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.

I didn't have any idea about the (long!) discussion at WP:VG, or that Tripple had even been blocked until today when I found it on a fluke; just had a comment regarding the latter, and I would've thrown in my 2¢ on the former discussion if I'd known. Anyway.

I think there was a misunderstanding re: the I think you used as your rationale for blocking him. Dissident misread the diff history and thought that Tripple was reverting me adding something back on Sega, but once I explained what was going on on the TP, Dissident said he was fine with the change Tripple made.

Honestly I know the nittygritty really doesn't matter; if it wasn't this he would've likely gotten blocked over something else, and the main issue is definitely in that he doesn't communicate properly with others half the time or listen when people say he needs to approach things differently. I've gotten along ok with him so far because it's rare for someone to truly wear on my patience; while I'm not fond of the prickliness Luke or Dissident tended to meet him with, I can understand where their frustration comes from. Not everyone wants to spend all their time trying to get through to him, so he's got to learn. BlusterBlaster ^beep _boop 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I'm torn on what to do with him. On one hand, its not quite as bad as I first thought. On the other hand, its still very concerning how confrontational and unnecessarily difficult he is. He didn't argue with me at all about his block, but has argued with me at length about the notability requirements (and shortcomings) of some of the articles he's recently created. He won't listen to anything, and fights every step of the way. The "straw that broke the camels back" isn't quite what I thought it was, but at the same time, it doesn't feel right to unblock someone who has been so combative since the start of the block as well (in regards to things that were unrelated to the block as well, its not like he was combative because he feels he was wrongfullyblocked.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

He needed a break from editing the articles anyway, I mean it's not like this one is permanent. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

He's returned, but already blanked another article into his version without consensus backing it, so I'll continue to keep an eye on him. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 02:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep me posted. I'll try to keep an eye on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• FYI, pretty certain that Mr.2994 ( talk · contribs) is Tripple-ddd. They've copied the content from his sandbox User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox2 to User:Mr.2994/sandbox. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 13:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• He's back, as Iowespawl. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 09:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked, reverted, warned the original account against block evasion, and protected a number of the Sega article's he's usually trying to edit while block evading. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• He's back again, under an IP. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 20:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• More blocks and protection. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• As a suggestion, you might taken this case to WP:ANI and suggest a topic ban from Sega-related articles, as I believe that's the locus of the disruption. He may edit positively outside that topic-space. -- Izno ( talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestion. If he ever stops block evading, returns, and keeps having problems with Sega articles, I will likely take that course of action. (Though I don't think I've ever seen him edit anything non-Sega related, so that may be essentially a block/ban for him as well too.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Pardon my late comment, I just checked back here after a couple weeks to see if there were any developments I wasn't aware of. For Pete's sake. Well, if/when it does come to filing an ANI report, feel free to ping me in it and I'll throw my two bits in on the matter. I'd like to think he might be able to contribute positively; he's obviously capable of putting a lot of time and dedication into the edits he does from what I've seen, however misguided they tend to be... but he's shown so little ability or willingness to work in collaboration and shows so little comprehension of what he's doing wrong, not to mention this socking/block evasion nonsense; it's really outweighing what good he could bring unless he shapes the hell up and shows he will. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 15:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sr.343 looks like another sock. I don't know if there's some ongoing log somewhere. –  czar 16:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been informally being documented here I suppose. Did you block this new one, Czar? I'm having a hard time finding this user name anywhere to check/block myself. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sr.343—nope, just punting it to whomever is handling it. I'lll move this section back up with the rest. –  czar 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, please continue to do so if you find anymore block evading socks. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Now he's basically saying he's gonna keep socking if he doesn't get his way. He expects you to referee between him and Dissident when he's already gotten enough WP:ROPE to hang Earth around the equator before getting blocked. This is just ridiculous. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 13:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, its absolutely ridiculous. Since his "I won't stop socking" clearly indicates that yet another one of the socks are confirmed to be his, I have now indefinitely blocked him. If he keeps socking as he threatens, then it would just be reset into infinity anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure others are doing the same already, but I'll watchlist his sandboxes and any Sega articles I'm not already, and I'll tip you off to any stray laundry. On the subject of the sandboxes, though, are sandboxes of indef'd users usually left alone or deleted on principle? I don't care either way, but on one hand he makes it really easy to spot his socks by going into them again constantly. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh-- never mind, saw you nuked them already. I'll still keep an eye out. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

BlusterBlaster - Thank you, I appreciate the heads up whenever you see anything suspicious. You, Dissident, and 1337gamer seem to catch him faster than I do. And yeah, I deleted the sandboxes since he's indeffed now, so their only function was to enable his socking further. You do make a good point that it made it easy to catch him, but I think as long as we keep an eye on these Sega articles he should be easy to spot anyways. He'll be the only one bludgeoning his way through massive overhauls of the Sega articles and creating one sentence articles on Sega staff... Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

91.114.131.50 might be him, just based on similar edits he's done before. Just a heads up. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 06:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Another sock: Zeroshift3000 ( talk · contribs) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 08:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You can't prove it. The user described is bludgoeing massive changes and creates one sentence articles. Which I do not. -- Zeroshift3000 ( talk) 08:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't play stupid. It's blatantly obvious. Your first edit is creating is recreating one of tripple-ddd's sandbox: User:Zeroshift3000/sandbox. Either you are him or someone imitating him, regardless it is block worthy behaviour. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 09:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. I could outline all the ways I know its a sock, but judging by how closely ddd is viewing what I say ("bludgeoning" is a word I've used regarding him, for example) I imagine he'd just use it as a "How to Sock 101", so I'll just leave it as "blatantly obvious" that its him. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

BEANS, BEANS, the musical fruit... I checked into my watchlist briefly over the weekend, and noticed the IP poking around on Sega-- didn't know if I was being paranoid, so I didn't cry sock. Maybe I ought to be, but good that you semi'd it all the same. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 13:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you look at this, it may be another one of his alts. Just look at all the topics he brought up on my talk page, exactly the same as what Tripple-ddd keeps trying to edit. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Classic ddd writing massive posts. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Another sock: Homney ( talk · contribs) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 21:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. Does he take us for idiots? He's so blatant and obvious about it. Oh well. Thank you for your help. Please keep notifying me of these popping up like this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Another Mr.Kikuchi ( talk · contribs) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 11:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Problematic users The1337gamer ( talk · contribs) Dissident93 ( talk · contribs) keep reverting List of Sega arcade video games without exmplonation.-- Mr.Kikuchi ( talk) 12:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Dude, just stop. You don't even try to hide the fact you are block evading, and you continue to copy the sandbox from your original account. Do you want every Sega related article protected? Because this is what is going to happen eventually. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 12:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:EVADE we don't need to explain reverts. Your block evading is so blatantly obvious. At this point you're either trolling or being plain stupid by trying to plea to the admin that has blocked you on multiple occasions. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 12:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Another sock: Nettodama ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Considering the constant reverts and allusions to in-game credits, I'm going to say "likely", but I want to wait a bit before blocking for sure... Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• This looks like a copypaste from his sandbox. 99% sure it's him. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 00:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, you stated on your revert of my edit that I have incorrectly cited a news/magazine source despite the citation itself being classed under the {{ cite news}}: Empty citation ( help) tag, please explain what I have done incorrectly otherwise so that I may fix the issue, thank you for your time. SilentDan ( talk) 18:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, its just that, as is, the magazine isn't being cited, its just a link to their website advertising that new magazine. The direct quote doesn't appear anywhere at the link, and at the time of me adding the tag, the magazine hadn't even reached its street date yet. Since the quote isn't at the website link, you'd want to directly cite the magazine - the page number, issue, publisher, etc. There's some sort of "cite magazine" or "cite book" type template most people use. I don't recall it off hand, as its not very often I use print media as a source. I was hoping someone with access with said magazine would come and fix it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm reporting on GTANet.com page progress. I believe the problem with notability and significant coverage is fixed with: 1, 2, 3 as media coverage sole based on GTAforums, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 as media coverage on GTANet content. I understand this is still not an article that would qualify for any special class quality, however the page has enough significant coverage that are not only mentions and the amount of coverage (non trivial) is encouraging. I believe that with addition of these sources article passes the guidelines on wp:n and therefore, I believe you may remove the notability and ref improve notes on top of page. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 22:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Its...really hard to say here. A lot of these sources really are talking more about things that came from the website (like the Google Maps stuff or modding) than the website itself. If you want to try to remove the tags, I don't care...but if other editors that are now involved disagree and re-add the tags, then they should probably stay until they're convinced... Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

After viewing many fansite articles here on wiki and reading through guidelines for adding websites to wiki, this is what I concluded: wp:n of website is almost impossible if we don't take its content's coverage in media as wp:n. Especially if we talk about forum. No reliable source writers will write articles that are based on specific forum and just them. Because there is simply no need to do so as most forums are formatted with well known forum servers. (Contrast to this are websites that use own made servers and may have specific reference because of that software). I believe GTANet passes wp:n per this, especially this part: If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists. And the individual content of gtanet are mentioned contents such as mods. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) The basic fact is that most websites aren't notable. And that's why its almost impossible to show notability for most fansite articles: They simply aren't. The fact that the content they cover is notable does not make them notable. -- ferret ( talk) 21:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The content is what makes a website. How would any website exist without content? And if that website has been subject of media attention because of its content, than wp:n applies to it. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 22:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I CANT SEEM TO SITE REFERENCES FOR THE PAGE ZIAULLAH KHAN. HOW DO I SITE REFERENCES? And 1 more thing he is a secret. Not many know about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George2016forbes ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, Ziaullah khan was deleted because it didn't meet Wikipedia's standard for someone having an article. The short version, subjects of articles must have multiple, detailed, reliable sources writing about them. So, being a "secret" and "not many knowing about him" is probably not a good sign for them having their own article.

Anyways, to learn about about citing references, please click here. It is a good beginners guide. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd get the chance to do this before someone else did, but I'm thinking of bluelinking Sonic Dreams Collection of all things, since there seems to be a decent enough amount of RS coverage to base an article on, if a bit of a stubby one maybe. Didn't think I'd get the chance to be a big-shot Content Creator^TM for something so profoundly stupid, but here I am.

Thought I'd ask: d'you know any decently-written articles for parody games or anything similar that'd serve as a good reference point for such an article? Obviously I'll hold writing it to the same standard I should for any VG article, but I'm wondering if there's any really solid articles about a similar kind of game kicking around I should model it after. Any ideas? ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 12:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Pyst? It's borderline, but sourced, and survived an AFD.. Яehevkor ✉ 12:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Rehevkor: Hah, I heard about Pyst recently. I'll keep that one in mind. Haven't played the actual Myst since before I could read (yeah, I was a dumb kid; messing around in text-heavy puzzle games before I could even spell my own name...) ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 12:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll have to think about it some, as I don't know of a ton of parody games off the top of my head. I know NotGTAV sort of is, and it recently survived an AFD. Regardless, I've seen a bunch of sources for SDC pop up on my Twitter feed, and creating obscure Sonic game articles is kind of my thing, so I fully support you if you want to create it. I'm not motivated to create it myself, but I'd help maintain/cleanup/defend if need be. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. I suppose we'll see how it holds up once I've got the thing in mainspace. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you mentioned seeing sources on Twitter and I hardly use the latter, did you happen to see anything RS-wise about this that I haven't already collected here? ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 11:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think all of them I had come across casually are in your list. (That's more than I've seen, actually, I didn't know they got the Eggman Online one to actually work.) In a bit I can search and see if I can find anything else. That's already a pretty good collection though, enough to ward off any deletion concerns in my book... Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I just need to write up a Reception section (a little weird, since there aren't really reviews of this thing per se, mostly a bunch of VG journalists talking about how creepy it is) and fill in the lead a little, and I'll be done for the most part. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 13:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I checked your sandbox. It looks like you're up to a good start. Forgive me if I'm suggesting things you already intend on adding, but I'd personally add a little more to clarify the game's overall premise, that it 1) Is not an official game with any connection to Sega and 2) the premise is that these were all meant to be hoax-like "lost Dreamcast games". Depending on how much we know, we could try to scrounge up a development section based around it. The more out of universe stuff you can add, the better you are to keep the delete-happy editors away. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of elaborating more on how it was set up as a hoax, as I've found a couple more sources today that I could use for that. I don't mind suggestions, especially since I'm pretty new at this sort of thing and you most definitely aren't.

All I have in terms of development info insofar is that it was apparently(??) made in Unity, although it seems to be very differently constructed compared to that Bubsy 3D game they made a while back (that one was browser-based, whereas this one runs off of a couple .exe files that I don't think requires an install, just an unpack from a zip folder-- I haven't downloaded the thing myself)... I don't think there's been a lot of talk from the devs themselves, either, aside from keeping up with the whole "we haxed a Dreamcast" schtick on the site itself-- certainly nothing we could appropriately cite on WP yet. I figure in time there might be an interview or something-- I'm pretty interested to know how they did it, esp. with that "seganet.exe" thing acting as some sort of online client program for the Eggman MMO. All very interesting stuff. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 15:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The deed is done... I'm probably more nervous/excitable about this than I should be, ha. Feel free to take a look and take a wrench to whatever looks like it needs work. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊ _BLASTER 12:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I understand, I always feel the same way when I create a non-conventional, out of the ordinary type article. I think it looks pretty good. I've got limited access at the monent, but I'll see if there's anything to add later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergecross73 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2015‎ (UTC)

I'm told that not all of my pings went through, so this is to inform you that your name has been cited on a list of Wikieditors who hold the opinion that the MoS should not explicitly state that animate pronouns are standard for fictional characters. If this is not correct, please feel free to remove or alter the entry. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 03:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Serge. Listen, I have something to ask you. Another editor, IllaZilla, has just nominated my user sub-pages for deletion. You would have seen them before, right? Are they really the sort of things that aren't allowed here, regardless of their purpose? 4TheWynne ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. Yes, sadly, Illazilla is correct. While standards are more lax in the user/draft space, you still need to be using them in ways related to the project. In your cases, these articles would have to be something that you were actively working towards putting into the main space sometime soon. Absolutely no offense intended, but your band does not seem to be moving into the GNG territory in the near future. I'd be copy/pasting that content into a Word document or something if you intend to keep it for personal uses, as I imagine it will be deleted from Wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I just wanted confirmation, that's all. I was just disappointed that, because it's been a long time between now and when I created these pages, this wasn't mentioned before (because a lot of editors have known about these pages for a while), as I put a fair bit of time into them over the last few months. I'd already copy/pasted into a Word document long ago, but not because of the possibility of this happening. Anyway, thank you. 4TheWynne ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Serge. Two days ago you blocked a vandal-only account, User:Diamondcandy. He's returned to make similar vandal-only edits as User:Goldencandy111. (History log here.) Since you're already familiar with the case, I thought it'd be prudent to let you know. With regards, Tenebrae ( talk) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked. Thank you for pointing it out. Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry about the edits ok plz unblock me and I won't do it again 66.61.71.140 ( talk) 23:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific, I don't even know who this is... Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you remove adult contemporary? Because it is not a genre, which has been discussed on talk page. 115.164.93.198 ( talk) 00:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73,

Could you please advise how can I correct the article so it doesn't get deleted?

I've already edited so it sounds less promotional and added links to trustworthy sources, like SoftPedia, CIO and CultOfMac. Am I missing anything?

Thanks! VeVeMe ( talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like its already been deleted again, although, accessing the last version, it still seems like it really wasn't in an appropriate shape for an encyclopedia. It really read more like like an advertisement, or like it was written from by a Marketing person, not an entry in an encyclopia. Also, articles are supposed to be written according to what sources say. The article looked more like someone ripped the information from the business's website, and then plopped down a bunch of random links at the bottom (which also look promotional - for instance, telling users how they could save money with said project.) Please be mindful that Wikipedia isn't a means of advertising.

• For more information on how an article should be written, see Wikipedia's guide for writing your first article, and/or the the Article Creation Wizard.
• For more information about correctly adding sources, see the beginners guide for references. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a few blocks on the IP for block evasion, but you didn't include a mention for who it was. Assuming it's the same person, the user has resumed editing (and as it would happen, edit warring) in the topic area. I've given the account it created an edit warring warning, but I didn't feel comfortable blocking either the IP or the account without knowing if the person was actually even still evading a block. -- slakr^{\  talk /} 09:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is related to this thread buried way in an archive? By the way, props to The1337gamer ( talk · contribs) else I'd be going at this for hours. Reading that thread, I think this exact situation is the reason why one user in that discussion wanted a dedicated subpage. It's extremely confusing for an outside observer like me who stumbles upon apparent edit warring to know whether a user's actually edit warring with an IP, whether an account is new and should be AGFed with a warning, or whether they're reverting someone who's de facto banned with a history of abuse. That's why WP:SPI and WP:LTA exist; even if someone's abuse is predominantly confined to a given subject area, it makes things perfectly clear for anyone else when it's included in a block message or someone comes wondering why they're rollbacking someone. :P Plus, it helps bring anyone able to help keep an eye out up to speed. *shrug* fwiw. -- slakr^{\  talk /} 10:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. SPI doesn't make sense, the person is extremely obvious every single time. Its either a child or someone without any sort of self-awareness or common sense. No "investigation" is necessary. I have no problem with LTA, I've just never really delved into that area much before. I actively discussed and helped others with dealing with this IP over at WP:VG for quite some time, and he only edits video game articles really, so the VG community has basically known to contact me about it, and they usually get to it before anyone else because, again, the IP is just so terrible at block evading. I apologize for the inconvenience...though no one would ever really need to "search for hours", if anyone leaves me a talk page message, like yourself, I usually respond to my talk page pretty much right away to these sorts of things, unless I'm contacted in the middle of the night or something... Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please come and help the articles get better! And please invite your contacts too! Thank You! Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 08:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have had some concerns with Linkin Park related articles, so I'll try to help a bit... Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I got hacked, somebody put all these things up, they changed my password but I found out what it was and changed it. 2.1 Jibbz ( talk) 14:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe you for a second. Those edits look exactly like your writing. Your most recent offenses look exactly like the types of edits you made last April for example. No offense, but you've got a very distinct "rambling" sound to your writing. They look like exactly the type of edits I've warned you about before - they're both rambling and unsourced. Please stop this, and don't make me regret giving you one last chance... Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I know who hacked me though, he saw me type in my password, then he changed it, one of my friend got it from him then told me, then I changed it, I hate that guy that changed it, he's not really my friend. Its my fault that he changed it, but I didnt add those information on the "Hybrid Theory: Composition" section, I had nothing to do with it.

Once my friend got the password from him, he immediately told me, then I log on and changed it. At first, I didn't know the section was changed, I thought other people added those information so I left it

But for those missing information "[citation needed]", I look around for those info. 2.1 Jibbz ( talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't believe you, as I find it highly unlikely that the person who hacked you just happened to write in the exact same manner as you and have the same habit of adding unsourced information, but it ultimately doesn't matter. Looking into your history, it seems I've blocked you no less than 4 times in the past for adding unsourced information into articles, which is more chances than most. Whether it was you this time or not, you're still on your last chance. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

He's also a Linkin Park fan, I don't write live performance information on en.wiki.org only on the Linkin Park Wiki website, he doesn't know about that site, he saw the info on this site, he asked me to add them, I told him I wasnt allow to do that only if its like a live album thing. 2.1 Jibbz ( talk) 18:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Whether or not you were "hacked", this is a textbook example of Wikipedia:BROTHER. Your account is creating vandalism, that's all that matters. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 18:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I never seen that page before, thank for showing me it Thomas01989. 2.1 Jibbz ( talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi please revert delete at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Apple_tvOS&action=edit&redlink=1 because according to this https://developer.apple.com/tvos/ from apple officialy apple tvos is real. Paladox2017 ( talk) 20:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There's virtually nothing known at this time. This article absolutely does not need to exist yet. Feel free to recreate it as a redirect to the Apple TV article, and add any minimal content that is present in the meantime, but right now, it's just too soon for it to have its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Came across another possible conflict of interest that may need looking into. The user EWAdams bares the same name as the subject matter. He's been editing that page as early as 2012 and recent as March 2014. If this is the same person, he's been promoting his work as well with edits like this one. GamerPro64 15:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably a COI issue...but he's only got 2 edits this year, and about 50 in the last 5 years. I don't think we'd need to do anything other than just clean up any NPOV issues that may be there, and probably give him a notification about our COI policy (and even the notification could wait until/if he opposes any of the NPOV removals.) I'm open to other approaches if you or any TPSs have any other thoughts, but I think that's good enough in this scenario... Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello how how can i have provided sources Jg9443 ( talk) 21:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Click on any of these blue words you're reading right now. It will take you to the page that teaches editors how to add references. Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, my edits are not "genre warrior" edits. I'm not trying to change genres, I'm trying to add sources for the genres that are already there. You have been beyond abusive and disrespectful towards me. Take this to heart -- you require me. I do not require you. Either you back off and let me do my work, or I will have all of your privileges revoked. JuggaloProghead ( talk) 21:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand how or why "I require you", nor do I understand on what grounds you're threatening me, but the fact of the matter is, you are the very definition of a genre warrior. Not only is it obvious, but at least 2 long-term editors/admin agreed with my claim that you were one, and upheld your block on those grounds. That's all the proof I need. I'm afraid you just don't understand the definition of a genre warrior yet. Regardless, as I said before, if you violate any of the policies you've violated in the past, you're blocked from editing again, plain and simple. Sergecross73 msg me 22:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Read what I say and understand my meaning - if you continue to harass me, it is your ass that is grass - I've violated no policies - you have. LEAVE ME BE. Don't leave any more harassing messages on my page. The definition of genre warrior is YOU. I am not "warring" shit. I am adding sources for genres already existing. You are pushing your own opinion as fact. And I will destroy you if you continue to thwart me. JuggaloProghead ( talk) 22:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop leaving messages on my talk page. I will have you banned for your abuse and targeting of me for false reasons. JuggaloProghead ( talk) 23:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want talk page messages from me, then stop saying things to me. That being said, if you break policy, you get warnings (or block notices). There's no opting out of that. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just the messenger.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The less credible an accusation is then then less effort you need to spend discrediting it. I highly doubt anyone will take this report seriously, it seems like something you can safely ignore. Chillum 23:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave this in everyone else's hands then, unless I see it take a bizarre turn. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything should be ok for now. The user has been blocked for two weeks. I would have asked for that kind of block myself, but I didn't want to seem too aggressive or punitive. Hopefully this will allow the user enough time to learn how to act civilly. Unfortunately, I don't think it is a new user and he/she may hold grudges. Anyways, best of luck to you. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 03:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)