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 Serge. Please, you never wanted to admit that Urbanoc is wrong, but I ask you to demand him to stop to erase systematically my contributions that are relevant yet. As an example, I added Louis Schweitzer as a key people in Renault's history, HE IS, he launched Renault+Nissan+Samsung Motors+Dacia, chose Carlos Ghosn, launched some new factories in Brazil that is now the 2nd market of Renault etc. HE IS A KEY MAN OF RENAULT. But as I added that Urbanoc erase it immediately, and it is impossible to discuss with him, he harasses me, he never accept any compromise, he wants to command, and show that he is stronger on Wikipedia. His behaviour is childish and it is not good for the article. Louis Schweitzer deserve to be mentioned. Renault could even not exist any more, if he didn't launched the things that I mentioned above. Urbanoc should not erase that. And he he had some knowledges in the automotive industry, then he could have added that before. Please, make him understand that he must stop to erase all my contributions. I am a PhD, nobody ever says that my articles are bad, but Urbanoc erases systematically what I add to improve the articles here, it is an obsession and an harassment, not relevant. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 13:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And it seems you've decided to continue with the bad-faith accusations rather than discuss the issues at hand, and have resorted to reverting over and over again. You need to focus on content, not editors, and get more people involved in discussions if there is a dispute. See the responses I've left on your talk page for more information on it. I assume you haven't read them, considering your continued activities... Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Serge. I would like to have your analysis about this fact : here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault_Kadjar&diff=next&oldid=644239741 Warren Whyte replaced a serious source by a car magazine by a "source" from a not serious "paper" comparing the people who would interest to the Renault Kadjar to some old fashion "cage a googoo" fans. This music band has absolutely nothing to do with Renault and the automotive industry. Why adding such a "source" ? Do you assess that it is a denigrating and homophobic speech that has nothing to do with a serious source to put in a car industry article on Wikipedia ? Do you think that is a good level contribution ? Urbanoc sent a star to Warren Whyte to promote him. Thank you to answer precisely to my questions and to explain what you are supposed to do towards such behaviours. Do you have to ask them to stop such behaviours ? Do you have to "block" their account ? As you can notice, I don't say that some people are bad faith, I just show you some proofs and let you analyse them. Best regards. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 13:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure why Warren Whyte changed the source, you could always ask him, but the edit shows he didn't alter any of the article's content other than removing the small bit about it "being expected to release in 2015", (which may have found speculative at that point? It was about a month and a half ago.) I'd also point out that Warren started the article and was the one to originally add the source he replaced, I doubt he was out to cause harm if he was revising his own work like that.
• Nothing in the change is offensive or homophobic. I'm not sure where you're getting the "cage a googoo" part from, nor am I familiar with such a phrase, but the source he used had the headline "Renault reveal their new Kadjar and hope drivers will go 'googoo' over it" - which is kind of a weird thing to say, but I imagine they mean "hope they go gaga over", which is sort of a phrase for "hope they get excited for it", so it wouldn't be offensive or anything. Its basically saying that "Renault hopes the Kadjar will get people excited", which is pretty much every business ever about their product, so I see no harm in that...
• While I don't agree with your concerns, I do appreciate that you expressed your concerns more concisely, and without nearly as many accusations. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

-> Hello Serge. Thank you for your answers. Yes, the link that I showed you proves definitely that W.Whyte changed the article to add this source in first position in the article. By the way, here is what the Wikipedia article says about the "source" that has been added by W.Whyte : Tabloid journalism : "Tabloid journalism is a style of journalism that tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and junk food news; Often, tabloid newspaper allegations about the sexual practices, drug use, or private conduct of celebrities is borderline defamatory...". Do you think that it is relevant to add that "daily record" tabloid source in an automotive industry article ? I don't see any "laughing at" source by a tabloid in the Ford, GM, and Volkswagen group Wikipedia articles. Do you think that then we should add some like W.Whyte added in the Renault article ? As you think that there is nothing bad to add a tabloid source for Renault, so it should not be forbidden for the other brands either, shouldn't it ? We will see if such "changes" will be "cancelled" by the "patrols" in the case Ford, GM, and Volkswagen group Wikipedia articles. Thank you again for your official analysis. Best Regards. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 14:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I do understand your point in theory, though, in practice, neither the source nor the content change said anything defamatory in this particular instance. I have no problem with you changing the source back as you did today, but please discuss on the talk page if anyone else changes it back. Even if you're right, that's the proper way to handle it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

-> Hello. The tabloid article uses some (very big) "crafty" tricks to laugh at Renault with a total defamation, like "Let's hope they don't use two-tone colouring based on Limahl's old hairdo... " So if the MINI has 2 tones, it is great and fashionable, if a Renault vehicles would have 2 tones, it is old fashion and ridiculous as an old music band... Notice that as the Kadjar will not have 2 tones, then now they say that it is old fashion to not propose that... so they always manage to denigrate, and it is a pity that some people support this behaviour. This source is so unknown that it is strange too that WW replaced the previous one, in first position in the WP article. That is exactly what someone who would like to damage Renault would do. By the way, I removed this strange "source" from a tabloid, also because this article added by Warren Whyte was written before the official launch of Kadjar, so it said non-informed things. In addition, the tabloid shows a photo of the Kwid, another vehicle (so it abuses people), cites "cage a googoo" and shows their photos what has nothing to do with the automotive industry and Renault. Strange choice for a "source"... On the contrary, they removed all my sources that site historical facts. I have one more question : in 2 WP articles there are some long lists of awarded cars, with no source, but they ask some only for Renault, is it normal to do this ? They removed only the Renault Alliance, even not waiting for a source would be added... And obviously, it is difficult to find a source from 35 years ago... Strange difference of treatment, isn't it ? Best regards. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 21:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said before, I agree that it probably wasn't a good source change, but the source change did not add any inappropriate content to the article. You've removed the source, and it doesn't seem anyone's fought to reinstate it, so there's really nothing to be done here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Serge. I know that you will not support me, whereas I am honest, yet I have to alert you about the fact that always the same user insults me, defames me, insults an independent British consulting company (SBD), like he defamed the EuroNCAP independant company saying that it made the promotion of Renault (?!?). He uses some words like "garbage press" for Bloomberg and Reuters... whereas he supports the tabloid source from "Daily Record"... It is worst and worst. He erases all my contributions systematically, and obliges me to add a source for each sentence, whereas it is not the case for the other articles (it is then an arbitrary harassment), and for the serious sources that I add, he arbitrarily says that they are not reliable, failing to prove anything wrong, and so erases my text with sources from Bloomberg, Reuters, Automotive news, Auto express, etc. You blocked my account for no fair reason. This user does 1 millions worst from a Wikipedia account and you don't block him, or even blame him officially. So what will you do ? You should ask him to stay away from the Renault article as he just blocks the improvement of the content. I added that the R-link system got the best rank from an independent study. It is a neutral fact. He accuses me to be "pro-french". When someone add an award to Ford or a VW group brands, he does not accuse the people to be pro-USA or pro-German. So why does he interpret that adding a neutral fact for Renault would be pro-french ? Does his opposite interpretations of the same situations are motivated that actually he is anti-french ? All my colleagues worldwide (University Professors) think so. Also, factually and accurately :

• Important also, I am a PhD and I write accurate articles, for example I write "height awards", but this user replace this accurate number by some fuzzy words like "significative number of". Height is more accurate and briefer than his deliberately fuzzy words. Would you like to ask him to stop replacing accurate figures by some longer fuzzy expressions, it is a bad way to write an article. I am a Professor and I teach my students to write precise information, not some fuzzy ones.
• Strangely enough for years, some arbitrary opinions like "The Renault Avantime, a BIZARRE coupé / multi-purpose vehicle" or "Any suggestions that its QUIRKY styling would not fit in with the tastes of British buyers were quickly confounded in 2005 when it was the fourth best-selling car in Britain." are included in the article, without this user to ask any "source" (!) or to simply delete these arbitrary "opinions". In addition, a 4th rank vehicle is good out of more than 20 C-segment cars, so the "opinion" is totally false, MATHEMATICALLY : in the best 20% ! Opposite to this, all my neutral facts are erased and a source is asked for each sentence, what proves an obvious unequal treatment that Wikipedia should not support. He lets some unsourced denigrating opinion, and reject all the serious sources that I add for some neutral facts published in the press and professional issues. I asked some Professor colleagues and they all assess that as an obvious proofs of arbitrary behaviour of this user, supported by Wikipedia.

So what will you do finally ? Blocking my account or asking him to stop his arbitrary behaviour and staying away from the Renault, Citroen and Peugeot articles ? Best regards. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 14:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are one step away from being blocked again, honestly, because you're still focusing on accusations instead of actually fixing problems. As intelligent as you may be in real life, your lack of knowledge on Wikipedia policy is getting disruptive.

• Someone asking you to provide sources is not harassment. Period. Not debatable. It's the foundation of the website, and your burden to provide sources when you're adding content.
• Someone questioning the quality of your sources, valid or not, is not an attack on you.
• I've blocked your account in the past for a very good reason: Your constant accusations towards others is disruptive, and hindering progress here. As I said before, the fact that you have a PhD only puzzles me further; you're clearly an intelligent man, so why can't you drop with the accusations and discuss the content.

Final warning: Another accusation towards harassment, and you're blocked again. No one is harassing you. Discuss on talk pages, get WikiProjects or WP:RFC participants involved if you need more input. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

=> Hello Serge.

• I obeyed you and proved on the talk page that some of the links on the actual Renault page are wrong. Yet, they did not answer to that, and they removed twice my corrected links. For your information, here are the proofs for the wrong links. This actual link sends to Chevrolet Corvet NOT to the announced Renault Alliance http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1211_car_of_the_year_winners/photo_32.html so it is a "spam" link. So, according to you, why the "patrols" restore the proved "spam" links and remove my relevant ones ? Is it a normal process ? Here are some other wrong links that I corrected, but that they restored twice, so these wrong links are still in the Renault article now... http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/coty/ and commercial link http://www.autotrader.co.uk/advice/2010/07/buying/test-driving-a-car These 2 links should "prove" that some cars were voted "Car of the year in Europe", but they don't as you can check yourself now : they are just bad sources, and so the "patrol" restored these false links and erased my relevant ones. Twice. Is it normal ? I pointed that out on the talk page as you commanded me to do, but they did not take these proofs into account and they erased everything. So all the sources and texts, that they asked me to add, have been erased here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=650531315&oldid=650464557 and again here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=650607276&oldid=650593832 in spite of my proofs in the talk area.
• a user claimed that he wanted Ford and Vauwhall to be cited in the Renault page, whereas they have no direct business connection in this context, because "Ford and Vauxhall are traditionally the number one brands and are both British". My change about this part is only here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=650430686&oldid=650398033 Yet, this user erased also ALL MY OTHER CHANGES (nine different saved versions) bringing some sources where they tagged "citation is needed", claiming that "there is really no way for me to delete the disputable material without also reverting whatever useful things you have managed to accomplish.". FALSE, there is a way to revert ONLY this part as it was ONLY here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=650430686&oldid=650398033 Do you support that some users erase 9 different versions, because they do not like ONLY ONE ? I explained that, yet they erased a second time everything, even some changes that I made today.
• I added a source by the European community, explaining that the R-Link system, known as Carminat during the 1980s, worthed financial support, and got it. So it it a third party source. THIS THIRD PARTY SOURCE IS PERFECTLY RELIABLE. But they don't take it into account, and focus on an other independent study source that they don't like, without any proof.
• I added a source by a Professor, published at Oxford university press, explaining that "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company", what is clear about his actions, but they ignore it. YET, THIS THIRD PARTY SOURCE IS PERFECTLY RELIABLE.
• I proposed to one of these users to create a new article, bringing my help to write it. It is about a new automotive brand that has been launched in 2015 for the Geneva automobile show.
• I obeyed you by writing loads of explanations to justify each of my change -what obviously slows dramatically the progress of the content-, but in spite of no answer, no proof that my sources could be wrong, that my other changes could be wrong, they erased ALL my changes.
• I obeyed you in anything you commanded me to do. So you have no reason to block my IP. I cited no pseudo. I accused nobody. I just describe what happened. On the conrary, I am accused to be "pro-Renault" without any proof. I am accused to have called a user "idiot", whereas I have never done that, and he finaly admitted that I have never used this word on my page, but this false accusation is still written on several other pages yet... I am accused of having an "agenda" and "advocacy" with no proof, and it is not the case at all. When someone adds an award in the Ford, VW brands, GM brands articles, he/she is not accused of having an "agenda" and "advocacy", but when I do the same in the Renault article, I am publicly accused without any proof... Will you ask that these accusations to be erased ?
• if you have some ideas about how to add the sources that they asked by "citation needed" without they would erase them yet, and without any accurate explanations to justify this erasement, and making my positive changes to be taken into account, tell me what I could do to follow a WP process. If nobody add some sources where they wrote "citation is needed", and as they remove the good sources that I bring, then they could remove a lot of texts that are true, saying that they "challenged" Renault, but got no source, whereas I really did add some...

Best regards. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried consulting with a relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT or starting an WP:RFC yet? These are common ways to get more people involved in discussions if there is a stalemate. If you do this, I hope you'll break the issues into smaller, more manageable issues. These massive walls of text are overwhelming and hard to follow, and make it less likely for people to want to catch up or join in. (I've told you this many times, and the way Dianna declined to help after you left her a massive wall of text is the perfect proof to what I'm saying.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

=> I proved you that some spam links have been restored twice, so why don't you intervene yourself for that at least ? If I don't bring the proofs : I am not listened to. If I bring the proofs, it is a "wall", so I am not read... Never any solution for good faith people ;-) And I proved many precisely that I am right, whereas they just say without any proof "Nothing worth to be kept here" and erase all... Best regards. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone and asked for clarification on the Renault talk page. I'd like to see what their thought process is. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm told that there is a live video feed of today's Wikipedia editathon: here

Interesting, though I must admit, I'm not even all that familiar with these edit-a-thons. Do people get together and then all edit Wikipedia a lot? Would a livestream of such an event be..well..rather dry? (Watching others edit Wikipedia?) Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the idea is that people are in the same room, usually one per state or per metropolis. I was given that youtube livestream link while I was mobile and hadn't previewed it; when I got home, I saw that every time I checked in, yeah it was some woman presumably editing Wikipedia. ;) Hehe, sorry. I was trying to spread awareness. I didn't get around to including the link to the event itself here. I just had 1 or 2 days' notice in the first place! But we accomplished a heck of a lot, and I learned some things about various subjects. I sure wish I didn't have to drive 2 hours in each direction to get to the nearest meetup. — Smuckola (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, you really are hardcore if you're driving that far for Wikipedia events! That is quite a drive! Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am hard core, but not on that particular day. ;) I meant to say that I wish I wouldn't have to drive.  ;) I got on the webcam to say hi to a room full of total stranger, which is mildly hard core. [1] — Smuckola (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought you meant you wish you didn't have to, but did it anyways. I understand now. Thanks for letting me know about the event though, even though I didn't participate, its still interesting to know about. As much as this all just started as a little side-hobby, with all the people coming to me for help with being an Admin these days, I feel like I should be aware of everything Wikipedia or something... ;) Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP user is clearly ignoring the RfC for the Awards section, as he's adding a lot of car awards to the article.

I already commented in the Renault's talk page. Regards -- Urbanoc ( talk) 15:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Thank you for commenting, please continue to discuss there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Serge!

I've found some sources for the article.

Henry Rollins talking about his experience with the Ramones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-b7lpSg2Vc The whole video he talks about how they were one of his favorite bands. The end of the video he mentions Ian Mackaye and talks about some other DC guys. He talks about how "Everyone who saw the Ramones with me that night ended up in a band".

This Bad Brains article has the source for where they got their name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Brains

In this Greg Ginn interview, he talks about his and Keith Morris' being inspired by The Ramones: http://www.staythirstymedia.com/news/43/335-greg-ginn.html

For the musical characteristics, I don't know where to find a source for that but if you listen to the music and compare it to The Ramones, you can definitely hear some similarities with the drums and guitar styles. The guitar players basically all used down strokes and major barre chords which they got from Johnny Ramone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.199.168 ( talk) 19:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for putting the effort in - so many people make claims on the talk page without any sources, and refuse to get them, saying that "its obvious" or "everyone knows that". It's nice to see someone just go and find sources. Anyways, I'm not really active on that article much, I'm mostly just monitoring it after some recent disputes regarding it. But you're free to add the information the best you can into the article. Or you can wait and see if anyone stops by the talk page to help too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement! I edited the page with sources. If you see anything wrong with the section I just edited, feel free to fix it up a bit. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.199.168 ( talk) 22:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Blaguy and IP 73 are blocked for personal attacks and uncivil remarks, 70 was just given a final warning because he's so new. Please, all of you need to make a better effort to discuss calmly and civilly. These discussions are a mess... Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding about the whole ordeal and putting a stop to it. I left some sources on the talk page. Feel free to check them out and let me know if they're good enough. I did my best to look for this stuff and I think a lot of it has good content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.199.168 ( talk) 04:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you Sergecross73, but some of the changes questioned by me and others (as the Kadjar inclusion and the rewording of the "Renault in the UK" section) are present on the current version of the article (as the discussion covers the last two reversions to the IP inclussions, but one of such reversions was in turn reverted by him). I don't want to edit it as is protected for discussion, so I wish to clarify this issue. Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If its generally supported by the consensus, or never had consensus to be changed, then I am fine with you making the changes. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the answer. Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 23:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry about that, I misunderstood who reverted my changes. You locked the article, but Smuckola was responsible for the reversions. I will take up the issue with Smuckola from here. Nonetheless, unlock the article and back off. I intend to escalate this if you do not. Quequotion ( talk) 09:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not threaten me : you need to discuss on the talk page and only make changes if there is a consensus to do so. The fact that there was a ton of reverting without enough discussion is why it was locked in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 10:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I did post on the talk page the moment I noticed that my changes had been reverted. Smuckola did not attempt to communicate with me, although he apparently did ask you to enforce his reversions (off site?). I don't think your cozy relationship is safe for the articles you collaborate on, not to mention in violation of protocol. Since no individual owns any part of the articles on Wikipedia, no one should have to ask anyone's permission to add new content. Smuckola should have marked the uncited content and posted an inquiry on the talk page; you should have reminded him to do so before handing him personal ownership of the page in violation of protocol. Quequotion ( talk) 11:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the talk page history, Smuckola did leave a comment, and you deleted it. Care to explain that for starters? Further digging into the talk page history also shows my discussions on that talk page well predate your current issues there. Sergecross73 msg me 11:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

1. A bit late; his comment came in only after you granted him authority over the article and certainly reads like the gloating of a small timer with an ace in his pocket.
2. I honestly never saw this comment. Looks like that's my fault; perhaps I accidentally pasted over it (having to copy my text, reload the page, re-open the editor, and paste over my own text every time a change happens anywhere on the page makes things a bit messy). Quequotion ( talk) 12:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

While I don't quite fully understand how you managed to do that, at least now you understand why there hasn't been much discussion so far - your actions accidentally hindered it. Now enough with the crying about wrongdoing - it is perfectly acceptable to protect a page in this scenario, when an inexperienced editor or IP continually re-adds information that is not appropriate to an article. It needs to be written as an encyclopedia article, not your personal blog or "How to" guide. Rather than continually pointing the finger at me, I suggest you discuss on that talk page on how you can maybe salvage a little of the removed information in a more encyclopedic manner. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My edits were made in good faith, though they did violate Wikipedia's style guidelines. I am willing to make an effort to make the content more "encyclopedic" if that's really the problem. I would be able to do something about it if the page were not locked. I understand protecting a page undergoing an edit war, but you went a step further and reverted the page to Smuckola's newly reduced version--that was inappropriate. You should have reverted the page to before either of us edited it and locked it there, and locked us both out. If Smuckola continues reverting my edits, regardless of their encyclopedic quality, it will prove that this was not the real the issue as I suspect. Quequotion ( talk) 12:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I protected the page, I did not make any reversions on the page. The page history proves this. I'm getting rather tired of these accusations and you telling me how I should be an admin, when its very clear you know very little of Wikipedia policy. You seem to have a hard time even documenting even the most basic details, like who made what edits. Slow down and discuss on the article talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Serge, its Metalworker14. Um Ghost Thief got redirected to Living Sacrifice. I thought it was just get redirected to Ghost Thief. Could u help me with that? Metalworker14 ( yo) 6:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That other editor was not supposed to do that. I'll monitor the page to make sure it won't happen again. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey man, sorry about that whole thing. I tried to be civil initially but that guy just made me so mad. I'll try my best not to let that happen again in the future. BLAguyMONKEY! ( talk) 00:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Blaguymonkey - Thanks, I don't get many apologies about this sort of thing. I'm sorry I had to block you; as that IP was clearly just trying to get a reaction out of you. Anyways, thanks for the comment. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, don't threaten them. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My comment was neither. Thats not a template, I wrote that, and it was an instruction not to edit against consensus. If you don't like getting messages like this, I recommend not making edits contrary to AFDs that closed the same day. It did feel strange giving you such a fundamental instruction, but you're the one who made the bad judgement call. Sergecross73 msg me 10:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have mixed thoughts on templating regulars (and so do others). However, setting that aside, it's curious that the regular in question didn't notice it was not a template. Killiondude ( talk) 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's not especially worded like one either, nor does it have any of the typical warning icons/images the templates typically have. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Serge, I think a "please" and "thanks" might have come across a little less threatening/templatey. Including a link to the AFD in question might have been useful as well. -- Izno ( talk) 01:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Izno - Id like to think I'm usually more like that. I was just rather irritated to see that an article I had just done a bunch of source hunting to save, got closed as keep, just to have someone go and redirect it with a vague rationale of "not notable" or something. I also assume people check the "view history" before they chose to redirect - especially a long time editor - so I had assumed they would have seen it plainly stated in the history (or articles talk page, it's also mentioned there typically). Are you guys ( talk page stalker) of his or something? I'm surprised many people are even noticing this exchange, it was a rather obscure article... Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I happen to stalk your page. ;)

As for irritation, take a couple seconds before saving when you're irritated next time. I can see this being a one-off event because I've seen your prior interactions, but it mightn't look like that to the next guy down the road, I suppose.

As for redirects, I don't typically tend to check histories before boldly redirecting, so the first time he took a shot at the article I would probably have AGFd (not looking at the history myself at the time; else I would have seen his name in December 2014 redirecting the article and likely having the page on his watchlist). It's the ones after I am puzzled about.

That said, a keep at AFD does not inhibit a merge result of an article. Whether the user in question actually merged the content to the article he was redirecting to is questionable, but that would be too much research for me, an uninvolved editor here. -- Izno ( talk) 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I hadn't noticed you as a talk page stalker before, that's all. Anyways, yeah, I always check the article's history and talk page to see if there's any history for or against deletion/merging/redirecting. I figured it to be good practice of WP:BEFORE (and timesaving in the long run, as it cuts down on hasty mistakes like this.) And while I agree that a "Keep" result doesn't necessarily guarantee an article from a redirect, if said "Keep" close happened on that very same day, at the very least a new discussion would be warranted, as the AFD establishes a current consensus.

Anyways, regardless, yesterday I completely rewrote the article, expanding it out of stub status while implementing 5-6 sources into it, so I doubt the article will continue to have problems like this, and I don't really interact much with Walter, so I doubt we'll continue to have a problem. So it's all effectively resolved now. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And then this edit that borders on a personal attack. It was far from "lazily/thoughtlessly placed tags". In fact the only reason that I didn't revert is because between the time I placed it and the time you removed, you added references and supported the subject's notability.

As for the material you placed on my talk page, you're right, it wasn't a template, but then again, it was threatening and completely uncalled for. Sorry for suggesting that it was a template. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) It's pretty easy to interpret adding the notability and ref-improve template, especially after edit summaries such as "Restore article added by deception" (seems bad faith) and "Still not notable," as petulance. Serge's edit summary may have been a bit harsh given that the article did need references, but I do not see it as a personal attack. As for the comments Serge left on your talk page, it's not a threat to call out someone who's clearly editing against consensus. If anything, it was no more than a warning. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 04:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was not a "threat". I didn't say "or else" or "or you'll be blocked" or "something bad will happen if you don't". I just said "don't do it". It can't be a threat if there's no sort of condition for action. It was just a stern warning. Even "completely uncalled for" seems rather inaccurate, I mean, you did do the exact thing I warned you of. And calling someone's actions "lazy" is hardly a personal attack when we're talking about slapping tags on an article instead of improving it, especially when we're talking notability tags right after the article survived an AFD. Commonly held viewpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 10:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How else can you source this? The info comes from a string inside the ROM. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 21:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you're referring to. Are you talking about adding a track list to the article? Or is this in reference to a particular edit in the music section or something? Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)