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.

Hello, Admin. Happy New Year! Long time no see. Today I have created the article for Ogre. Well, the article existed before, but it was removed because there was no reception list and the content was too short. But I managed to make the content much longer and better than before and I have also added 10 reception lists regarding the character. You can see them when you open the article. However there is one thing that is keeping the article from being totally completed. It's the picture for the character. Since i'm not yet ready to learn how to upload them, and I know that you will show me the link how to do that, which really wouldn't help believe me, I wanted to ask if you can upload this picture ( http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120216061616/streetfighterxtekken/images/5/50/15_sfxtartwork04.jpg) in his infobox and this one ( http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/2/23309/3653913-4380689371-35899.png) at the True Ogre section. You will see that I have added the window at the section where the picture is supposed to be added and I have added the description below the window and below the infobox. These two pictures here match those descriptions. I placed the links here so that you won't have any trouble finding them. With the article extended and those two pictures uploaded, we can prevent others from removing the article again, which I really don't want to happen after I managed to brought him back and brush him up. It would mean so much to me. Thanks. DisturbedAsylum

Hi there. Sorry for the slow reply, haven't been on-wiki much in the last 24 hours. Anyways, WP:IUP discusses the image upload process, while WP:NFCC covers a bunch of Wikipedia's stance on copyright and whatnot. That's really all I personally can help you with, as I don't personally really deal with images on Wikipedia that much, partially because I do admit, its complicated, and partially because I'm just not all that interested in it to begin with. If you need more help, you could always discuss somewhere like WP:VG. Or you can try me again. Good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey admin, good news. After some videos and stuff, I have managed to upload the picture of Ogre in his infobox and everything looks okay. You can see it already. Now, I just need to upload the picture of True Ogre in his section. Is the process of adding the pictures in sections different from adding the pictures in infobox or no? Here's what I did, but as I was not really sure, I stopped: At the True Ogre section, I click on the and then, when there's only the text of that section in the edit board, on the left side, I click on the Upload file. I feared that I will change the infobox picture, so I stopped. But, was I supposed to continue? I mean, will I add the picture at the section if I continued that process? Because the process is looking the same as it looks when you upload the infobox picture? Thanks. DisturbedAsylum

I believe it's pretty much the same process. I think you did things right so far, I think you just need to upload the actual image where you've placed the redlink in the article - I believe that if you upload the image, it would show up where you've placed it. I believe that as long as you don't name the file the exact same file name as the infobox image title, it shouldn't overwrite the infobox one. (( talk page stalker)s - please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no expert in images.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's okay now. I have uploaded that picture too. I just clicked on the redlink and done the following. It was easier than the previous one. I will create/revive articles for more Tekken characters in the following months, as long as I have the reception lists in which they appear, which was one of the reasons why were they deleted. If I need anything, I will contact you. Btw, what is this talk page stalker. I have seen the page, but I don't really understand. Was that something that was reflecting on me? If it is, did I do something wrong? Thanks. DisturbedAsylum User:Disturbedasylum

Haha, no no, "talk page stalker" is not in reference to you. A "( talk page stalker)" is a kind of humorous term for people who have a User's talk page on their watchlist and interject to answer questions as if they had been asked them, on behalf of the User. There are a bunch of editors who interact with me a lot, like User:Salvidrim or User:Smuckola, who sometimes answer on my behalf. I do the same for a number of editors. (I believe we first interacted because I keep a watch on TheStickMan's talk page, actually. I believe you guys were in a dispute over something, and I was trying to help) So basically they're just other editors who sometimes chime in on talk page discussions. I was basically saying "Hey, if anyone out there see's what I'm writing and notices I'm wrong, feel free to chime in". Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Serge. Just wanted to wish you a belated happy holidays. By the way, I know you are not involved with the Wiki-star socks I encountered a few days ago, but it was a bit of trouble having been harassed by that sockpuppeteer. I also wanted to help stop the ongoing disruption while I was acting in good faith, but on AN when I tried to propose a community ban on that user, I felt that it unfortunately got complicated despite my good intentions and I had to apologize and explain what had happened and my reasons for proposing a community ban discussion (I admitted that some of the failed ban proposals I did was a bit excessive as I explained in the section below, but I didn't want to push it a bit too far). I know I don't want to get topic-banned or site-banned for any problems since I am an editor in good-standing and I want to be more careful when proposing WP:CBANs in the future, but I wanted to ask what your thoughts are on this matter, Serge? I would rather not cause drama unintentionally when proposing site bans. I was also under the impression that per WP:BAN, "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." As such, since Wiki-star is indefinitely blocked, would he be considered de facto banned? All the best for the new year, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 08:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sjones. Yeah, I was watching that develop, but then go busy and was unable to leave much of a comment. (I left a brief one about 10 hours ago, but it was deleted, as it turned out I was responding to one of his socks, and it was better to just WP:DENY him, which I agree with.) I left a comment there that explains my stance. I can see both sides of things; I see no problem with proposing such bans, but also can see if people see it as excessive as well. Regardless, I don't believe what you've done warrants a ban on you either way. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Sergecross73, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you Smuckola! I didn't receive many of these this year - hopefully it's not a sign of scaring people away! I've enjoyed working with you this year, and hope to continue it into 2015! Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@ Sergecross73: Check this out. I saw that you have just hit 30,000 edits and 6 years, so I went looking up a status for you. If you busted out AWB or some other tool and did a bunch of reclassifications or other mass edits, you could probably jump to the next major level ;) Anyway, you definitely deserve major supreme heroic recognition, and all else I know of is just the silly self-appointed ones. So my self is appointing you. But they are cool. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Smuckola Thanks for noticing, and saying something. As I've probably said before, its nice to hear something positive, when you get so many complaints and criticisms thrown at you when you're an admin. And thanks for the heads up. Actually, I pride myself that none of my edits have been automated (unless you count rollback, which I personally don't.) But at the rate I edit, I'm sure I'll be at at 33K real soon regardless.^_^ I'm honestly surprised that you're not higher than 8,200, as you seem pretty active...although, you've gone through some patches of inactivity as well, right? Anyways, regardless, thanks for the kind words, and thank you for your contributions as well. I do admire your ability to find/track vandals. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Sergecross73: Yes I've been inactive for multiple fairly long periods, largely due to burnout from flagrant abuse of the encyclopedia and of people, and somewhat due to a huge lack of recognition. Also because making a good encyclopedia is super super hard, lol. Especially when you have to build a mental time machine in order to recreate a lost history of retro-technology. Though there are many great policies, the project is chaotic and codependent to abusers by policy or by culture. The value of your presence absolutely cannot be understated, and is sorta countercultural. Knowing an admin who's kind and generous and who will do something about things, who wants to collaborate without casting authoritarian airs, is absolutely key to that. Most decent people will not participate in a system that's completely unfair or anarchistic, however necessary it is or however talented and motivated they are. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i tried to add more details regarding the English Patch for the PSP version of Final Fantasy Type-0 but obviously they weren't accepted.

Anyway, it is true that the English patch was briefly removed. The author of the translation removed all news/updated for the project from his site, but they returned a couple of months ago. You can check by yourself, if you know the name of the author. Sadly, no download links, but they're continuously removed and added from time to time. Square-Enix apparently ceased to threat the people behind the translation, and quietly disappeared without notice.

Oh, and you can read the whole story behind the translation (and Square-Enix "attempts" to stop the translation) here. (open the spoiler tag in BUSy67's post)

It is also true that another group is continuing/fixing the translation, but i can't post the source as it's from some "nasty" place, if you know what i mean. And sadly, it's the only known place where the project is currently discussed.

Yeah, I know, I've been following it all, and I don't doubt any of that being true, it's just that Wikipedia only documents the stuff that can be verified by reliable sources. If sources aren't documenting it, then its usually not considered noteworthy to mention. Considering the massive size of the article, it seemed like something to trim. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the message. I've been working like a mad thing on that article since last year (with some sporadic stuff into 2012), and now I have the solid ambition of seeing that golden star in the top right-hand corner one day. On that note, it would be nice to have a fresh pair of eyes look over the article to give it a copyedit/trim. Nowadays, I'm concerned about keeping a balance between including relevant info and keeping the article from getting out of hand. It will have an extra little problem when the HD version is released. I'm actually quite proud of the PSP/HD image comparison: very lucky to have found screenshots of the same character from the same scene.

On a separate note, I managed to get Tales of Hearts to GA status.. and frankly I hope never to come into intimate touch with that article ever again! In the end, not as enjoyable as Rebirth. Thankfully Zestiria should be enjoyable enough. How are things on your projects of late? Anything I can help with, perchance? -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ProtoDrake - I can try to give it a readthrough/copyedit if you like. If you don't agree, you can revert me back, no hard feelings. I may as well help though, as much as I want to be bitter about the fact that there's no Vita version, I keep finding myself intrigued with all the media attention its getting, with its release so close and all.

Good job on Hearts too. Yeah, I'm a little saddened to see that it hasn't been received all that well, but oh well. Still haven't played it yet. Maybe I'll find it was well-deserved in the end.

I can't think of anything I really need help with at the moment, though in the future, I've been contemplating making articles for Bravely Archive and maybe even a Bravely series article after that. I know you worked a bit on Bravely Default, so you could always help if/when I start up that... Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Serge. I'm growing a bit suspicious about the contributions of 86.169.107.8 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 86.181.81.139 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Both of these appear to be sock puppets of that banned user Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to what I believe is the user's misuse of sources. Can you please look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to provide some additional context, this IP and several others are clearly sock puppets of user:Jagged 85, who was permanently banned from Wikipedia for the immeasurable harm his edits have done because he likes adding copious amounts of sourced information that is often flat out wrong and completely misrepresents the sources. It appears he returned around September of last year. I had been monitoring the situation and reverting just the worst edits, but now I am starting to roll the majority of them back, as the rapid fire edit style, choice of articles to edit, and the occasional source blunders provide what I think is fairly conclusive evidence at this point. I also plan to present an SPI later this week if necessary. As always, your help in these matters would be appreciated. Indrian ( talk) 23:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Indrian, I filed an SPI over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Good! I added a few more IPs to the list. There may be more of them, but those are the only ones I could relocate again on short notice. Indrian ( talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out on the SPI results, and then block future socks per WP:DUCK. I do recall Jagged, I am familiar. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

After a brief hiatus, Jagged has returned ( 86.176.251.0 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Unfortunately, the SPI was basically ignored, so this leaves us with a serious problem if he is back to adding huge swathes of info again. Indrian ( talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I left a comment at the SPI, saying that I too approve of looking into it further. It's still technically open, so hopefully they'll follow through eventually. There just seems to be a massive backlog... Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think the SPI result is firm enough to take action against any future IPs. I'll let you know if he pops up again. Indrian ( talk) 18:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem wasn't so much that he reverted my edit, but that he accused me of vandalizing the article when it wasn't my intention. I've been using Wikipedia for 13 years, and some admins/patrols are so quick of accusing users of bad intentions that it's a huge turn-off for knowledgeable people to participate in the editing process. This is why the views:edits ratio has always been so low on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.181.22 ( talk) 09:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the editor could have been a little more clear in why your edit was undone, but that doesn't excuse your explosive reaction. And while your edits weren't outright vandalism, negative editorializing like this can be easily mistaken for bad-faith additions. Its not your place to issue a value judgement on damage control; that wasn't a good choice of wording or sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Serge. I just posted many proofs, links and explanations here [1] that show how much Urbanoc, Vrac etc. are bad faith. In addition, they erase my texts that are neutral and true, saying that I am bad faith, yet I have always proved finally that all what I write is true, by adding some sources. So they remove my sources ! Urbanoc has even accused EuroNCAP to do some promotion some Renault when I added a link to the EuroNCAP history page. It is irrational to accuse me or EuroNCAP that is totally independent and to remove the source that proved what I wrote. I am right. And you can check yourself that they behave as a team : one of them (Urbanoc, Vrac and Warren Whyte etc.) first erases 2 paragraphs, one week late an other one erases 3 paragraphs, and two weeks later the third one erases 3 paragraphs too. Only the positive information... So at the end, the article do not represent the truth. And in addition they harass me, because I add some TRUE statistics. And if they can do that for 10 years, it is because no administrator has intervened, what is very suspect... Have a nice evening 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've commented there, and responded to many of your concerns. In general, I believe you need to

1. Stop accusing them of bad faith. Even if you don't agree with their stances, there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect that they are doing things for the wrong motivations. Even if you are correct, I believe their concerns are still being made in good faith. Maybe read up on exactly how Wikipedia defines WP:GOODFAITH and WP:BADFAITH.
2. Bring your concerns to article talk pages more frequently, and if you're not having any luck, start Requst for Comments or ask for more input from related WikiProjects.
3. Their interactions are neither attacks or harassment. They just all seem to have concerns about your additions. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Serge. Please, would you like to show me where is the discussion that I opened ? Because it has "disappeared" before I could answer. None of your "answers" proved that it could be a plausible good faith, but above all the conjonction of all these actions are definitely bad faith, that is what mathematics prove (calculation of probabilities). Quickly a few example examples, but I will write more later :

• "burden" :

-Vrac, Urbanoc etc. "tag" only the positive information, not the negative one ! So the good faith is NOT plausible. I will show you some denigrating contents, ridiculously excessive and false, with NO SOURCE (!) that are never "tagged" by these people, and even put again when I point out that there is no source and that these contents are inconsistent with some reliables sources on the contrary !

-they dare to "tag" some oviously true information, known as true by anyone who has a few knowledges in the car industry. It is as stupid as if someone would "tag" a sentence saying that W.Churchill was the prime minister of the UK. Yes, he was, to erase this sentence, because nobody put a source to prove this obvious fact would be just an opportunate BAD FAITH. And that it what they did for Renault, Citroen !

-these information are so true and obvious that they could easily find some sources themselve ! And if they were some good contributors as their numerous "stars" would like to convince us that they are, then that is what they should do, but they do not find and put these sources, because they want that these true positive information to be erased ! To "tag" is just a crafty way to be BAD FAITH. We both know it even if you officially write that according to you their good faith is plausible.

• also, your answer is false : there is absolutely nothing to do between a tricky situation of the use of photos in the articles and Urbanoc daring to state that their is a rule [ [2]] "two images of relevant current products would be enough". IT IS A LIE. You know it, but instead of admiting this evidence, you prefer to defend him... Please, instead of sending me to a 10 000 words page as a diversion, find the sentence that could prove that the Urbanoc lie could be good faith. I am really curious of what you can find yourself. Imagine if my students did like you ? I ask them some questions, and they would reply "read this 10 000 words page, and maybe you will find the answer somewhere". Obviously, I would be oblige to set their mark as zero, because they would failed to prove anything.

• Why you didn't answer about the fact that Urbanoc erased a source of 2014 to speak about the actual sales, to replace it by a old source of 2010 ? It is an abosolute bad faith and a "vandalization". And In addition, page 35, the old source even proove tha contrary of what he wrote ! This action, and all the others are a scandal, but you preferred to not answer to this point. As you have always defended him, then you will probably defend him again, so show me where there is a rule saying "when speaking about the actual sales, you must erase a reliable recent source to replace it by an old one. And write the contrary of what the old source proves, anyway."...

Notice in addition, that these people insult me, saying that I am bad faith and promoting some companies. It is totally false. When some people write some awards in the VW article, they don't accuse them to promote VW, but when I put the same awards in the Renault article, they dare to write publicly that I am bad faith and that I promote Renault, and they remove the awards that are authorized in the VW article, but for an infinite unfair treatment they erase them from Renault, Citroen, and soon Peugeot obviously ! They are bad faith to treat unequally some companies. It is obvious. As to me, I just write some neutral facts, I don't promote any company.

Thanks you in advance for your accurate answers to my questions (please) and I will send you several accurate and obvious proofs of the bad faith of these people. Thank you and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 17:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Your discussion was "archived" due to inactivity. No admin found it necessary to take any action on your claims. There's 2 reasons for this:

1. Your posts are long, weirdly formatted, and generally difficult to read. I requested that you shorten it, and cut down with all the bolding, and you failed to acknowledge that at all. As such, you probably scared a lot of people to looking into it.
2. The few people who did look into your laundry list of issues, generally found that many of your problems stem from you; any time anyone disagrees with you, you aggressively accuse them of bad faith prematurely. Even in your post above, every single conclusion by of yours seems to jump to "bad faith" without considering any other conclusions. I have not come to that same conclusion in any of the edits I've reviewed so far. They could be incorrect in their assertions, but there's no reason to think its part of any conspiracy campaign to smear a brand or anything.

• Here's what you need to do:

1. Discuss further on article talk pages about disputed information. If you don't feel there are enough people taking part in the discussions, try neutrally requesting input from a relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT, or even consider starting up a Request for Comment.
2. Discuss in briefer, easier to read additions, so its easier to follow what you're saying. You must understand that everyone here are volunteers, not paid workers. If you write things that are difficult to read, its only human nature for people to not want to bother reading it.
3. Start following the rules around here. For or instance, not a single reason above is a reason to ignore WP:BURDEN. It doesn't matter how obvious something is, if it's challenged, it needs a source. If its super obvious, then it should be super easy to find a source to support it, simple as that. (And I found a source for Winton Churchill literally in 5 seconds of time. If your examples are truly comparable, it should take a very minimal amount of time and effort to provide said sources for such obvious claims.)

• Here's what you need to stop:

1. You need to stop with the bad faith assumptions. If any more accusations are thrown around by you about bad faith based on comments made prior to me writing this, you're going to receive a block. Your accusations are getting disruptive. You need to focus on discussing the issues, not the people. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sergecross73,

Could you help out with nominating the chronological templates? A lot of them can be deleted, but doing them all separately is such a hassle. Maybe with your awesome sysop powers can do them more quickly? -- Soetermans. T / C 10:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I see you asked me about this at WPVG too - I didn't mean to ignore you, I just never got the ping. Anyways, I'll respond over there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's been done, btw. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 23:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I had actually seen it when you first did it, but forgot to comment. Thanks for the reminder. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

At User_talk:Technotopia you were the one to make his block permanent. Special:Contributions/82.39.42.100 has the same attitude, on the same talk page he was previously blocked for edit warring and whatnot at. One of the blocked IP addresses started with 82 also. This IP addresses first edit ever was [3] where he said the same thing he did on his other accounts that were blocked. He then post on the same page [4] with his complaint about not being able to change what he wanted, and and then reverts me when I erase it with the edit summary "(Reverting Troll who things he owns the article and talk page)". Please look at those links, and confirm its clearly the same guy. Six edits ever, and three of them on the Sega Genesis talk page. Dream Focus 15:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Dream Focus - I certainly see the similarities. I want to see a little more (if he bothers to keep editing from that IP) before I block, but it seems likely. Let me know if anything happens that it seems I miss... Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree his last edit isn't relevant to the talk page discussion it was placed in, just pointless accusations against others? I removed it twice and he reverted me both times. Someone else can remove it. Dream Focus 13:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I just recently left him a warning on his talk page that his comments need to be more constructive. I was going give him the chance to read the warning before I start removing it myself, though I don't fault you for just removing it. It's not an acceptable talk page comment, but I also feel that editors largely ignore vague, poorly written complaints written by IPs like that, so I don't find it to be the biggest concern. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Dream Focus - I've blocked him, as one of his responses sounded extremely similar to Technotopia. He's requested an unblock, so it'll be interesting to see if another admin comes to the same conclusion. (I would think they would.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you can help me out on this AfD concern. While I didn't create the nomination, I did nominate it for speedy deletion before so I kinda have a little bit of history with the article. I myself do not believe it meets criteria to having its own article. And I've seen people voice that it should which is fine if people do. However, I noticed that, besides that original creator of the article (who is most likely the person the articles about), the three editors are red linked editors who each their own have less than ten edits to their name. The red linked part wasn't a concern for me. Why would it if I was like that for over five years on this site? But two of the editors contributions to the site were only related to the Jory Prum article and its nomination. Heck, this editors only contributions is on the AfD. What also raised my suspicions was how this one editor came back nearly six years later just to voice their vote to the AfD.

This thing kinda rubs me the wrong way on whether these editors are sock puppets or not. Would it be possible for you to look into this or direct me to someone to take a look at it? GamerPro64 15:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, I added the "not a vote" tag to the top of the article, and the "SPA" tag can be added to the editors your suspect of of being WP:SPA's. (I would have, but I didn't have that template memorized, nor did I know if all were suspect or not.) That will make sure that the closing admin takes a close look at those editors at least. I think that's all the action I'd take at this point. Hopefully some more experienced editors will leave a comment soon. I'll leave an !vote myself once I look into it a little more. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the tip and your input on this. GamerPro64 15:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to make clear that I have never commented on anything on WP without being logged into only this account. All comments made by others on the AfD were made by actual humans (I would assume) who were not me and were not told what to say by me. I think it wrong to try and sway a discussion like that by either hiding behind fake accounts or coercing others to speak one way or the other. Those who have commented may be people I know or people who had heard that I was trying to defend notability, but they commented of their own volition and without my influence. I do appreciate your concern for sock puppets being used and wanted to just be clear that those posts were NOT me. Jory ( talk) 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't believe you to be socking, but considering the edit history of most of the other "Keeps" in the discussion, I assume there's a lot of WP:SPAs and socking amongst your supporters. While you cannot be blamed if they are doing this against your wishes, at the same time, many of them offer up baseless, non-policy based rationales that will likely be ignored. They're, at best, not helping, and at worst, making things worse, as many editors get upset when they can see that editors don't have the interest of the encyclopedia itself in their motivations. As for me, I'm still undecided on what to do. There are some sources, but still debating on whether its enough to meet the WP:GNG. It's also strongly recommended that people don't write their own Wikipedia articles. I think you're going to keep running into hurdles with that one... Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for believing me. I appreciate your thoughts and candor about the situation. So far, I feel like you, Jimfbleak, and DanielRigal have been the only three involved who've really given the article a fair shake. I appreciate that you've actually looked at the content and tried to appraise it from a question of notability, rather than solely on the issue of autobiography. I felt like the others were mostly cherry-picking the citations that were meant to support factual data and use them to prove the "grasping at straws" that one editor claimed.

I certainly understand why autobiography is strongly discouraged and would prefer not to have created the article myself; certainly it would have saved me tremendous headaches this week. It's a very strange situation, I must admit. On the one side, editors, who are (I hope) looking to act in the best interest of the encyclopedia, are deciding whether my accomplishments are notable enough (i.e. sound engineer for The Walking Dead, an Academy Award-winning Pixar film, and on some highly acclaimed games). And on the other side, watching my projects get nominated for and/or win awards, such as today's BAFTA Awards nominations for two of the actors I recorded this past year makes it clear that the names that get easier notability are not the ones doing the work behind the scenes; the invisible art, so to speak. With very little direct acknowledgement from mass media or fans, it is difficult to establish notability from a media and awards perspective. Talk about an emotional roller coaster!

Anyway, thanks for your efforts and for coming to the situation from a place of level-headed neutrality. Ever since you stepped in, I felt like I might actually have some editors read the article and not just get railroaded by the two who are clearly more interested in the autobiographical nature than any other issue. Jory ( talk) 19:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)