvolved admin. --B2C 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

From that 3rd paragraph:

Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

--B2C 17:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• It wasn't just the language, it was the targets. I looked through the contributions of the three people he contacted, and they all expressed sentiments that favored his argument. As such, I was trying to prevent the RFC from turning into a circus, as it certainly has in the past over the subject, something that would have likely influenced things away from the Speedy Close that everyone, yourself included, was requesting.
• Both that IP, and another (who may very well have been a sock/meat puppet) both had expressed that they "had been here a long time" and "knew about policy" when discussing various points with them. That, again, the fact that, when he came back as another IP, and instead of saying "Hey wait, what's canvassing?", continued to do the same thing, makes me think the IP knew better. He didn't comment on his talk page, he chose to block evade. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand your reasoning. I just think an uninvolved admin may have reasonably chosen to warn for canvassing before blocking for canvassing, and that, as an involved editor, it was not your place to make that call. For future reference... Thanks. --B2C 23:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be sure that my future blocks are so cut and dry, black and white correct that we won't need to waste our time with these discussions. Thank you for your concern. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, he's back at his canvassing and causing chaos at that RFC. You've had much to say on how to handle it last time around, so I'll let you handle this as you please. Best of luck. Sergecross73 msg me 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nano Assault Neo

Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could help me out on my very first article, Nano Assault Neo. (Please contribute if you can; it supports Off-TV Play!) I haven't had any problems with it passing the notability guidelines or anything, but I need some assistance adding a link to the Japanese Wikipedia article on it: JA:NANO ASSAULT. I haven't been able to use the new(ish) 'central data repository' so if you'd be able to help adding the link it would be appreciated. Thanks! DarkToonLink (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I suppose people see right through me; I do love my gaming to be handheld, Off TV Play, or Remote Play, so that is a good way to get my attention! I'll gladly give you general help with the article (it looks pretty good for it being your first article!) However, I've never really worked with any of the inter-wiki stuff, so I can't really help you there... (Last I heard, I thought I understood it as they didn't need to be manually added anymore, but rather it would be added automatically. But since I never really messed around with that stuff to begin with, I could have understood it wrong.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done Saw that you had to be logged on across all Wikimedia projects to make such an addition. My username is unified, so I went in and made the addition. It's appearing in the page now! --McDoobAU93 01:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, I was hoping that, if something could be done, perhaps a "talk page stalker" of mine could help. Thank you, McDoob! Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It does work pretty well ... you tell it what Wiki you want to link to, then give the page's name at that Wiki (in this case, NANO ASSAULT). As you type, it works like the search bar, displaying best matches to what you enter. The system says it takes a few minutes to link, but the Nihongo inter-wiki link appeared instantly on the English article. And I agree, this article is off to a good start, and it's got me interested in the game, too, as I love twin-stick games like Robotron 2084 and Geometry Wars! --McDoobAU93 02:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! DarkToonLink (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Tales

Thanks a bunch for the compliment. Keep up the good work yourself on the Tales pages or whatever else you're working on. Nall (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Iron Man 3: The Official Game Armors

You do realize that according to the rules of Wikipedia, an article is meant to help a reader, and this therefore helps a reader in the game. Adding the armors section is like adding a maps section to any other article of a video game on Wikipedia, therefore it is allowed to be added. Especially since the armors a very major part of the game, assuming that you have played it and know this.Brian82027 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm rather irritated that, after I went through extensive work saving the article you created from being deleted, (no thanks to you, who failed to even leave a valid reason to keep it), that now you're going to lecture me about what the point of Wikipedia is. Had I not stepped in, at the rate things were going, the article would have been eliminated in a "merge", and we wouldn't have anything to work with. This is largely because you did such a poor job of writing the article in the first place. So don't lecture me on how to write an article.
• We don't just add whatever "helps" the reader, which is both subjective and vague. We follow guidelines. We're an encyclopedia; we write descriptions of games. But We don't write game guides on how to play games. And in video game articles we don't add lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Iron man's armor obviously falls into this category. You'll notice that no video game articles have lists of weapons or armors or various items. It doesn't matter "how much it helps readers" or "how necessary it is to the game" you'll notice there's no list of weapons usuable in Final Fantasy 8 or armors collectible in Mass Effect 2. (You'll note these examples are Features Articles -- the highest quality of Wikipedia article. Not a single chart like you're proposing.
• I'm asking you now, to stop re-adding that into the article. If you don't, then I'll open up discussion at WP:VG on it, and I'm pretty certain we'll find a consensus there that it needs to be removed, and if you go against that decision, you'll be blocked for disruptive editing. Its up to you if you want to wrap this up quickly, or waste time arguing about it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay look, I know that you have nothing better to but stare at your computer, but one of the only reasons I created the article was to show the armors, so why don't YOU stop lecturing me about the Wikipedia. Just because you're an admin, and you think you're so awesome living in your basement doesn't mean you get to make the big decisions on articles that you didn't start and how no one asked for your help.Brian82027 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that the "lecturing on Wikipedia" started with you, when you started saying "according to the rules of wikipedia, an article is meant to help a reader, which is ironic, because it appears you have very little understanding of the rules of Wikipedia. As it is, because it appears the very reason you created the article go against Wikipedia Guidelines.
• You comments about living in a basement are so far off base they aren't offensive.
• Have it your way. We'll start a discussion up about it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the source

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/05/nintendo-and-sega-agree-on-exclusive-partnership/

My bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeminglySubdued (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:TornadoCreator

Could use your assistance at History of video game consoles (eighth generation) with a user insisting that VGchartz is a reliable source (to the point of 3RR). Completely unwillingness to discuss changes or even begin to consider the source unreliable. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that - this actually appears to be under control for the time being. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I would have helped you. Let me know if issues regarding this come up again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TheUnknownNinjaNN2

Would you mind helping me reason with this user? He keeps insisting that his arbitrary, unsourced, and somewhat messy edit on Bowser (character) is actually cited or notable because "it implies so in the game" and the addition "changes the air of the character." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Today looks like it may be a busy day, and it looks like at the moment you've got it under control as far as the actual article goes. Here's my thought; next time he adds a troubling edit (I completely agree with what you're doing, his edits aren't warranted as is.) start up a new subsection about him/his OR on the article talk page, and I'll jump in and try to get through to him. At best, we'll get through to him, at worst, there's likely to be a defined consensus against him. Sound okay? Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, this person has exhausted my patience. He can't be reasoned with and is constantly twisting/ignoring all points made against him. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Luckily, between the other users he's arguing with in his contribs, and his posts on WP:VG, he's made himself and his lack of understanding public knowledge. I don't think he'll be able to get away with many bad edits. I'll keep an eye on him as well. I don't blame you for tiring of his antics, he seems to enjoy arguing just for the same of being difficult. Let me know if it looks like he's done something wrong and I've missed it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not true. I am not trying to be difficult. Oh my... you are geniuses. Using OR on me to point out my error. Problem is that I don't always realize that it is OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Its fine that you don't understand OR at first, it can take time. The problem is that experienced users are telling you you're doing it, and you fight with them every step of the way rather than trying to learn/understand it. Also, your stance of "write first, come up with sources later" is backwards to how things are done here, and probably part of the reason you don't understand OR very well. Start with a source, and base your writing around that. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was having trouble explaining myself. I don't mind being told it can't go in an article. What I was discussing is how my actual statement was wrong. Besides, if I see something in the game, and I look sources to prove it, then how us it backwords. I am finding cites to effectively support my "psuedo-OR" (since true OR cannot be backed up). I like to determine the details of storylines in videogames, hence I right about them. Besides, what is wrong with being backwards in my methods? In the end I get the same result: acceptable or unacceptable (as long as I determine what requires research{cause articles might not cover everything in their cites})

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel like it'd be easier for you to avoid OR if you start with sources. Then you'd be more likely to stick to the useable information in the source, and less likely to veer off into your own personal observations. Anyways, I'm tired of debating this with you. If you've got specific questions, feel free to post them at my talk page, and either I, or one of my buddies who watch my talk page, can help. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it help to post a question as to wether the article already supports it before I go hunting for cites uselessly? Is that allowed? Also, how do people usually write articles? They have to have something to go on when editing, right?

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The first thing I do when I create a new article, is pull up 4 or 5 sources that I'm certain are considered reliable sources. WP:VG/RS has a large list of ones that are always useable, or useable in certain scenarios. Then, I write the article, making sure that virtually everything I say, is also said somewhere/somehow in a source. Additionally, I always pretend like I'm explaining the game to a family/friend/co-worker who knows nothing about video games. That's the best way to make sure you're not getting into WP:TRIVIA/WP:GAMECRUFT territory. Pretend you're explaining the game to your Dad, who hardly knows what a "Nintendo" is. If you think he'd be confused about it, or his eyes would glaze over in boredom, then it's probably a sign that its not meant for general audiences, and doesn't belong in the article... Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding on the current "discusssion" at Talk:Super Mario (series)‎, I think bringing up "Nintendo Land vs Nintendo Nightmare" indicates it will not be going anywhere productive anytime soon. He's not even trying to be reasonable. I feel that any further attempt to continue the discussion on his part should be seen as disruptive editing at this point. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't planning on responding anymore. His arguments are ludicrous and would never gain consensus, so its pointless to argue anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

He's now claiming I have "subject prejudice". I've tried to assume good-faith for the past month, but I've had enough. I'm sorry, but the guy is completely incompetent and should not be on Wikipedia. Nearly every edit of his has been non-constructive and he shows no signs of improving or listening to anyone. He has no true interest in improving the encyclopedia and it is obvious he only wants to advertise his fan projects. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning you issued

Hi Sergecross. I saw your very applicable comment on Peter Somerville's talk page after I warned him for his disruptive editing. I just discovered that you had previously given him this final warning on May 31, in which told him you'd block him if he did it one more time. Well, he's done it several more times since then, including multiple times just yesterday. Apparently, he doesn't care because he's ignored not only an admin's warning (yours), but also the three or four other warnings from various editors. And he's obviously read all the prior warnings because he removed all of them from his talk page very quickly after receiving them. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but he was getting better for a bit. I was curious to see what he had to say for himself first. Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But the problem is that he was promised a block on the next occurrence. Also, not only has he never communicated with anyone who's warned him, his edit summaries when removing those warnings included "Rm trolling", "Rm garbage", and "Yeah yeah". This clearly indicates that he thinks the warnings are a joke and that nothing will happen to him if he disruptively edits. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I know, he's certainly on the thinnest of ice. But he's not very active either, so he's not doing that much damage. Let me know if he makes another unconstructive edit after its clear he ignore my request for an explanation. I think that'll be the tipping point... Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, Serge. I have to give you credit; you appear to be a very calm and patient admin. That's a very good quality. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Serge, Peter Somerville has responded to you and I. Based on his explanation, I really think following through with your promised block is now warranted. IMO, he is clearly playing games or has no basic editing common sense. Either way, he's a disruptive editor who's ignored all warnings. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It has been addressed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Serge, I saw your very helpful comments to Peter Somerville today. However, the fact that he told me to "fuck off" in response to the mild (not templated) warning I gave him, not to mention that he defiantly still insists that his edit was proper, are behaviors that clearly warrant an extension of the block. We cannot allow editors to go around telling other editors to fuck off, especially when there's absolutely no provocation for it. Based on all of the above, I would ask that you please extend the block unless the editor acknowledges two things: (1) that he cannot talk that way to another editor, and (2) that he understands why the fan site is not a reliable source and promises to follow the WP:RELIABLE guidelines. Otherwise, the message you'll be sending to him is that he can get away with that type of inappropriate behavior. Does this sound reasonable? Thanks. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a pretty terrible response, I agree. However, his other warnings were for NPOV and disruptive editing. Technically he hasn't been warned for WP:NPA yet. He's now at final warning for both, and I do agree with you that his response to things from here out may affect things as well. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, he has removed the block template and your block-related comments (and everything else). Is that enough to extend it? And remove his talk page access? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, he'll edit productively if he decides to return. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about Soap?

He actually didcussed it with me on the Irc wikipedia page, and he at least acted like he was quite interested. I thought it would be okay to contact him about it? Did he have some kind of issue?

TheUnknownNinjaNN2(Talk,Always willing to discuss this subject) 04:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, its not appropriate to be discussing on Wikipedia, whether it be WikiProjects or any talk pages, because its not Wikipedia related. If other users are contacting you about it here, you need another means of contacting each other. Exchange emails or something. It does not belong here. Sergecross73 msg me 11:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I said I played the game and it looked well-made but it wasnt really my type of game. I understand you want help but asking me for advice or help is like me asking you what I should wear tomorrow. —Soap— 22:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for starting the Super Mario 3D World article! Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 08:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was surprised I was the first one to do so, but I think I was the only one who started writing it while the Nintendo Direct was still on-going... Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

?

You shouldn't judge or talk bad about the person behind "Hydao" because he "helped" you with this article BreakThru! (video game). Now imagine someone like gvnayr, who created and edited hundreds of articles like that, with incorrect/innacurate/silly info, don't you think it's frustrating? Well, whatever, who fucking cares right? Bye! :) --88.214.164.189 (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Was it bad? I just found it confusing, the contradiction and all. Hydao could contribute when he wanted to, but he sure got obsessed about others habits, so much so that he was completely oblivious to his own... Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Lol, it was me (ex-user:Hydao) who left the message. What contradiction? Maybe I'm obsessed yes, obsessed in NOT wanting to read false information, do you understand? I (and other readers too) was fooled by his additions many times. many... countless. erm, for example, the article you edited was innacurate and had some terribly false information, but it was totally OK, I remember I sent you a friendly message saying about what was wrong, you know, just "working" and helping. I do like sharing CORRECT information. but gvnayr, NO, he's an ass, he's doing these things systematically, however he is still allowed to fool the readers with his stupid additions. I was fooled many times. he's lame, what to do? I don't know why you Wiki-users are "protecting" him, I think it is extremely weird... I don't give a damn crap about the Hydao account or whatever, I just don't want to be fooled by losers like him. is that so bad? am i asking too much? Cheers. --188.140.33.162 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know who you are. The contradiction is that you complain this person isn't productive with their life, meanwhile, here you are, spending your time talking about him and harassing other Admin, on a website you're currently banned from. This sort of acting out just makes yourself look bad, and you're not making any progress on what you mean to do. (You're blocked, while the person you take issue with, is still freely editing, right?) There's so many better ways to get results; forming a consensus against the edits, RFC, ANI, etc etc. Yet you chose to go on a bunch of tirades and harass the user. Your route is the worst, you exert a ton of energy, get an atrocious reputation so that no one takes him seriously, and gets no results. There's just no reasonable justification for it. That's the contradiction. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everthing you just said, I certainly made a silly mistake, and I admit it. I have already discussed this many times before, and it seems that you guys (some of you) don't want to listen and only give importance to the fact that I said simply... the sad truth about that creature. I did not invent anything, it's all true, and things are to be said as they are. Indeed this is all a waste of time, because nothing will change. Nothing. "The Greatest Wikipedian" will vandalize Wikipedia until mid-2030 lol, or whatever. And honestly, I don't want to "interact" more here, if I want to make an useful edit, I will still make it. I will make it for the Humanity. Do I need an freaking account to make edits? No. It's better being 100% anonymous. Take care. --46.50.42.211 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If you agree, then I hope you'll let this go then. Please. Nothing will change the way you're going about things anyways, you're just making more work for people largely unrelated to him. (Like me.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I will "let it go" when this gvnayr case/problem is solved for once and all. Blocking Hydao and IP's are not the solution, and pretty useless and waste of time. At least user Jtalledo (which I respect) has some decency and opened that case, now I want to see how it ends. --88.214.165.236 (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just know that all the name calling and mudslinging that you're doing is only hurting the process, it distracts people from getting to the heart of the real issue at hand, and it makes people take your case less seriously. For the record, I'm not blocking you out of defense of this person, but rather, No Personal Attacks and Block Evasion are non-negotiable things that need to be followed here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) called me a "predator" and I can feel offended too (or not?), actually I took that as an offense and personal attack. Well, ok, I'm the Predator then, and he is Billy, how about that? Billy is athletic though... Salvidrim is the one who started sending me YouTube messages/comments more than a year ago, but now he says: "I don't read YT messages. Nice one... I'm off now, and sorry for the trouble, Sergecross73. --188.140.45.255 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ouya

And there is consensus that the Gamestick is Ouya's "Main" competitor? Even though neither one is even out yet? You revert my edit which is more factually correct back to something which is even worse. Instead of reverting it back to the worse thing you should have just removed that as well. There was no citation for it. --Teabeard (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the content about GameStick if you disagree with it. I'm indifferent to it. All I know is that there wasn't consensus for your change. If you don't like it, you remove it. That's on you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

Is The Video Game Critic a RS for reviews? I've seen it used in a number of articles, but I'm not sure it meets Wikipedia standards.76.222.59.241 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I dont believe it is considered reliable. You could check through the history/archives of WP:VG/S to see if its been discussed much before. Any context for the situation? I couldn't check your edit history to see where this was an issue... Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been an issue for me personally. I've just seen it cited in articles, such as Metroid and Sonic Triple Trouble, and was concerned because the website appears to be self-published. I've been unable to find any discussion about this matter, but aren't self-published sources inherently unreliable?76.222.59.241 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he's just a random guy, right? Technically, no, he probably shouldn't be used. I think what happens is, he tends to cover older games sometimes, that don't have a ton of sources online (because majority of the sources are back in printed magazines from the 90s, which few editors have access to) since there aren't many sources out there, and the articles don't get many viewers, I think no one really bothers to remove them. Since there aren't many sources on such games, I don't actively remove them unless they say something questionable. But, if anyone else contests them, like you, I wouldn't argue...

Okay, thanks.76.222.59.241 (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I misread that source :)

On the Ouya: When I saw the change, I thought he both mentioned kickstarter and linked to kickstarter, haha. My brain kind of skipped over the IGN part. -Kai445 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I kind of figured as much, which was why I didn't bother opening up a discussion on the talk page or anything. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Operation Red Hat

Can you review the justification for Deletion of Operation Red Hat, the Discussion for banning me and the the claims of providing mis-information. The accusations stated are not valid. Thanks Johnvr4 (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't follow the whole scenario, I was merely pointing out that, you said the article's deletion was unjustified, but the consensus on the deletion discussion was clearly for delete. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PCMag source

Where do you see 5GB mentioned in a chart at PCMag? I only see it mentioned in prose, and in such a way that PCMag is just reiterating what Game Informer reported – not providing additional verification or analysis. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, it doesn't. I think I didn't look closely enough. I think I combined the 8GB Memory with the 500GB from the hard drive size below, and thought I saw 5BG. I'll revise my statement. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. The biggest red flag to me is the fact that there are hundreds of reviews out there (some in the last couple days) that don't mention the 5GB limit. I find that strange, especially when the articles are focusing on comparing the PS4 to the Xbox One. You would think this would be too big of a factor to neglect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sonic 3D

Dear Sergecross73, could you please enlighten me by telling me what that first bold date is supposed to be? Is it for the first world wide release, the first English speaking relase, the first North American relase or the first US-American release?
If it is the first North American or US-American release, then you are right, but then the English wikipedia is biased and US-centric again.
If it is the first world wide or English speaking release, then it's just November again till more information is found, maybe cf. User talk:Yodonothav#June 2013. -Yodonothav (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The link was to IGN, not IGN UK, so I'm guessing its the US release. I'm not sure why you're trying to bring "bias" into this, you removed a release date, and I re-added with a reliable source. If you have some concerns, try doing some basic Google searches for this kind of stuff, its usually not hard to find, rather than resorting to whatever a Wikia says, which isn't usable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is the US release date, at least for Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and the price is US-American, too (USD).
Well, could you please tell me what the first bold date is supposed to be? Is it the date when the game was first released anywhere in the world whatever the language is (possibly in some non-English language like Japanese in some non-English speaking country like Japan), or the date when the first English version was released (which could have been in a usually non-English speaking country like Japan or Russia), or the date when it was first released in any English speaking region (North America, Australia, UK/GB), or the date when the game was released in North America or the USA?

To illustrate the question: picture. In this example the first mentioned date in bold is the date when the game was first released world wide and when it was first released in North America as the dates are the same. In The Legend of Zelda (video game) the first date (which isn't bold there though) is the date when the game was first released anywhere in the world (in this case, it was in a Japanese/English mix in Japan). So the first mentioned date is the date when the game was first released anywhere in the world, isn't it? -Yodonothav (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC), added: 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it's not something I usually even use in articles I've created/rewritten. (I usually just list out the release dates and leave it at that.) You can ask at WP:VG or check through things like WP:VG/GL and see if its stated. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Then can't I simply claim that the first mentioned date is the date when a game was first released anywhere in the world? [Just a rhetoric question, of course.] At least for Zelda that is, how it is in the article. As one could claim that Zelda 1 is mix of English and Japanese in the Japanese version, then here is Z:ALttP where the Japanese version was and is in Japanese. So this existing article proofs or implies that the first mentioned date is the date, when the game was first released anywhere in the world.

Now to repeat myself: By accepting that the European version of Sonic 3D was released in November and by stating that the first release of Sonic 3D anywhere in the world was the 30 November of the same year, one claims that the European version was released on 30 November too (as there is no 31 November). As no source was given, it's WP:OR. I instead simply accept that the game was (with some skepticism: most likely) released in November (ie. 30 in North America and at this time unknown/unsourced in Europe, so it could be the any date between 1 and 30). As the concret European day is at this time unknown/unsourced, it's all we have. Conclusion, at this time: The first release of Sonic 3D anywhere in the world was in November [1996].

Also again: For this argumentation it's completely irrelevant what some wikia states as it isn't used here and as I know that it (like many other sources) is no reliable source.

-Yodonothav (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since we have a source that gives the full release date for the Saturn version, it would appear this is the earliest definitive date for any release of the game on any version and in any market (the citation specifically mentions the Sega Saturn version in North America). If a source appears stating that the European market release for any version falls earlier than that, and not just a broad "November 1996", then I certainly would advocate for changing the date to that release. In the general hierarchy of dates, Day/Month/Year trumps Month/Year, which trumps Year. I don't detect any nation-centrism here at all. --McDoobAU93 00:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Might be missing something here, but Template:Infobox VG is the guideline we should be using; it states that the "bold" release date is the first date the game was released. Яehevkor ✉ 09:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with McDoob that we should go with the earliest definitive release date. ("November" isn't a release date. It's a release timeframe.) Find a reliable source that says a European date earlier than that, and we'll use that instead. (Thanks for the confirmation, Rehevkor.) This approach strikes me as a good compromise, and the fact that I'm willing to do that should calm any of those unfounded bad faith claims of favoring a certain region. If you disagree, start up a discussion on the article's talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User: Peter Somerville

Want to WP:AGF, but this user is also editing using the IP address User:5.64.13.6 and is also User:Agendapedia. Edit patterns (over the top NPOV, and similar edits on Babylon Zoo and Eoghan Quigg articles) are exactly the same as his the use of "I've got this" on edit summaries. Just a heads up. I don't have time to fill out a WP:SPI, sorry. --Yankees76 ^Talk 14:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am. My browser is set to erase all cookies when closed, so I occasionally edit via IP. I will endeavour to use this account at all times from now on. Peter Somerville (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Agendapedia is a fellow student with similar interests. Nothing illegal whatsoever here. Peter Somerville (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yankee76, thanks for the heads up. Peter Somerville, I hope both of you tone down these WP:NPOV violations. At best, majority of your edits are being undone because your word choices are in such bad taste and overtly not neutral. At worst, you'll be blocked for not stopping. Either way, you're not accomplishing anything when you act like this. Please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The choice of language seemed relevant for such critically loathed acts. Peter Somerville (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that your word choices are way over the top. If reviewers are saying that, then feel free to quote them, but you can't be inserting your own 2 cents into articles like that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also suggest you at least fact check your edits before posting. Incorrect edits like these [1], [2], [3] border on vandalism and do nothing but waste other editors' time reverting them. Yankees76 ^Talk 14:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are all terrible edit choices. If Peter returns to those sort of edits today, after my warnings today, he will be blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some of the edits were journalistic, i.e. 'vilifying reception', personally i don't see a problem with 'very unfavourable' in the reviews box, i have seen this before whilst browsing albums in the past. We generally have a shared interest in critical failures, one hit wonders etc. I personally don't think articles such as List of films considered the worst, List of films considered the best etc should be allowed on wiki, but the community has accepted them, regardless of the unverifiable original research that they project. It's unavoidable that we should stray away from a neutral standpoint with such articles on offer. Agendapedia (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not different than how we don't use "Amazing" or "Hated" in the charts. Its a standardization thing. Just a quick reference. As far as those articles, they have been accepted because the media themselves have been referred to as such by reliable sources. That's okay. Its not okay when you're using your own personal judgments, which is what much of your two edits boil down to. You need to rely more on what the sources are saying, and less on blazing through the thesaurus to find another outlandish way to call something bad. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see major issues with edits like this [[4]], which, like the edits to the Stone Roses, Radiohead and Japan pages are not only unencyclopedic (the failure of a single to chart is never a "cataclysmic disaster"), but are also incorrect as according to Discogs [5], the single appears to only have been released in the US and Australia - making it's failure to chart in the UK and Canada an irrelevant point and hardly a disaster (especially considering it came out almost a year after Steal My Sunshine). To me this just shows zero grasp on the subject matter. Yankees76 ^Talk 17:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the more I dig up, the worse the editings appears to be. Commentary like this is unacceptable on a number of levels as well. I'm issuing a final warning. Any more of this will result in a block. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Peter Somerville has again added trashed another musician. I found this with STiki and the notification is on his talk page. Thanks, Surfer43 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

While its debatable that he needed to add that to the person's opening paragraph, its not nearly as in bad taste as his other edits. It does seem like that album was not well received, so I don't think he's out of line when he words it like that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The disruptive edits continue: [6].Yankees76 ^Talk 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Also just a heads up, but it's very likely that he's evading his block and editing as User:5.64.47.4 (pretty much same IP as above). Yankees76 ^Talk 13:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Where at? If its consistently one page, then I can at least protect it. Also, his block runs out tomorrow, so he may be back to his name after that... Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

They're all on the same Babylon Zoo related articles that Peter Somerville regularly edits in the pattern above. Notably The Boy with the X-Ray Eyes. I would have let you know yesterday but I didn't notice you extended his block to a full week and figured he just forgot to log in again. Probably no need to protect the page - but he should be made aware that being blocked means being unable to edit from any account - IP included. 17:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC) ‎

These guys just don't quit, and I've uncovered another account User:Bluidsports - wether sock or meatpuppet, I don't know (and based on the edits, there is no difference). See the edit history for Deep Blue Something, in particular these edits: [7] and [8]. Frankly, I'm getting tired of going around removing these WP:NPOV violations (2 reverts today). Yankees76 ^Talk 14:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought one of them alluded to being in dorms in a college or something. Perhaps all their buddies are into trashing random musicians or something. At any rate, while debatable, seems to be in better faith, as they did search out a source, and PS is no longer block evading, so I think I'd file this one more under "annoying" than "actionable". But by all means, keep letting me know when stuff like this happens. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And it continues: [9]. Calling an ablum that charted at #6 an album that was met with little interest and a "flop". My main issue is both accounts continue to use tabloids or non music press as mains sources to make strong claims on material that ultimately is given undue weight in the articles they're editing. Yankees76 ^Talk 12:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a great word choice, but they have found sources for what they're saying, so I don't feel like its totally unjustified. They both need to learn how to present their information a little better, I'm torn, they're finding sources, but its still thinly-veiled POV pushing too... Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree they're finding sources (wether they're reliable or not is another matter) - but as I noted, they're using WP:PUS tabloids like the Daily Mirror and 1-paragraph reviews in small town weekly newspapers to push their viewpoints or support their original research (often ending up in the lead). And edits like this [10] - are just adding WP:OR in the same vein as the Britney Spears edits above. I'm not sure what I'm asking you to do about it, but I feel like this is a least a good spot to track this. Yankees76 ^Talk 13:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, keep tracking it, and letting me know about the worse ones. Challenge them on talk pages if you doubt the source's validity; I work with video game and music articles, and while I'm familiar with almost all video game sources and their reliability, there are far more music sources that I'm unfamiliar with. I'll drop AP a talk page message too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think it's going to be an issue as they begin to edit more heavily-watched articles, and begin to more widely meatpuppet each others work (especially on AFDs - which they've already started doing [11]). Yankees76 ^Talk 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh and a 4th account from the same "dorm" - User:PC7705. Edits the same articles (Eoghan Quigg, New Radicals), All I Ever Wanted (The Human League song), Afroman same AFD, and worse the same edits ("known principally" [12]. Yankees76 ^Talk 13:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel like it's time I had some input in this discussion. Some of Yankees points are justified, but a lot of them are weak. Sometimes I feel as if he just does not like what is being said about an artist he has a close affiliation to. I agree that adding a Sunday Mercury sentence to deride The Boy with the X-Ray Eyes is somewhat clutching at straws. What is evident is that I am working hard at locating sources such as in these examples: [13], [14], [15]. Not all sources can be considered top quality. I agree that some tabloids present viewpoints that tend towards impartial journalism, however you will notice that most edits supported by citations from The Free Library are usually employed for specifying information as in these edits: [16], [17]. Indeed Yankees reverted the latter edit seemingly because it didn't have an author. Although not a reliable source, it does say at babylonzoo.net that "Spaceman" was the fastest selling single since the Beatles' "Can't Buy Me Love". I felt the Daily Mirror was a reasonable source to corroborate this fact. Agendapedia (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mirror is not a WP:RS, and is specifically called out in WP:PUS. Also, read the articles you edit you'll notice that the Babylon Zoo already has the fastest selling claim that is sourced from Allmusic (and it further verifies why the Daily Mirror is not a reliable source, since they have both the wrong claim and the wrong sales figure). In your haste to post sensationalistic, derisive, and non neutral point of view material, you overlook the rest of the material that has already been added by other editors - which disrupts the project and doesn't improve upon the articles you're contributing to. Yankees76 ^Talk 14:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, you guys have gotten better, and are using sources now, its just that your set up still needs a little tweaking.

• For instance, in this edit, you make the claim which was clearly a mechanism to boost sales. Even if a source is supporting this, to make such a bold claim, you need to have the right context. Something more along the lines of which was something Nicola Sloan of More Than the Music felt was a mechanism to boost sales. Unless you've got official word from the artist, you can't make the general claim like that.
• Additionally, as I've said before, as long as your user name is "Agendapedia" and almost all of your edits are centered around adding negative commentary to articles, people are going to accuse you guys of "POV pushing". You're little group is still being rather blatant if people bother to pay attention... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)