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.

Thank you for your message concerning my edit of Failure Anthem's Wikipedia page. The data I added seems pertinent to the section in that it describes how Kyle Odell came to prominence by depending on his girlfriend/wife's financial sacrifices and how he was able to focus on his music because he was required to move into his studio after she kicked him out. This data is easily sourced by the divorce documents at the Guilford County Register of Deeds and Odell's own messages. This is much more easily sourced than J.D.'s cooking for Wolfgang Puck, so I'm not sure what the issue is here.

KSEFOREVER — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSEFOREVER ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The problems are many. For starters, you did not cite a source in your edits, nor have you now, you've merely made some vague allusions to "court documents being out there" or something. Secondly, there's the fact that it doesn't appear to have any bearing on the band itself. We write Wikipedia around what reliable, third party sources say about a subject. If you find music journalist discussing infidelities of the band members being an important aspect of this band, then there's an argument in your favor. If not, then it definitely doesn't belong in the article. (Eubanks working for Wolfgang Puck is easily cited to AllMusic as a noteworthy aspect of the band. Kinda random, I know, but I'd be much more open to removing the cooking factoid than including unsourced WP:BLP policy violating content you've proposed.

Short version - cite sources that deem this to be a noteworthy aspect of the band. Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I've been cleaning several video game related pages lately, trying to enforce proper naming conventions for gaming and computing platforms, such as proper abbreviations or spelling, gratuitous use of foreign platform names vs. proper use (as is the case with all JP-only releases on Super Famicom or PC Engine) or just the proper format period (as is the case with all PC Engine games lazily labelled "PC Engine CD" without any indication if it's a CD-ROM², Super CD-ROM² or Arcade CD-ROM², which I'll get around to fixing eventually).

To get down to the point, you've probably noticed with your recent reversion of my edits to the Earthworm Jim 2 page that I've shortened "Sega Genesis" to simply "Genesis". I'm convinced this is actually how the platform's name is officially recognized by Sega, even if the original logo (before the console and logo itself got redesigned in 1993 and they started using red spines on the cartridge cases) seems to imply that it's "Sega Genesis". I've researched most of Sega's official documentations and advertising and they usually just use "Genesis."

• This Japanese Sega Hardware Encyclopedia. Notice how the only platforms that actually have "Sega" in their names are the "Sega Mark III" and the "SegaSaturn". On the Mega Drive data page, they refer to the American version simply as "Genesis".
• The Genesis II/Mega Drive II service manual (compared with the service manuals for Sega CD II/Mega CD II and Genesis 32X/Mega Drive 32X, contrast with Sega Saturn).
• The side labeling for later (red spine) Genesis cases (contrast with the purple spine Game Gear boxes and the white spine Sega Saturn cases).
• The museum mode in Sonic Jam uses simpler names for the Genesis and Mega Drive (see [1]). Only the "Sega Saturn" has Sega's name on it.
• Many late Master System releases, such as the 8-bit Sonic and this US release of Moonwalker, stated on their covers "Plays on Master System, Master System II and Mega Drive/Genesis with Master System/Power Base Converter."

I could come up with a few more examples, but these were the ones that stood out for me. At any rate, you can see where I'm coming from now and how Sega themselves consistently used the simpler one word name. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 06:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

My concern was merely that it didn't match the article title. But then again, the console's article may be at Sega Genesis because of disambiguation purposes too, and I'm not suggesting there be more renaming debates there, that's for sure. Anyways, without a central discussion or consensus on this, I'd think you'd run into opposition, or have your edits undone by passerby editors over time, but I won't personally push on this any further. Sergecross73 msg me 11:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) I've watched a lot of Jonny2x4's edits through my watch list, and mostly haven't had an issue. I would caution though against changing many articles to use "official" naming, i.e. "Genesis" versus "Sega Genesis", and keep in mind that we ultimately want to make sure the reader understands what we're referring to... I would suggest keeping the "full name" for the first mention at least, i.e. "Sega Genesis" followed by just "Genesis". I also disagree with changing video game articles to use short hand and abbreviations, again, with the reader in mind. It's fine to do this on many of the console articles themselves, as they list the short hands in the lead generally, but that context is missing in the video game articles like Earthworm Jim 2. -- ferret ( talk) 12:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be completely fine with Ferret's approach. I may do that sometimes already as it is. Would that be an acceptable, Jonny2x4? Use the full name on the first mention, for recognizability purposes (the word "genesis" by itself has a lot of different meanings to a lot of different people, and on Wikipedia, we're not specifically writing for video game fans, but rather general audiences, so their mind may not jump to the correct conclusion right away), and then in any further mentions, just "Genesis" is fine, because its been identified already. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind that at all, honestly. I'm mostly just shortening console names for infoboxes or lead sections in multiplatform game articles (i.e. "Super NES and Genesis" is more concise than "Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega Genesis/Mega Drive"). Using "Genesis/Mega Drive" (or "Mega Drive/Genesis" for that matter) every time Sega's 16-bit console is mentioned seems a bit excessive for me (especially considering most western developed games and localizations were made primarily for the North American Genesis most of the time from my experience) and I'm under impression that most readers know what a "Genesis" is in the context of a video game article. Using "Sega Genesis" I don't mind that much though. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 05:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You can warn me all you want, I'm a wikipedia editor, just like you. And I want the same thing, which is to improve wikipedia and add as much useful and referential information to it as possible. You had your way with the Project X series even though the conversation there wasn't finished. If it's worth it to you you can go see what my last word was. But this is about Tekken 7.

• First of all, there are several wikipedia articles that use Forbes sources written by contributors. If you're going to remove it here, then you should hunt down the rest of them too. Start a job, finish it.
• Second of all, the Forbes source in question had verifiable information. Namely, from a Harada tweet, which the Tekken 7 article is full of. So why all of a sudden is this tweet unacceptable? It has to do with a character in the game which someone on Twitter said something about, and Harada defended his stance. That is something that is worthy of being on the Tekken 7 article, just as the information about Lucky Chloe and Josie. Osh33m ( talk) 13:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't stop ignoring WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:V, you're also going to get blocked like any other editor too. As would I, were I to continually ignore policy. But I don't do that. And I'm telling you its not acceptable to ignore them just because you don't like them. Its a core principle of Wikipedia.

• Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If Forbes Contributors are used elsewhere, that doesn't make it right for you to use it, it means it should be removed elsewhere too. There's an active consensus not to use them, and unless you change that consensus, its not usable. That's all there is to it. The correct avenue is to change the consensus,not ignore it. Additionally, whether or not reliable, third party sources cover something, often determines whether or not Wikipedia its an actual "controversy", or just some non-notable internet fans rabble-rousing.
• The problem with that tweet in particular is that it doesn't verify what you say it does. Its him talking to a fan. It in no way verifies any "controversy" taking place.

Please keep the Tekken 7 discussion at that talk page. The only reason I mentioned it on your talk page was to give you final warning to stop ignoring OR and consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So Tekken 7 aside, amidst all the disagreements with others I've had on wikipedia over the years, so too have I made solid contributions to wikipedia as well, without ever having read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:V - or anything of the sort. I respect them but if my ways happen to not abide by them, I will still defend my position until a consensual decision is made. Once that decision is made, I don't continue to further getting into reverts or edit wars. Osh33m ( talk) 01:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, every time you're not following those basics policies when you cross my path, I'm going to start discussions, and if you're not following policy, you're going to lose the argument every time. Eventually the community is going to lose its patience for addressing the same basic issues over and over again, and you're going to find yourself getting blocks. And that's if I don't lose patience first and take this to ANI. The choice is yours. In regards to Tekken 7, I don't plan on further reverts, but I plan on doing a rewrite on the content. If you revert that, then we'll hold a discussion and see which version is favored - the original research version sourced to semi-relevant tweets, or a reliably sourced version, where all statements are clearly back by sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I've made solid contributions to wikipedia as well but if that means nothing here if there are also disagreements then frankly that's quite pathetic. It's not like I'm editing to vandalize, or to make everyone else's job here harder. I'm trying to make wikipedia more informative, and I'm trying to make it better. Just like you. As far as Tekken 7 goes, I agree with you that a lot of the sources there aren't verifiable and the section itself is written very well, so if you want to remove or rewrite it, I think you should. Osh33m ( talk) 03:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sergecross73, I've noticed that you deleted a page that I created - "YouTestMe". I saw the reasons for the deletion were "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)" and "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

Allow me to elaborate why I think this was a wrong call:

First, as far as A7 clause goes - I assure you, it is really important to certain people, since some college students based their master's degree diplomas on this software, and they might need it for reference. And even more important fact is that there are students working on this project who will base their future education upon it. I cannot even emphasize how important it will be for students to show their professors they made an application that is worldwide. This is a unique educational project whose plans are to include tens or even hundreds of additional students and improve education worldwide, by involving children-for-children education.

As far as clause G11 goes, I think the content was written in the most neutral tone possible, without even mentioning promotional purposes. I've noticed that you are a great fan of video games and you like talking and writing about them. I'm a fan as well, I get your passion, but on the basis that you deleted my page, somebody can also see your authoring as promotional content - which I'm sure it isn't since I gave it a thorough look. Also, I'm not trying to pinpoint guilt to anyone but this page Passaggio Wines might even be bigger promotional content than what I've written - and there it is. I've done a lot of research on Wikipedia, and made a concept of that article according to it.

I'm aware that Wikipedia Administrators have their hands full with numerous pages, but I'm kindly asking you to revise this decision. Please, analyze the content I've written again, I will be more than happy to change any disambiguation about promotional content. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilDimes ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Please read User:Sergecross73/Why was my article deleted - that may clear up what the issues were. In regards to your particular concerns:

• A7 - when you and I discuss "importance" or "notability", we're probably talking about different things. What I, and Wikipedia in general, are referring to, is the Wikipedia's guideline for determining notability. It's different than what you're talking about, and the article was not meeting the Wikipedia definition.
• A11 - One of the reasons it was tagged for being promotional was that there are so many links to "YouTestMe"'s official websites. That gives the vibe that you're trying to lure the reader off of Wikipedia, to your own website. A lot of the wording also makes it sound more like it was written by the company or their PR person, rather than a encyclopedia entry. Things like "aim of revolutionizing the industry of e-learning", "providing excellent-quality tools", comments about it being so simple, completely free, etc. The writer sounds to be an advocate for the product.

I can't restore in to the mainspace in its current state, but if you intend to work on the article and make it compatible with Wikipedia and its requirements, I can restore the article to the rough draft space, where you can continue working on it until its ready for the general public. Let me know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, no argument with your points about Passaggio Wines, it's not looking so hot either. I've tagged it as something needing improvement. Anyone would be within their right to deleting that article as well. (I personally concentrate on discussing deletions, or deleting ones tagged for speedy deletion, I don't usually nominate articles for deletion personally, but you or anyone else is free to nominate Passagio for deletion.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the info! First, I am definitely ready to work on the article more, until it is completely ready - please be kind to restore it into draft space. I've read the Wikipedia's guideline for determining notability, and still I'm fairly certain this topic suits with Wikipedia well. I will remove the links from the text. Would it be appropriate if I put the links as sources of information in reference section?

I will be completely honest - I am involved with this product, but the main aim with this article was to make a purely informational topic about a new type of approach in the e=learning industry (for example the part about tool over content). I see that I might have been a little heavy with the words.

I didn't mean to point fingers at anybody, my apologies, but I saw this page as an example of something similar to what I've written, and didn't understand why can they be entitled to an article and I can't - a bit childish I confess. Try not to judge, I'm very passionate about this, which is why I might get overzealous sometimes, I will be more neutral from now on.

You have been of great assistance, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilDimes ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it happens all the time. That's why I decided to write up that "Why Was My Article Deleted" essay I linked you too - its something that is constantly misunderstood about the website by casual readers.

If you wish to pursue this, you should read up on Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. You're not banished from writing about it or anything, but it is strongly discouraged for you to be editing it, for the exact reasons you mentioned above - it can be hard to separate yourself from something you're so directly invested in. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll take another shot tomorrow. Pardon my arrogance, but may I post the new article in this thread, so you can give me your expert, neutral opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilDimes ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the draft space, where you can attempt to rework the article. It's at Draft:YouTestMe. Basically, you can take your time with working on it there - its public, but in a state of isolation from the rest of the project, so its less likely to be found. Feel free to notify me when you've worked on it some, and I can come in and give pointers or help a bit if you want. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the article, I think it is closer to the final version now - what is you opinion, where should I make improvements? Draft:YouTestMe PhilDimes ( talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• You've done well in removing the A11/promotional elements to the wording of the article, so that's good. If there's any more concerns on the promotional nature, I would think that its minor enough that it would no longer be a reason for deletion, but rather something editors will just tweak themselves, or discuss on the articles talk page.
• However, of course, the A7 bit is still unaddressed. You'll need reliable sources that are third party - unrelated to the subject - that cover the subject in significant detail. Do you have any of these? I recommend 5 - usually that's enough to deter people from nominated it for deletion again. Any further rewording would probably be dependent on what these third party sources say, as technically, the article is supposed to be written according to what unaffiliated, third party sources say on a subject, in the interest of neutrality.

So far, so good though. Nice improvements so far. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added several neutral sources - However, I have 4 only, there is a news article coming. Would it be much of a hassle if the 5th one wasn't added immediately? Draft:YouTestMe PhilDimes ( talk) 20:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, to start off, can you tell me some about these sources? They're not in Englsh, so it's hard for me to make a determination on if they're a reliable source. In particular, much of the time Facebook or YouTube are not a useable source. But it can vary based on the source. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure - Unfortunately, there is no English translation on those websites. Number 1 reference is from the Mathematical Grammar School of Belgrade, who was kind enough to review the project, and write a report from their interview/presentation with us. Later, they deployed some of their students on volunteering pracice. However, the article was written by the school management, not the students - and it was issued before they got involved. Number two is similar, only coming from the "John Naisbitt" University in Belgrade. They saw the project and wanted to write about us in an official announcement on the school website. Number 3 is a student who was working in Java programming language and used a part of the code in the application to make an educational video about it - it was part of his Master's degree work. And number four is a partnering news website to "John Naisbitt" University who saw their article and wanted to give us more attention in the Serbian region so they forwarded it on their website. PhilDimes ( talk) 22:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

On sam borsos birth date — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Riley ( talk • contribs)

You'll have to be more specific than that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry i meant Sam Sorbo And anyway Its about his date i am not sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Riley ( talk • contribs)

What are you not sure of? How to add a birthdate? What the birthdate is? Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean what is Sam borsos date

I don't know who this person is. Why are you attempting to make an edit about something you don't even know yourself? And you can barely convey a coherent idea to me - are you sure you're ready to be editing Wikipedia...? Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes i am sure im ready for editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Riley ( talk • contribs) 16:15, April 1, 2016‎

He's either not ready, incompetent, or trolling. I undid the edit to Sam Sorbo since it added a day, without a year, and it contradicted other info in the article. Other edits are even worse. Meters ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I forgot the year sorry

Help somebody block him then after you do that Award me a barnstar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Riley ( talk • contribs)

I made one edit that redirected an article that clearly didn't meet Wikipedia's standard for having a stand-alone article, and you're calling for my block...? Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have been a part of the previous discussion. Join this one.-- MaranoFan ( talk) 18:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had forgotten all about that prior discussion I had participated in. I've left my 2 cents... Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Post-grunge wikipedia, it really needs to go back the way how it was. Okay, so there is this user called Staik N and he is editing on the post-grunge page and he has a lot of sources but I feel like he is adding whatever comes into his mind. He is saying how post-grunge morphed in the late 90s and how post-grunge was originally a subgenre of grunge and then became a derivative when it always was a derivative. It's really getting all confusing, he keeps putting how bands like Bush are post-grunge then next thing you know, they are grunge. He even came to my page and told me that Bush belongs more in the grunge movement and the grunge page and not the post-grunge page when Bush was never added into the grunge page until he started editing the page. It's a massively confusing mess now. When you told me that leave the post-grunge article alone, I left it alone but this user keeps editing and editing and then he keeps changing and changing. It's really confusing now and I am wondering if you can change the post-grunge article how it originally was, now it's a big mess. Take care. ( Mikeis1996 ( talk) 20:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC) )

I'll look into it later when I've got more time. Have you tried fixing the changes yourself, or have you had any discussions with the editor in question? Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

When I try to change something, this user comes back and re-changes it. It's getting really confusing. The user kind of keep repeating himself about the genre and how it morphed and how it was used on these bands before the late 90s came. It's a really confusing page now. It's not as simple as it originally was. He keeps editing and editing and then changing and changing, he's been doing this for like a week now and it's really getting annoying. It's more of his opinion page now instead of what the majority thinks. He does has sources but he puts it into his own words which sometimes, it's different than what the source originally says. I need your help on this, if you can help me, that would be really thankful, take care. ( Mikeis1996 ( talk) 22:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC) )

The post-grunge page is really getting annoying. The same user keeps editing and changing and editing and changing. I think the page needs to go back to where it actually was, before this user started to edit things on it and make it all crazy. It really became a, this is my opinion page for the guy that is editing on the page. Sergecross, you need to put a stop to this. The post-grunge article is hugely confusing now.( Mikeis1996 ( talk) 04:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC) )

Alright, start by starting a new discussion on the talk page. Mention some specific things you have problems with, and what you propose changing it to, or that you want it removed, and your reason why. I'll swing by and comment on it. I'll try to look through the article myself some too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to remove the post-grunge being a subgenre of grunge, grunge never had a subgenre and this user keeps telling me that post-grunge is a subgenre of grunge. I already commented on the post-grunge article on the talk page but the same user keeps explaining how post-grunge used to be subgenre of grunge. I always thought it was always a derivative of grunge and never was a subgenre, grunge doesn't even have subgenres. ( Mikeis1996 ( talk) 21:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC) )

Hi again. There's this user whose only contributions so far have been the addition of Brash Games to various game articles' reception sections. I don't know whether Brash Games is fine as a source (it's not on the VG wikiproject's list of reliable sources), but since all the editor's contributions are additions of links to that site, it makes me worried that they might be affiliated with it and are trying to bring more traffic to it. I don't really know what to do - or even if I'm supposed to do anything at all about it - so I thought I'd ask you about it.-- IDV ^talk 20:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you did the right thing. Repeatedly adding the same source as the only/primary action is considered a violation of WP:SPAM/ WP:PROMOTION. I usually just start with a notification/warning of the policies, as many don't even know what they're doing isn't allowed, and stop when confronted. Others stop once they get continually reverted, if it truly isn't a RS. (I checked a review, and the writer's main qualification was being a "passionate gamer" or something like that, which isn't usually a good sign for it being an RS). If the person persists after warnings and reverts, then I'd start with the blocking or page protecting... Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed the Wiki username is very similar to the sources authors name, so there's even more proof of self-promotion... Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, my sincerest apologies. I'll delete the entries I've made. Regards, DChaundy — Preceding unsigned comment added by DChaundy ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Remember that I'm fairly new here and don't know every single policy. Also, I still think that what I added is good content expansion, because it allows readers to visualize the game more. AgrAVE BAnks 01:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you're new, and that's all the more reason you should be reading into what we're telling you about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whereas your content is more along the line of something you'd see in a game guide or a fan wikia. It's not the type of thing we document here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:30/500, Arbitration 30/500 protection (aka extended confirmed protection) may only be used in areas authorised by the Arbitration Committee or discretionary sanctions. Please adjust the protection level of this page. Thank you, BethNaught ( talk) 17:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I distinctly remember this specific point as recently (or currently?) being under discussion along with a set of ArbCom motions, so I wouldn't say that is "set in stone" -- there is distinct disagreement as to whether working protection options should (or even CAN) be limited to use by ArbCom -- if the community wants to use them, many think it is their right to do so -- this is looking a second PC2 debacle. But this is definitely not the correct venue to argue. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged the policy section to make it clear it is currently under discussion. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 18:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight as well, Salv. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

BethNaught - No problem, I'll gladly change it, I had no idea of such instructions/limitations. I had no idea this was controversial. Whoever set up/implemented these changes might want to come up with a better way of informing Admin of such instructions. I merely found it as a new option on the protection drop-down options, and decided to try it out in a situation I thought it would be beneficial for. I've never even heard of 30/500, and I'm pretty active these days... Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It is true the changes were poorly announced; not at all announced really, if you didn't see the VP discussion you'd wouldn't have heard of it. BethNaught ( talk) 18:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have informed one user yesterday about some anonymous users editing a number of pages with unnecessary edits that do not belong in the page. If possible, could you do something about this, cause the users keep doing them and not thinking straight. I'm very sensitive about keeping these video game pages clean and simple. I keep undoing some edits too, just to get things back the way they were. Thank you! Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 16:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Zachary, it'll help if you can link to some of the articles or the IPs doing the edits. -- ferret ( talk) 16:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be happy to look into it, but what you've described so far is too vague to identify the exact article or issue involved. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Two of the edits were made to the List of Xbox One games and it was made on April 14th. And here's the link to the person that was making them: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/194.165.148.162

Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have recently been alerted just a few minutes ago, that the wiki page Electronic Entertainment Expo 2016 has been made by this edit a number of times adding Electronic Entertainment Expo 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_Entertainment_Expo_2016&diff=prev&oldid=716636192

Hello,

I was just wondering if I could have a more in depth explanation as to why the Mini Ladd wikipedia page was deleted. I had added to it recently just so his social media links were easier to locate. I am new to all of this so I apologise if I do not understand something.

Thank you, Laura :) Lwillcox38 ( talk) 16:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Try reading User:Sergecross73/Why was my article deleted to see if it answers your questions. Looking at the article in question...it probably should. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You have been invited to join the Meghan Trainor WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Meghan Trainor. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You.

Thanks for the invite, though MT is pretty far removed from my musical interests. (She's on top of the world in modern pop music, whereas my focus is mostly under-appreciated rock music originating from the late 90s and early 2000s.) Feel free to reach out to me if you need help or an opinion on something with it though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding [2], see Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

MusikAnimal - Sorry about that, I wasn't aware of that clause. I was just trying to get rid of it since I felt bad for ruining that editors clean block log when I merely clicked on the wrong person for the block. As far as I recall, that's the only time I've ever done that, and I won't do it again knowing its not allowed. (On that note, how in the world did you come across that? It happened over half a year ago? Or did it stand out because so few block log redactions occur?) Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha I knew that was the case. Accidental blocks happen, no one is going to hold you to it! :) I've definitely seen much worse, especially for the folks who work at SPI (that SPI helper script is dangerous). Anyway I was responding to Bgwhite's RFPP request, and my WP:MOREMENU indicated they had a block log, and curious me clicked on it. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm an SPI clerk, and all my admin mistakes were done without the "help" of the SPI Helper Script. :p ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both, its good I know this going forward though. (Also, that MOREMENU looks interesting too, if I can get that to work. (I seem to struggle with getting some of the add on stuff going...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, already got it working. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I was going to say install it as a gadget, if you haven't already. Also what you see documented at WP:MOREMENU is for the Vector skin. Non-vector users will see an older script lacking features... but I'm biased as I authored the Vector version :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Serge.... please tell me you're using Vector ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 22:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm...I suppose if I don't know what that means, I'm probably not using it, right...? Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

IF YOU'RE USING MONOBOOK I WILL RENEGE YOU AND DENY HAVING EVER KNOWN YOU. THIS ISN'T 1992 ANYMORE BUDDY ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 00:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

( ←) Hehe, well Vector is the default these days, but when you registered in 2008 I'm pretty sure the default was Monobook. Check under "Skin" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry everyone, I've been using Vector! False alarm! I haven't played around in the settings in a while, but I did some back in 2010 when I started being really active, and some in 2012 when I became an Admin, so I may have switched back then. (There's seems to be more options to tweak nowadays though, I'll have to play around with them some. Sergecross73 msg me 00:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

*sets down pitchfork, torch, knives and missiles* Crisis averted! Vector should be the only option <3 ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 00:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Yesterday I created a article about a Brazilian Progressive Rock band called Scars Souls and today I realized it was deleted. Could you please, explain me why? Please, let me know what I did wrong.

Best regards, Adilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acaj77 ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Try reading over User:Sergecross73/Why was my article deleted - that should explain most of it. Additionally, I imagine whoever initially tagged the article for deletion probably did so because your article really stood out, with you opting to add it to the English Wikipedia despite not actually writing it in English... Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that the music article editors who weren't blocked today have been avoiding interaction and conflict, I request you avoid bringing their names up unless they are actively involved in a current issue; I'm not trying to justify any past behavior, simply noting it will be easier for them to continue staying out of things if there names aren't brought up. NE Ent 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I only specifically mentioned them because I was directly asked, and purposely did not ping them for the very reasons you just mentioned above. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't doubt that how the game works, just not finding any RS to support that stuff. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 01:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I put one on the talk page. It covers most of the main points of what I reverted back in. Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have informed one user yesterday about some anonymous users editing a number of pages with unnecessary edits that do not belong in the page. If possible, could you do something about this, cause the users keep doing them and not thinking straight. I'm very sensitive about keeping these video game pages clean and simple. I keep undoing some edits too, just to get things back the way they were. Thank you! Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 16:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Zachary, it'll help if you can link to some of the articles or the IPs doing the edits. -- ferret ( talk) 16:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be happy to look into it, but what you've described so far is too vague to identify the exact article or issue involved. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Two of the edits were made to the List of Xbox One games and it was made on April 14th. And here's the link to the person that was making them: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/194.165.148.162

Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have recently been alerted just a few minutes ago, that the wiki page Electronic Entertainment Expo 2016 has been made by this edit a number of times adding Electronic Entertainment Expo 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_Entertainment_Expo_2016&diff=prev&oldid=716636192

I agree with your stance, but I don't think this is big enough of a issue for me to intervene. If it gets to the point where there are 4-5 instances of vandalism or editing against consensus, that's more when I'd step in. Good job monitoring the article though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Could we list the game's that are only available in specific countries on the eShop, like for example:

American Mensa Academy | Nintendo | Nintendo | ||data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | Unreleased|| ||data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | Unreleased|| ||data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | Unreleased||✔||April 22, 2015 |style="background:#FFB;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center; " class="table-partial"|NA only |-

• This probably won't work, but I think you get the idea what I'm talking about.

Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 02:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

It's hard for me to see exactly what you're wanting to do, but as long as there's no active consensus against you, I'm fine with you handling it however you want. I don't work in the article much anymore. I enjoy maintaining lists like that in their first year or two, but once there are just hundreds and hundreds of entries, it gets too overwhelming for me to work on much... Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)