Wikipedia

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 44

< User talk:Sergecross73
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Sergecross73 in topic Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 17#Front covers of Star Ocean (video game)
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 → Archive 50

Nice article

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Was thinking of starting a draft for Exist Archive, then realized you had already created the article, so great job! Which reminds me that I really need to buy myself a Vita with all these interesting games, even if half of them will never head westward... Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I recall having the same situation happening to me with Lost Dimension - I was about to start it up until I saw you had already started up a pretty good article on it. But yeah, considering how often our paths cross on JRPG articles, I bet you'd like a Vita. It's disheartening when games getting passed over for localization, but there's still a ton on it now or scheduled for the future. (Still wishing hard for Exist Archive, Tokyo Xanadu, and Caligula (video game) though.
Side note: I am sorry we don't agree on JFN. I do hate arguing with you, since you do such great work on the project, especially with helping me with the more obscure JRPG stuff. I hope there's no hard feelings. (And I apologize if there are.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No worries mate, I really appreciate your work as well. :) I've been in so much internet arguments on other sites that I'm used to them now, lol, so don't worry there's no hard feelings. :) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Help with moving two pages

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi again. I need help with two uncontroversial moves:

"If" should be capitalized according to MOS:CT, and "Nine" should not be written in all caps according to MOS:TMRULES. I hope it's fine that I ask you directly on your talk page for admin help. Thanks.--IDVtalk 08:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, IDV, I encourage you come to me, I enjoy helping with this sort of thing. I enjoy being faster/easier than the typical notice board (though I apologize I may have been slower this time haha.) My only request is just that you don't freak out on me if I disagree with your proposal, and even then you'd be free to just ask some else, or follow some respective beaurocratic route instead. Sergecross73 msg me 12:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Ha, I don't really think I would "freak out" either way, but yeah, I'd only ask an admin directly if I thought the thing I'm asking for were uncontroversial. Thank you, and no worries about it taking a little longer than usual - we all have lives outside Wikipedia. Cheers.--IDVtalk 12:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Street Fighter V tournament scene info

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I added to the tournament scene section due to the recent announcement that Street Fighter V has surpassed 4,000 entrants at EVO 2016. Please do not revert this due to the fact that this is expanding on the current record that SF5 holds for "Most Entrants for a single game at EVO". Thank you for your cooperation. ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT 18:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

...Why would I remove that...? Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Article titles of generations of video game consoles.

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there,

I've noticed that somebody finally made the effort to update the titles of the various generations of video game consoles to roughly follow Wikipedia guidelines. This has given me renewed hope that Wikipedia still has some semblance of sense about it, and that it is still worth the investment of some time.

I read your comment, and I'm not sure I understand your perspective: It seems that you're saying that the correct process for editing is this:

Article titles should first follow the personal whims of a random editor. If anyone wants to alter them to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on article titles, they must first obtain consensus.

In all honesty (I'm not trying to be smart here, I just don't know how else to put it), I genuinely thought that it was the other way around: I though that article titles should by default follow Wikipedia's guidelines on article titles. Then, if anyone wants to alter them to follow their own personal whims, they must first obtain consensus.

"These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus."

So, following this reasoning (and given that the previous titles didn't particularly meet any of the goals, and outright contradicted three of them), I pointed out that the titles went against most of the guidelines, and then changed them to follow all of the guidelines.

Am I to assume that the whims or random editors are to take primacy over Wikipedia's guidelines? Honestly, to me it seems that this being the case, Wikipedia could end up with some fundamentally illogical and confusing article titles. And with admins such as yourself enforcing such policy, there may be scant hope for improvement.

Guidelines may only be guidelines, and I surely agree that it's not always the best option to follow them—but to outright contradict most of them purely to satisfy the whims of some random editor seems surely to be a misguided practice.

InternetMeme (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to look into this more in order to give a more detailed response, as this happened like 2 years ago, right? But if I recall correctly, the main issue was that you wanted to make a change, people actively opposed your change, and rather than participating in a discussions and getting a clear consensus on it, you repeatedly just went ahead and made the changes anyways. If I remember this right, you did this multiple times, and it seems like you either refused to take part in the discussions, and/or waited just long enough for people to forget about it, and tried to do it without anyone noticing - though you got caught, because they were articles with a high level of visibility. Which is probably why I believe I advised you it was all the more reason to discuss it first - because it affects a lot of other articles and editors.
So in short, the issue was less about how you wanted to title it, and more about how you kept on ignoring some of Wikipedia's core concepts and processes, such as discussing issues, and only making changes if there was a agreement to do so. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so it sounds like I'm correct in my assessment that your view is that article titles should first follow the personal whims of a random editor, and that if anyone wants to alter them to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on article titles, they must first obtain consensus? InternetMeme (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it seems his point of view is that if you move a title, and someone disagrees and moves it back, then it's time to start a move request regardless. This is so that everyone understands clearly what the applicable policies and guidelines would call it, not what your personal interpretation of those guidelines is, nor for you to move war to your reading of such guidelines. --Izno (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Izno is exactly correct. If someone, in good faith, objects to your changes, you must discuss and come to a consensus in order to make the change. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't explain this properly: I had no interest in trying to promote any one person's reading of the guidelines over anyone else's. The thing that I found to be a problem is that the other editor's weren't even willing to acknowledge the guidelines at all, and instead insisted on having a completely arbitrary title that ignored the guidelines, and specifically contradicted half of them. The only reason given was that their title "fitted a narrative" that they felt was important (and in case it's not clear, fitting narratives isn't related to any of the guidelines).
I would have loved to have discussed the guidelines with them, and worked together to come up with a title that we could all agree fitted the guidelines, or explained why they needed to be broken. Alas, I couldn't even convince anyone to take the idea of guidelines seriously—let alone follow them. I have a lot of respect for the foundations of Wikipedia, and I believe that people with more experience than us came up with the guidelines, and while it's obviously important to break some of them occasionally, after a discussion, it's not good practice to ignore them completely.
I obviously went about things the wrong way, and I'm sorry for that. I still don't really know what the correct procedure would have been. I'll spend some time now reading over the discussion archives to see if I can figure it out. Thanks for taking an interest!
InternetMeme (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Generally, if you don't feel that a discussion is getting enough participants commenting on policy, you'd (neutrally) invite a relevant WikiProject to discuss. I can't remember if WikiProject Video Games was involved or not, but beyond that, you can also start up a Request for Comment. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, a Request for Comment sounds like it would have helped! The problem I found was that there were a large number of discussion participants with expertise in video games, but very few with expertise in good article titles. Do you know if there is any group of editors who specialize in article titles (and lead sections too), or anything similar? A group like that would have been very helpful in that discussion. Also, more generally, those are two areas where I see quite a bit of room for improving articles on Wikipedia.
InternetMeme (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, in my experience, WP:VG is one of the most active and knowledgeable WikiProjects in existence, but regardless, when one starts an RFC, you can tag it with "categories" so that it shows up in certain similar RFC discussions for organization. One of them is "Wikipedia style and naming", so in theory, if you restarted discussions on this, you'd want to tag that group for people focused on naming policy. (Along with "Media, the arts, and architecture", which is what I believe video game RFCs generally fall under.) There's more details at the RFC article, specifically here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, in my experience, WP:VG is one of the most active and knowledgeable WikiProjects in existence, ...

Ahh, I think I haven't explained this properly: There are two very separate skill sets in play here. I am in no way questioning the discussion participants' knowledge of video games—in fact, their knowledge in that field is exemplary. The problem I found was with their knowledge of article titles: So although they could have answered practically any question you might have about video games, they didn't know the first thing about the article title guidelines.

In fact, that was pretty much the whole basis for the problem that arose, so it's important that I make that aspect clear: The problem was with the fact that they (1) Didn't have any knowledge of the article title guidelines, (2) Were completely uninterested in learning about or considering any of the article title guidelines—to the extent that they even voted in favour of simply disregarding the guidelines out of hand, and (3) Were skeptical of the possibility that some sort of special skill or knowledge beyond their own may be required in order to formulate a good title for an article.

However, the other group you mentioned:

One of them is "Wikipedia style and naming", so in theory, if you restarted discussions on this, ...

Now this would have been ideal! I'll read up on their project now, but I have a feeling that they would have indeed been perfectly qualified to sort out the problem. However, there's no need to re-start the discussion because recently, as I noted before, another editor has already made the necessary alterations to the article titles to follow the guidelines: In fact, that was the event that re-ignited my faith in the Wikipedia community, and prompted my return to editing.

But if I see any other badly thought-out article titles, I'll be sure to bring them to the attention of the "Wikipedia style and naming" group. Thanks for your help : ) At the end of the day, you've given me some great advice and assistance!

InternetMeme (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

hot cars

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  An MKZ for you!
You funky! FixCop (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks...though, did you mean to give this to me? I don't really do much work in the realm of cars... Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh, would you rather me give you cookies? FixCop (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha, no it's fine, I just meant more that, I wasn't sure where/when we had crossed paths, or what you'd be commending me on, since I don't do much in the way of cars, where as it seems like that's one of your main areas of editing. That's all. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism pt 12

Latest comment: 8 years ago70 comments7 people in discussion

Here's the 12th iteration of Serge's personal WP:AIV. Let me know if you like me to look into any instances that you feel may require warnings, blocks, or page protections. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Banjo-Kazooie (series) could maybe use a brief semiprot. IP continues to readd the unsourced "cancelled" games despite several editors removing the content. -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The anon user 87.112.105.146 (talk) is still adding false information to Super Mario RPG and Taalismaan recently, same thing that was done by 81.158.178.107 (talk). -- Hounder4 11:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked IP, protected both pages. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Let me know if you catch him elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind deleting Adventures of Mana/GA1 and Talk:Adventures of Mana/GA1? Duuuuuu has for some bizarre reason decided to create copies of the main page on them. This isn't even the first time someone saved nonsense on these pages - really weird.--IDVtalk 17:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's very bizarre. Pages deleted. I'll try to leave him a note to stop too... Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, IDV I ended up blocking him altogether, as he had done the same thing to another article, and his contested deletion comment on the talk page (also deleted now) was literally gibberish. I only blocked him for a week, but if it happens again, I'll just block it indefinitely... Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Can you protect List of Mario sports games again? That same IP hopping Mario/Sonic vandal is still at it. Also consider range-blocking 92.40.248.*, 92.40.249.*, 94.197.120.*, 94.197.121.*, 188.29.164.*, 188.29.165.* because he is always on these ranges. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Protected page, blocked some of the individual IPs for now. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Really hate to have to ask this, but I think Dreamcast needs a longer term semiprot. Sales figures still being repeatedly edited by IPs, including ones who have clearly read the prior discussion but refuse to abide by it. -- ferret (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I agree. IPs keep tweaking stuff without discussions. Re-protected again. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Page protection request, this time The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, as a user has resulted to name calling because he can't take the fact not every one of the "hundreds" of GOTY awards the game won is notable. Not to mention there has been edit warring about the genre of fantasy falls under, too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Page protected, IP warned about personal attacks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Blocked by me, mostly reverted by someone else. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Switching sockmaster's account to indefinite. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Page protection request, Trent Richardson. A lot of IP users keep claiming he signed with the Baltimore Ravens, but the actual source they try to use only states that the Ravens planned too, and checking the Ravens roster and transactions list (which you can see is up to date), has no mention of him, meaning he never official signed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    • People are still claiming he signed with the team, when he never did (per the links above, which still don't list him). I think this article needs a permanent semiprot until he does, or at least a month or two, since the only edits on the page since have all been reverted. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Another player that needs a semiprot, Jared Allen. Users keep adding the Vikings in 2016 to the infobox, but one day contracts are never supposed to be considered a real contract. Check here for how many times it's been reverted in the last day or so. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Protected. (Side note - I'm usually at least "conversational" in football...but they do one day contracts? I wasn't aware of that. What's up with that?) Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
          • Yeah, its 100% ceremonial though, as they come after a player retires. I don't believe any money is ever exchanged, and they for sure don't belong in the infobox. Anyway, another article needs protection, Josh Norman (cornerback), just check the edit history for why. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
            • Sorry for another NFL page protection request, but Vernon Adams badly needs one. He has not signed with any team, despite what the article said before I edited it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Protected, but just for a week. I think it looks worse than it is, since that IP takes 7 edits to implement a change each time... Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infinity Ward, month+ semiprot due to 2016 CoD rumor spam. There's been like 3 different rumored names added to the article this month, plus some personnel attacks since I keep reverting. :) -- ferret (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Minecraft: Story Mode has heavy traffic from IPs and SPAs who insert poorly written prose for upcoming episodes. Could use some semiprot or pending changes I think. Good faith edits but nearly everything is ending up reverted. -- ferret (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow, you weren't kidding about that traffic. Was gonna check and see if I had followed a vandal to that article a ways back, but the last 100 edits hardly got me a few days out. Anyways, protected. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not quite as bad, but there's still a lot of IP traffic that gets reverted. I'm not seeing much evidence of IP edits being retained. -- ferret (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • And I was just thinking about how he had been gone a while. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Someone beat me to it. I woulda done the same though. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wii U keeps suffering from different IPs that round the sales up inappropriately. Two digit precision seems to be accepted for unit sales. -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Whoops, I actually missed this, yet was thinking the same thing independently anyways. Protected, there's a lot of bad IP edits lately there anyways ever since its long term protection ended late March. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • RFPP is way backed up. There's an ongoing edit war at 2016 in film between an editor and multiple IPs. Editor reverts as vandalism, but I'm not sure because it appears the IPs are adding actors who died this year, whom have articles... so seems notable? -- ferret (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Someone beat me to it. Sorry, was away for a bit. Looks to be taken care of though? Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I've got no invested interest in this one, I just use the Year in film articles to note what movies are out... :P RFPP was just way backed up so dropped a note here. Like 2+ days to handle the request. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. I'm trying out that "extended protection" there. Let me know if it works or not. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The main IP got blocked by someone else, and the disruption has stopped momentarily. If it starts up again, let me know and I'll go ahead and protect it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Just had to remove this, so it might need another one soon. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow, I don't even know what to do with that guy. A lot of it looks just like someone really struggling to "get" Wikipedia, but I have a hard time thinking this edit was in good faith either. I've left a comment on their talk page for now, and will probably act depending on their response... Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Busy week... Cube World is seeing some repeated vandalism from multiple IPs/SPAs. -- ferret (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Another 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:7999:BB92:4382:F426 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Latest false info guy: 86.131.32.56 (talk) – still adding false information to Taalismaan recently. I warned him once but he keeps doing it anyway... -- Hounder4 20:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I looked into this yesterday, but got disrupted before I actually took action. Re-protected the page. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • 86.158.232.106 (talk · contribs) This is the latest IP for the review score updating IP who fights to add GR... I'm not sure it warrants action or not, because I'm pretty confused by the behavior. They go through a lot of older articles removing GR per WP:VGAGG.... then hit two new articles (Including Quantum Break, where the previous edit war occurred) and add GR back. Some sort of reverse psychology in action, trying to get people to revert the removals as ammo to add GR where they want? Talk page behavior also matches past IPs, with the "remove without response" to any warnings from other editors. -- ferret (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_hopping_troll_back.3F? This is the WP:VGAGG/WP:VGSCOPE IP hopper. The IP in my report just above this is same guy. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Haha, I'll try, but usually I'm always counting on you guys to monitor stuff, since I'm the one who's always popping in and out through my day, multitasking with real life responsibilities... Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Treyarch Sent to RFPP too... I think a long term semiprot is in order. From what I can tell, every edit in 2016 except one by myself and one by AdrianGamer has been reverted. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks like someone else got it for a month. My prediction is that you'll be contacting me to re-protect it in June due E3 rumors. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • 96.32.165.80 (talk · contribs) leaving these types of nonsensical messages on my page, despite me telling him about the emulated platform guideline multiple times over a period of a few weeks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Gave him another warning and request to stay civil. Probably not blockable yet, but let me know if it keeps up... Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • 109.153.225.173 (talk · contribs) Not sure what to do about this guy. He's been altering infoboxes, changing date formats, ENGVAR, RETAIN, etc. I've left a message about that just now. Almost all of his edits appear to be getting reverted. Article history looks very similar to our usual IP guy but I'm not sure cause the edits themselves are of a different nature and show a lot of sourcing issues. @The1337gamer: Thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC) hey there sergecross73
  • Ah, sorry, I looked into this briefly, but I've been wrapped up in something else lately. But yeah, your warning seems good for now, and if it continues, I'll issue a harsher one, and if it still continues, I can give it a short block. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Protected. It's probably not going to get better any time soon, with all the rumors with the NX, PS4K, Xbox Two, VR, Wii U bowing out, etc etc Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Saatanan Radikaalit

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Alright, I've provided links to the Jussi Awards' official web-site. If you're quite done pestering me and if you have no intention of improving articles relating to the career of Spede Pasanen, I'd appreciate you'd cease this creepy, stalkerish behaviour. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

CaptaiNtheGameMaster, I'm not stalking you, I just generally make a habit of checking the edits of inexperienced editors I come across who makes a lot of aggressive arguments that aren't really rooted in any sort of policy. I commonly find these sorts of editors causing problems in other areas on the website too. Lo and behold, I found you creating an unsourced article, so its not like I was wrong... Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
That article had existed on Wikipedia for ten years under a different title. I created the new article in good faith because the original creator had never thought to redirect the different capitalisations. I merged what little usable information there was (sadly there wasn't a lot) into the current article and then redirected it. And as for notability, it would serve you well to have at least read the content of the article. Sadly, this reflects the general state of Finnish cinema articles, so I suspect your tag's gonna stay there for a while. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Serge, could you histmerge these? There's no need for redirect for capitalization like this, and now the contribution history is split due to the double creation. Page should have been moved rather than recreated and redirected. The talk page needs moved too. -- ferret (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I was going to say "I don't know how to" but I messed around some with the tools, and I'm pretty sure I successfully did my first histmerge. So I think that's taken care of. Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Technically, you're supposed to move articles to the correct capitalization rather than start new ones up - to better the page's history together. Regardless, both versions have severe sourcing problems, so the tags for improvement are appropriate for either/any version of the article created so far. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

spring solar

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why did you delete my page I created for Spring solar? That's not nice, I even wrote a note like wikipedia said to do to not get it deleted. I am trying to create a page just like Vivint solar has on wikipedia, which should be allowed. Thanks

Sam Yeager — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.45.186.46 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Please read User:Sergecross73/Why was my article deleted. That should answer your questions, though I can explain more if you like. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate page.

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Serge, can you help out with something on the Cash Cash page? I attempted to fix a title but did it a dumb way. I realized I should have moved the page vs creating a new one. Now there are two identical duplicate articles. ugh I feel dumb…Can you please help delete the new one I created and then we can move the old one over the correct way to the new path name of “Blood, Sweat & 3 Years"? Appreciate your help.

Here are links to the two articles I’m talking about. Thanks

OLD PAGE - Blood, Sweat and 3 Years needs to be moved to the NEW TITLE Blood, Sweat & 3 Years after that page is removed/deleted. Hope I’m not being too confusing…haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 06:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand. I've made the action - please let me know whether or not I did what you asked. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Persona 5 and message left on my talk page

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Your talk page is starting to show a pattern of you doing this across a number of articles." I find that insulting and unnecessary to say, like you're wanting to incite an argument from me, also considering comments don't get left on my talk page about edits I do that are sound (which have been many), because no one is going to leave a message about good edits, then that's a really unfair assumption and to threaten a ban from two messages I got from October 2015 (which were all from one page I was editing and trying to find sources, notice how it's October 5th?) seems very overreactive.

So you're comparing a few messages left on my talk page between lots of good edits and assuming I'm going around leaving bad edits and "starting a pattern on multiple articles" (it was one article) and threatening a ban. I had two messages before yours on edits I did on the Greg Ellis page, which did have sources, but Wiki deemed them "not reliable" even though they came from the person themselves. (in reference to Greg Ellis and his name being changed). That edit wasn't just speculation and me adding my own personal opinion from nothing, and the second message came to me after frustration at the rules of Wiki where there has to be a reliable news article on his name being changed for the wiki page to change his name, even though he himself said he's changed his name. So you can hardly call this creating a pattern and threaten a temp. ban because I made a little comment on the Persona 5 edit history (not even the page itself).

Also I didn't edit the Persona 5 page to remove the date and add my own theory/opinion, so I don't see why you felt the need to add that as if I had edited it and removed the date or anything, I just wanted to add a comment in the edit history (which I admit was stupid, don't think it warrants threats though). I just added a comment but didn't edit, as I know my opinion is not reliable. If that's a bad thing, sorry, but I felt it could be worded better, I think threatening a ban after looking at my talk page at old talk comments is overreacting. It's not like I'm going around everywhere adding my opinion or trolling by adding silly comments, it was a couple of edits on Greg Ellis' page. I'm sure I'll get a ban now with this message so I'll just make sure to log in in the future.

Just fyi, looking at your talk page, it seems you could do with being a little kinder to people. Kill them with kindness instead of inciting an argument by being passive aggressive and looking for reasons to leave negative comments without all the facts. :) Have a nice week! 92.236.255.93 (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the main reason you received a warning is because IP addresses keep using the same bogus speculation to override reliable sources when it comes the release date of Persona 5. If the other IP addresses were not you, I apologize, but it's not very often multiple IP addresses express the same bizarre faulty argument in edit summaries around the same time; usually there's some sort of connection there. Thus, the warning. Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

MGSV

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Sergecross73,

Can you please take a look at the user "ShiningExample"? On the MGSV talk page, he claims to be a duplicate account, but looking at WP:VALIDALT, I am not convinced that he has a legitimate reason for having a second account. VALIDALT only allows for second accounts under very select conditions, and I don't think he meets any of them; the closest he comes is using a second account to overcome a conflict of interests and/or make edits to controversial articles, but this account appears to have been created purely to POVPUSH. Given that all of the arguments he is making are thinly-veiled re-treads of the same arguments made by socks, I suspect that his original account has been blocked for sockpuppetry and he is hiding behind VALIDALT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've blocked him, but told him that he can continue the discussions through his main account. I suppose how he responds to this will determine whether his comment about having a long-term account was sincere, false, or in reference to one of the accounts who have POV-pushed at the article in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing bunch of games on list.

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hey Sergecross73, I was wondering if you would be available to add the following games from Nintendo of Japan's, Nintendo of America and Europe/Australia's websites to the List of Nintendo 3DS games and the remaining games on List of Wii U software. Because on the Nintendo America's site, it has 1000+ games there, whereas the Wiki page has 700+ games currently. So would you mind helping me out with this? Thank you! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

(talk page stalker) Zachary you may find a better venue at WT:VG if you are looking for assistance with a large effort like this. -- ferret (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, ferret is actually right on this. It might be a better approach to ask WP:VG for help on this. I don't usually work on building those massive lists, I just monitor them and remove the hoax entries. (Not to mention, with how many people tend to help with these articles, I imagine the the "games no one bothered to add to the Wii U list" must be a really low tier of gaming, to be honest. I imagine a lot of the games not on the list is probably Flappy Bird level garbage if no one bothered to add it by now...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

G-Zay

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

FYI, that banned user G-Zay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again, this time as Dellix093 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. (Seems like he stopped as soon as you and that other user identified him.) Let me know if he pops up again under another name. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Endorsed a sleeper check in the SPI. Sjones, I also fixed your LTA page to reflect Brayden96 being unblocked. Let me know privately if you want links to the off-wiki activities (Twitter, Wordpress, etc.) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Salv! Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 17#Front covers of Star Ocean (video game)

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I invite you to recently created FFD discussion. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just as a note Serge, I replied on this discussion. -- ferret (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks ferret. I hadn't left a note yet since I've been undecided on what to do. I'm still not entirely sure, but you've inspired me to at least explain some thoughts and approaches on it at least. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_44&oldid=1146697150"