This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Woovee seems to be not just removing Piero from the musical review section (which was the extent of the consensus) but by going as far as removing every mention of him on wikipedia. He is also blindly removing Scaruffi's site from pages while leaving other self-published sources such as blogspot.coms untouched. He is also removing band interviews that, while they happen to have been printed on Scaruffi's webpage, are not reflective of Scaruffi's musicial opinion or criticism. He even deleted an exhibition at Ideami because it linked to Scaruffi's site, neverminding that Scaruffi actually lectured at that particular exhibition. This appears to be blatant censorship and blacklisting, neither of which was endorsed by the consensus.-- Soul Crusher ( talk) 22:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

He probably doesn't need to remove every use, but if he was deemed unusable as a reviewer due to being self published and not a professional music critic, then the same reasons would discount him from being used as a source in most other circumstances as well. Woovee has no responsibility to fix all or Wikipedias sourcing problems, so as long as he's not the one adding the blog sources, that is fine. While his dedication to removing everything PS is puzzling, it's not wrong, considering policy and consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

and I'd also add that per wp:self published, any source leading to this type of sites has to be edited out. I note that the title of this post is once again excessive as the biography/article has not been deleted. Woovee ( talk) 16:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not only "puzzling", but detrimental to some of the articles. The consensus read as following: "Looks like there's pretty clear consensus that Piero Scaruffi's album/music reviews are unusable as a source in any capacity." This does not translate to "He is completely unusable as a source under any circumstances." The interviews that were removed offer viable information that comes from a first-party source (for example, a bandmember) that can be utilized to improve the article. Concerning Ideami, citing someone who was a lecturer at an exhibition as a source for that exhibition is different from and more reliable than a visitor who happened to write a blog concerning the subject.

Nowhere does it read in wp:self published that "any source leading to this type of sites has to be edited out." That is a misinterpretation of the rules. It states that "self-published media, such as ... are largely not acceptable as sources." It is not the same as completely unacceptable.-- Soul Crusher ( talk) 03:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was about "reviews" because that was primarily what you were doing back then - spamming his reviews everywhere. The fact of the matter is, no one voiced any support for using him in any capacity in that discussion. You've done a fine job point out the potential for exceptions and loopholes, but present no reason why we should make such an exception. He's self-published and not an authority on music. He really shouldn't have much of "inside scoop", so it should be easy to just use other sources to support any information he's providing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me address this bit-by-bit:

1. "no one voiced any support for using him in any capacity in that discussion." That's irrelevant. The extent of the consensus was "Piero Scaruffi's album/music reviews are unusable as a source in any capacity." This consensus dealt with the narrow category of reviews and does not translate to "He is completely unusable as a source under any circumstances." Also, the decision concerning Mr. Scaruffi in relation to his music reviews was addressed in the forum WikiProject Albums. If you wished to discuss as to whether or not Scaruffi should be included in relation to broader subjects (e.g. neuroscience) you would need to bring it up on the appropriate forum. You seem to be attempting to stretch the limits of the consensus to encompass things that are not even vaguely suggested in its conclusion.

2. "He's self-published and not an authority on music." That is also irrelevant as I am not asserting as to whether or not he is an authority on music. I am saying in the case of him being a lecturer and moderator at Ideami he may be a credible source for that article. You will admit that he must be an authority or even an expert to some capacity if the exhibition at Ideami saw fit to include Scaruffi as a lecturer at the event. This is not analogous to someone who has an "inside scoop", as that suggests an onlooker of an exhibition with no real involvement in the situation. In this case (not in all cases), he is a viable source.

3. "You've done a fine job point out the potential for exceptions and loopholes" I'm not pointing out "loopholes", I'm just informing you on what the rules are and that they allow self-published material has merit under certain circumstances. That you have qualms with my reading of the rules, but flat out overlook Woovee assertion of "any source leading to this type of sites has to be edited out." when that's anything but what the rules suggest, is a little suspicious.

4. "it should be easy to just use other sources to support any information he's providing." Speaking for the interviews, a quick google search reveals they are not hosted anywhere else on the web besides his website (in particular, the Sulfur interview). Also, if there’s the question as to whether or not Scaruffi fabricated this interview, the band actually has Scarruffi’s biography on them written up on their official website ( Motherheadbug biography). This indicates that they find Scaruffi’s writing on them reputable and increases the verisimilitude that the interview actually occurred. If it's the case that this source is not allowed because of the site it is hosted on, then it appears you are advocating the blacklisting of that site on Wikipedia.-- Soul Crusher ( talk) 19:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, the whole reason I started that discussion was to put an end to all the bickering about using PS in relation to music. As a neutral 3rd party, I started the discussion, and I closed it. Im he one who came the conclusion on the discussion, so don't try to tell me how to interpret my very own decision. 2 things:

1. PS is not to be used on music articles. Period. I'm sorry if that takes some info out of some of your articles, but this is what Wikipedia is. It operates on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SPS. Don't add PS sources o music articles. The end.
2. Im no expert in fusion art or "Ideami" or whatever, so the music discussion has no bearing on that. I thought Ideami was an album or something. If it's irrelevant to music, then go about handling it how're you normally do on Wikipedia. (Start discussions on talk pages, alerting WikiProjects, etc.) Figure that out on your own, I've got no time or interest in that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to keep this discourse civil, there is no need to become hostile. If you are currently upset then I suggest waiting sometime before composing a response. To promote professional communications, I would appreciate it if you spoke to me with a more level-headed demeanor.

I think you are confused as to what a consensus is. It is not “your” consensus. Consensus is the group process with the end result of a reasonable and flexible approach. Your personal opinion about what the consensus reflects, along with Woovee's personal opinion that "any source leading to this type of sites has to be edited out", is not enforceable as a consensus. The complete censorship of materials, especially those that can be independently verified, could be interpreted as contrary to the rules and disruptive.

1. "PS is not to be used on music articles." That was not the conclusion of the consensus and it is nothing I am under obligation to adhere to. Once again, the consensus reads: "Piero Scaruffi's album/music reviews are unusable as a source in any capacity." An interview is not a review. If Goldenfly Records deems Scarrufi's biography to be accurately representative of their band Motherhead Bug, then I think it's safe to say he's a reliable source in the matter of the band's interview with him.
2. If you back Woovee in making changes that are potentially detrimental to Wikipedia, by means of blocking users and locking pages in support of his cause, then your responsibility in this matter is actually pretty significant. He has already edited Scaruffi out of numerous pages that span a multitude of subjects not covered by the consensus. Wikipedia's ability to offer free information will be truncated if a source that does offer viable information is completed severed from the discourse.-- Soul Crusher ( talk) 23:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No part of my comments have been incivil, and do not lecture me on policy and terminology, I'm well aware of it, and it's rather clear that you do not, and are a WP:SPA. I've given you my stance. If you don't like it, take it somewhere else. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, after some research, it appears that some of his musical criticisms and interviews have been published in magazines (including this one published in Blow Up in 1999). Looking over his resume ( seen here), it appears that he has contributed essays, reviews and interview to Option, Sound Choice, CD Review, i/e, Rockerilla, Blow Up and New Sounds. Also, his review of Country Boy Country Dog by "Blue" Gene Tyranny" is presented in its entirety in the All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music (as seen on page 1126), taken from his original review for i/e, issue 7. This implies that he is reputable in the field of musical criticism, as the editer's, Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra and Stephen Thomas Erlewine saw fit to include his critical analysis in their publication-- Soul Crusher ( talk) 05:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of any of those sources, except all music, so I have no idea if any of those are reliable sources or not. Feel free to ask WP: Albums or the RS Noticeboard. There's still a lot if "ifs". The sources would need to be deemed reliable, and even that would only warrant the use of the published material, not every little musing on his blog. Editorial oversight is necessary on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 10:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• (Let's be concise because we've already spent enough time on this issue)

Our wp:consensus was clear: the community decided to not use sources concerning music, leading to the personal site of this person. This concerns his reviews and his lists of best albums per genre. User:Soul Crusher has accepted this decision, hasn't he? Woovee ( talk) 17:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Now, User:Soul Crusher would like to include interviews of musicians reproduced on PS's site. Yet, our wiki rules doesn't encourage such a thing. Per WP:BLPSPS: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs blogs – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. However, Soul Crusher claimed that if the band Sulfur cited PS's review on their official website http://www.goldenflyrecords.com/Goldenfly_Artists.php, this indicates that they find Scaruffi’s writing on them reputable and increases the verisimilitude that the interview actually occurred. Well, this is not correct. It's not Sulfur's official website, it's actually a website of their record label: so, that doesn't prove anything. This page might also have been put online by someone of a record compagny and the band may not even be aware of it. Woovee ( talk) 17:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Finally, User:Soul Crusher says that "PS's resume" published on PS's site, states what PS has done. The problem is that this resume was written by PS himself at the third person: so that doesn't prove anything. This new episode initiated by Soul Crusher, reminds the community that this user has been bombarding and lobbying towards PS's blog for 3 years now. He may be a relative of this person. Soul Crusher's way of doing things is WP:SOAPBOXING to my point of view. Woovee ( talk) 17:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to editing, but may I ask why you reverted all the changes I made to Shinedown's page? I included updated information about one of their EPs but you deleted it. AnnaBorgida ( talk) 00:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi AnnaBorgida, as you can see from my edit summary I left, there a few issues. Mostly, it doesn't follow the way band articles are usually organized.

1. If you check good articles or featured articles like Green Day or Nirvana (band), you'll see the "main article" template isn't typically used, and isn't necessary since the albums were already linked to in the respective subsections.
2. Smaller releases without very much content aren't usually split off into their own subsection like that. As an EP of covers and only a single paragraph of information, it should really just be grouped into the "Amarylis" section instead.

In general, I really only opposed the re-organization of the article. If you want to re-add just the actual content about the EP in the Amarylis section, I don't think I'd oppose. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that; I didn't realize band articles were organized differently. I'll go and re-add the information about the EP. Is it alright if I create an article for the second part of the EP? There's already an article for the first part.

I just redirected "part 1" because, as is, it didn't pass WP:GNG - the standard for which topics have an article or not. Usually, you want at least 4 or 5 third party reliable sources discussing the the subject in detail. "Part 1" didn't have any sources, or any content beyond a track list. If you can do that, go for it. On a side note, are they just 2 different EP's from the same session? It might be better to just have one article called "Acoustic Sessions" with both track lists, unless there's a lot of sources discussing them separately from one another, or I misunderstand the situation. If you don't add sources, the article runs the risk of being redirected or deleted... Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the EP is not worth having an article about. I just want to make sure that is still the case given that I found five articles similar to this one: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5877059/shinedown-smith-myers-acoustic-ep-video-premiere-london-calling .If you still think the EP doesn't deserve an article, can I at least include some of the information I gathered about it in the band's main article? I'm not sure what qualifies for mention in Wikipedia. AnnaBorgida ( talk) 01:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My stance was that it didn't warrant an article in its current state. If you add content and reliable sources to it, I have no problem with it having its own article. (Though I wonder if part 1 and part 2 should be together as one article, unless there are lots of sources covering the separately. The Billboard source above is perfect; a well-known, reputable source dedicating an article to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, how do I revert to the old version? On the edit conflict page, I have the information I was editing, but it doesn't include the reflist or the track list. AnnaBorgida ( talk) 01:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Got it! All good. AnnaBorgida ( talk) 02:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yay! I finished my first article (sort of). Hopefully it's up to snuff. AnnaBorgida ( talk) 02:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Having come back temporarily from my college wikibreak, I wanted to let you know that Sonic Adventure is now at a GA reassessment. Do you mind if you can help out on this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 09:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I will try to assist some as well. Tezero has been pretty active on Sonic articles, so seems like he'd be a good resource too... Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that there was some disagreement on whether or not Sonic Adventure is considered high importance... basically Tezero thought it was high importance while you guys didn't. I did notice that, shortly after his last edit to the talk page ("You two clearly don't want to listen to reason"), he went and lowered the importance of several Mario and Zelda articles from high to mid importance, all within 10 minutes. IMO, given the circumstances, it appears to have been done out of spite. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 17:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed it too, and wondered If he was trying to make a point here. Any insight, Tezero? Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said that wasn't part of it, but it was more just me wanting the scale to at least be consistent. I mean, it pissed me off that Sonic articles are scrutinized so closely for importance while Mario and Zelda ones get Oprah-tossed high-importance with little such demonstration. I haven't checked to see if my such changes have been reverted, but I believed and still believe that they're consistent with the importance scale. At any rate, regardless of what I still think, I figured I might as well succumb to admin judgment before I get banned or something. Tezero ( talk) 17:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think your main problem is that you can separate your personal tastes from the general perception of games. I certainly love Sonic games, but I can still recognize that, I may like them, but many (critics, journalists, the industry in general) do not hold the series in nearly as high of esteem. I like them because they're enjoyable, not because they're particularly well-made games. I think that, as long as you're dabbling in something like Sonic, where its so mainstream and yet so polarizing, that you should try to keep that in mind - you need to edit in regards to what sources say, not your personal tastes.

I don't actually like Adventure that much. I changed the importance to High not in regards to my own tastes, but because of all of the coverage of its impressive and innovative graphics, including some comments from years later that they still held up. If that's not enough, fine. It may be that I'm more inclined to look for information because it's Sonic, but I can't defend what isn't there. Tezero ( talk) 18:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• That being said, I haven't reverted any of your "importance" changes. (Though, I wouldn't defend any either - especially since you've admitted to WP:POINTy editing.) I don't usually care about them much, and you may not even be wrong with some of the Mario and Zelda ones. I've just noticed a few of your changes importance to Sonic related articles lately, because I feel they're off base. I'm sure Sonic fans would find Sonic Adventure to be of the highest importance, but this isn't a Sonic Wikia. Its not nearly as important in the whole scheme of decades of happenings in the video game industry. It may have gotten good reviews upon release, but ultimately, it didn't save the Dreamcast, Sonic's transition to 3D hasn't been particularly received well on a whole, and later releases, like Gamecube or PSN, weren't even reviewed well at all. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any other changes in Sonic article importance lately, other than upping Colors to Mid the other day. (I don't really care if that gets reverted; it could go either way.) Beforehand, I downgraded Sonic article importances as well as upgraded; for example, Sonic the Comic, which really had no business being Mid. Adventure is a special case because it really did and does seem to me to have been important in the grand scheme of gaming, unlike something like Heroes where critics noticed the team-based gameplay and commented on it, but they didn't say it'd made any real innovations in games and it hasn't really been recognized as such later. To be clear, I'm glad that you want to keep an eye out for bias, but I didn't admit to pointy editing, only to a feeling of spite being part of why I made a few VG-importance-scale-justified changes. Tezero ( talk) 18:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think Colors was the other one I remember not approving of (nor did Mika1h - he reverted you the first time you changed it). It sold and was reviewed well, but still had little overall impact on the overall industry. (The Wisps had no impact other than being used in one other game so far, Lost World.) And I apologize if I wrongfully accused you of point editing. When you said I'd be lying if I said that wasn't part of it I thought that was you acknowledging pointy editing yourself, since it was said directly after me thinking it was pointy. Also, your comments about resenting how Mario and Zelda articles get so much credit for being high importance kind of sounded like you were trying to "right great wrongs" in the industry, which would be kinda pointy. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Tezero ( talk) 19:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sonic CD was another one, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I believe this discussion should be moved to the relevant talk page, I will chime in here briefly. While I personally don't think Adventure is high-importance, Tezero's position isn't wholly illegitimate. Adventure must have been one of the first platformers with online leaderboards and DLC. I can think of more lasting innovations from Adventure 2, such as the grinding later used in Ratchet and Clank and the space levels vaguely reminiscent of Super Mario Galaxy, but Game Informer likened one of Knack's moves to the homing attack. That's the kind of stuff I would be looking for. As for Tezero's sources, only Joystiq establishes that Adventure has any significance in the broader context of platforming games. The Sonic Adventure DX reviews should be removed from "Legacy"; the game was being reviewed again because it was ported to Gamecube, not because it left a lasting legacy. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 05:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I just found this GamesRadar article, which mentions the gaming world being "changed forever" as a result of Adventure, one of the first 128-bit games. Maybe I'm taking it out of context, but it seems relevant. Tezero ( talk) 15:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Tezero, here's my stance. I don't agree with any of your "importance" changes to the Sonic games, but at the same time, I don't want to be "raining on your parade" all the time either, and honestly, I don't think people pay much mind to the importance scale anyways, so I don't really want to waste either of your time arguing about it all the time. I don't agree with it, but I won't actively oppose you in making the changes. (Unless there's other editors opposing the changes. I'll be likely to side with them if discussions/arguments are breaking out.) So feel free to make your changes unless/until someone besides me are opposing it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Any? Uh... Well, I make importance changes all the time (though less so lately), not that many on Sonic articles. I guess I'll keep this in mind. Tezero ( talk) 03:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

He has opened today a topic on the RS board, but instead of posting his thread at the bottom of the page, he cheated on the date of registering of his request. He wrote 28 April instead of May 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=606741549&oldid=606631553 and put it on purpose at the top. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Concerning_Piero_Scaruffi It is hard to still assume good faith for this user in such circumstances. It is time to say no more to my point of view. The verdict will have to specify on the project album board that: no way, a source mentionning PS's url and blog or a source mentionning one of his self-published sources will be accepted. Only a third party source of the type of the "all music" book might be accepted but under very strict rules. This will have to be only with online sources for fact checking purpose: otherwise, you can bet that invented published sources from Italian magazines might surface. We can't assume good faith anymore especially after the spamming attacks of the last months. BTW, the "allmusic" book with the PS review doesn't appear on google books in Europe. Could you tell if you see it on your computer ? All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music. Woovee ( talk) 16:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can see it in my computer. Its a paragraph length review. Yeah, that sort of thing would be fine to use, as long as 1) its cited to the book, not his website and 2) in the article, it was properly attributed as something along the lines of "In the book All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music, Piero Scaruffi stated that..." Sergecross73 msg me 03:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I am getting the imperssion that you 2 with User:STATicVapor are just here to revert and mess other people's edits. Would you stop it? I am not removing chronological pieces, I am merely restructuring. Would you stop it?

The Mad Hatter ( talk)

Neither one of us approve of your mass changes, for different reasons, judging by the edit summaries. The correct way to handle this, per WP:BRD, is to discuss it on the article talk pages, and come to a consensus, not take it personally or yell at people to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for Marquee Moon, an article about a rock/post-punk album? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 04:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually do FA review type stuff, but I did look it over some and I thought it looked pretty good overall. Good luck with it! Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you think I should mark that talk conversation speedy deletion? If you wish for me too, I will plan to. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasDud ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well speedy deletion is more for deleting whole articles or talk pages, not just sections. You can just erase it yourself if you really want, per WP:NOTAFORUM. I personally don't start deleting unless it's a second warning or especially offensive, as it can serve as a reminder for people to follow it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "ThomasDud" is a Jakandsig sockpuppet, considering his name. I also consider 93.236.130.50 to be a Jak sockpuppet, but I don't if "Stew M." (which he did type) is his real name. What does the "M." in "Stew M." stand for? }I Mr*| (60nna)I{ 22:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what that stands for. However, the "Stew M." IP had probably almost nothing to do with Jak's traits, so he's actually not a sockpuppet. }I Mr*| (60nna)I{ 22:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think that ThomasDud was a Jak sock. Was the exchange bizarre? Absolutely. But not really Jak like. (It wasn't a retro video game related article, it wasn't about sources or mis-representation of them, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So ThomasDud actually wasn't Jakandsig. }I Mr*| (60nna)I{ 03:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of this page Mmm... Cookies? It was a minor side-group of Linkin Park for a few months in 2008. The article severely lacks sources and they do not appear to have ever done anything notable. I tried to redirect it and was reverted. STATic message me! 17:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

STATicVapor, I don't think AFD would be a good venue, due to WP:NBAND and it being a plausible search term, but I agree with you that it should probably be a redirect. I'll start with discussing it on the talk page. If necessary, we could alert the WikiProject, and if the person is difficult, I can always WP:SALT the redirect. Please chime in at its talk page. I'll try to keep things moving along. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't found any third-party coverage other than this. Tezero ( talk) 00:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, Tezero. Actually, Sputnik Music is only useable if it's a staff writer. That article was written by one of the websites users, which would be about the equivalent of citing a Gamefaqs user review in a VG article. So it wouldn't be usuable. But by all means, leave your thoughts at the redirect discussion. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't bothered to actually click on it. Tezero ( talk) 02:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it's fine, it's hard to keep all these sites straight anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Barley got to commenting there. Yeah I agree AfD would not be a good venue, that is why I attempted a good-faith redirect, but it was challenged. I shall watch the discussion and see where it goes. STATic message me! 19:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, STATicVapor. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that man. Another thing you might want to look at is User: Ravenkills97. I have reverted their genre warring on a few band articles, but I feel like I have barley scratched the surface. STATic message me! 15:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I gave him a "final warning", and it looks like another Admin is giving him some strongly worded advice as well, so I'm guessing he's either going to stop, or will be blocked shortly. I'm going to be busy here for a little bit, so let me know if he keeps going. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The other admin blocked him. (Leniently too, I may add. I would have gone longer than 48 hours.) Let me know if you see him causing trouble again though once his block is up. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes very leniently, considering they started attacking people on their talk page. Another thing, the disruptive edits have got quite annoying at Until It's Gone (Linkin Park song), could you semi-protect the page? STATic message me! 19:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article. What a mess. That should get us through the AFD, though the sad thing is, some of the garbage being added to it is by autoconfirmed users. Oh well. If the AFD closes as redirect, and it keeps being undone, at least I could salt it. We'll see I suppose. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I know, it sure was getting out of control for a second. Still no significant coverage yet the AfD is turning because it has been released now. Back to the other issue, does User talk: Raven273 look as obvious to you as it does to me? One of their first edits was editing a edit made by the first account. All other edits have been related to genres. STATic message me! 01:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Blocked. Thanks. Let me know if any others pop up. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up but I feel it's something that will be an issue in the future, maybe even in the next few weeks depending on what is announced at E3. Last year you redirected the article for the Mario Kart game for Wii U stating that "It's WP:TOOSOON for this article, virtually nothing is known, not even a title. Wait for a real reveal." however when the predecessor Mario Kart 7 did not have a title not only did you not redirect the article but you even argued against the idea of it being redirected in the talk page. You also did not redirect any of the other 3DS games that you edited the articles for (some of which went years without a title, like Animal Crossing for 3DS). I just want to know what to expect when Nintendo announces the next portable system (they had groups of untitled games for DS & 3DS, it could happen again). SNS ( talk) 04:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My general rule is, be able to supply 4-5 sources discussing the article, saying more than just "Game X was announced". Actual details and all, usually a paragraph or two's worth of material. The ones I support redirecting or deleting are usually knes that have one or a combination of the following factors:

• The game doesn't have an official title.
• The game only contains 1-2 sentences, 1-2 sources.
• The game is part of a series that can be easily redirected to, especially while there's only a sentence or two worth of material.
• The article is largely speculation, personal observations from trailers rather than commentary from journalists, etc.

Does this help? Sergecross73 msg me 10:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess but I don't see why this was acceptable for Mario Kart 7 for six months [1] while Mario Kart 8 was considered too soon for an article which was known to get more information in a few months [2]. In this situation it all worked out in the end, with that article being a part of Mario Kart 8's history but some articles that are redirected for "too soon" (like Halo Xbox One) end up being forgotten when the new article is made ( Halo 5: Guardians for this example). SNS ( talk) 04:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you check the talk page for MK7, I only openly spoke against the merge once I expanded it out to a paragraph or so in early 2011. Regardless, we're talking about 3-4 years ago...I guess I'd chalk up any inconsistencies like that to changes in editing philosophies over the course of years. Sergecross73 msg me 10:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Had you seen this? It's actually good talk about you so I thought you'd be interested.

(And yes, I also made you a doppelganger account and had the password sent to you, because why not, and also it prevents broken link when I use CamelCase to spell your name. Bite me. :p)

☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 18:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I did come across that once when googling my account name once. Thanks for reminding me of it though, I meant to add it to my user page, since they said nice things about me, but forgot.
• Thanks for notifying me of that. I just got that email and was thinking "Crap, is someone trying to cause trouble and impersonate me or something?" Glad to hear it was just you, which I don't mind. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty awesome, I have to admit. Though, looking back and re-reading that discussion brought back some bad memories... -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 19:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And yeah, that editor was pretty irrational and frustrating... Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I note that you left a final warning on Christopher10006's talk page. I've had some concerns about the competency of this editor for some time now. Shortly before your final warning he moved Up, Up and Away (song) to Up, Up, and Away (song) because he felt there should be an extra comma in the title. This is another of his silly WP:OR moves. He also made some edits to the article, again without providing sources for his changes. [3] Just after your warning he made some edits at [{WP:RM]] that demonstrate the OR used in the move. [4] Since then there have been some very questionable edits.

• More OR based move requests
• Moved Up, Up and Away (The 5th Dimension album) to Up, Up, and Away (The 5th Dimension album) without discussion or explanation
• Editing posts made by other editors - This was more than simple refactoring, he's actually changed words.
• Moved a number of redirects to other, unnecessary, redirects creating multiple double-redirects. The page moves are in his edit history as "Christopher10006 moved page Zoey 101(season x) to Zoey 101 (season x).
• Unnecessary restoration of a page redirected 6 years ago - This is a page about a series that ended 6 years ago and it was redirected then for several reasons, including redundancy. The restoration created a page with numerous errors resulting from various changes in the past 6 years.
• Inappropriate speedy nom

There are several more minor errors that the editor has made but these are the worst. Despite this editor having made more than 1,100 edits over 19 months, he still doesn't seem able to learn. Even when he does occasionally gets something right, he clearly doesn't understand why he's done what he's done. [5] -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Agreed here. He's also made problematic edits to Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U in the past, such as moving the article against consensus and redoing edits reverted by other users. The user also uploads copyrighted images and tags them as in the public domain. The competency of this user is definitely in question. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 14:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. He is on the thinnest of this ice...but I don't want to block him quite yet, just because it seems like since the warning, they fall more into "good faith mistakes" than outright going directly against what I said. I'll keep an eye on him, and please keep me posted on what you two notice too. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As a TPS of Christopher, it appears he has not improved since your last warning. He still continues to make edits based on his own OR. Think it's worth intervening at this point? -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 19:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Which edits are you especially against? (I'm not doubting you or anything, I just haven't seen his work since we last discussed this...) Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This one stood out in particular: "if you watch the credits..." He has also introduced edits that were reverted at least twice, on the basis of "TV Guide uses this." 1 2. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 19:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

48 hour block. Let me now if you see it again. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we've seen it again. Less than a week after release from his block another editor has complained about him making more inappropriate page moves, which he's been warned about previously. Then, today, he made another one of his WP:OR based edits, substituting a production code supported by two reliable sources in the article with not one but two production codes that aren't supported by sources. Both of these have resulted in warnings on his talk page. He just doesn't seem to want to learn and editors are getting sick of it. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And, despite my warning, he's just reverted my edit despite the warning I left on his talk page. [6] -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)