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.

hi there! finished the thing. check the page out if you don´t mind! Aldaren ( talk) 01:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Great! I see your message on the talk page, but I don't see where your actual work is. Looking at your edit list isn't helping either. It doesn't appear you've made the changes yet? Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I answered to you in the PSP article. Please, check it if you can! Aldaren ( talk) 03:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey there. No, I hadn't gotten any private messages from you, but Wikipedia doesn't really have a "private message" system, just a method of emailing people who have any email attached to their account. WP:EMAIL can help you with this in the future, though I feel most things are just as easily discussed publicly on talk pages like we're going. Anyways, as far as moving forward goes.

1. I've set up a rough draft space at User:Aldaren/Game sharing. You can work on the article there. People can see it, but only by clicking on this link, so much of the general population of readers probably won't happen upon it. You can work on whatever there, outside of the obvious stuff. (No vandalism, illegal content, etc.)
2. I've set up a table there for you, but its just a rough guess at the layout you'd want. I still haven't seen any of your content, so I still don't know what info you plan on showing. Luckily, its pretty simple to make your own tables - see HELP:TABLES for help on this.
3. WP:REFB will help you on adding references.
4. If you want to look at the last version of the old article, you can look here.

Let me know if you have any questions. I can try to assist in implementation once you start putting information in the article or on the rough draft's talk page too. ( User talk:Aldaren/Game sharing). Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This reference is not to the fansite, but to the magazine. How is it not a reliable source? Adam9007 ( talk) 00:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's user uploaded scan. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

But the thing itself obviously isn't. Should I get rid of the links to the other magazine articles, as they're also scans? Adam9007 ( talk) 00:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If they're from fansite's who probably don't have the right to host the content, yeah, probably. Especially if it's going through a GA review. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Most are on archive.org, and I don't think any are on fansites. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the 14th iteration of Serge's personal WP:AIV. Let me know if you like me to look into any instances that you feel may require warnings, blocks, page protections, or just general intervention. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• 2600:1017:B424:866A:A82F:133D:FDB3:1B27 ( talk · contribs) The guy from the NX draft... Except the Sonic talk page, the rest of his edits are unsourced stuff about Macy's Day parade floats. Isn't there some sort of Macy's LTA? Anyways, probably could go ahead and block for hoaxes. -- ferret ( talk) 19:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Also recently edited as 2600:1017:B41E:D852:7572:9EEA:255:71CF ( talk · contribs). -- ferret ( talk) 20:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. Yeah, I think that's the guy that Salv's always chasing down. Also, even the Sonic one was kind of a hoax, considering it said past tense that it was announced on July 22nd. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for keeping up with the Macy-VG IP vandal, I have to admit I've been kinda of discouraged off the case for the better part of a year. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 00:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• No problem. I don't mind blocking LTA/block evading editors forever (Tripple ddd, Zachary Atlus, that one Sonic editor years back, etc.) I just can't be bothered to keep a running log of it all, especially since I frequently do it from mobile... Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• 66.108.49.252 ( talk · contribs) Jg again at Rise Against. -- ferret ( talk) 23:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Another tripple-dd: 213.33.6.128 ( talk · contribs), 213.33.6.228 ( talk · contribs) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 07:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't bother blocking, as he seems to stop as soon as you catch him (from that IP address anyways) but I've protected/re-protected some common articles he's targeted recently. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• SuperMarioGalaxy3 ( talk · contribs) Keeps removing Yoshi's Island from the list of games in Super Mario (series), did start a discussion on talk page but it's less than pleasant. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gave him a stern "first and only" warning. I'll try to keep an eye on him. His user page is rather bizarre too. Might be NOTHERE. Let me know if you see anything else weird from him. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• He went and removed both Yoshi's Island and Wario Land from the article again. Doesn't seem like he's interested in discussing it. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (PAL Region) by this anonymous user: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/2601:CB:8100:76DA:34ED:E8E8:4B34:65E2 from this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Virtual_Console_games_for_Nintendo_3DS_(PAL_region)&oldid=731192276. He has reverted my edit twice when I added an ACB Rating of the Donkey Kong game on the Nintendo Entertainment System. Thanks. Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 18:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, in your situation, no one isusing sources, and no one is using edit summaries, so it's hard for me to intervene... Sergecross73 msg me 00:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

the redo edit you did you could be right i thought it make sense but it seems like it doesn't at all Sergecross73 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicgalaxy27 ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Which edit? And what's your stance on it? Sergecross73 msg me 00:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Think we may need protection on Paper Mario: Sticker Star and Paper Mario: Color Splash soon? A lot of edits I've been seeing is people trying to vent their anger towards the games. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 06:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems the fanbase is riled up about this, posting their personal commentary, ranting, etc. Protected for a bit. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. On that note, there is an IP hopper who keeps touching all the Paper Mario articles and renaming all the characters to Paper Mario, Paper Luigi, etc, even though none of the characters are referenced as such in-game. Example -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 13:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I noticed that when searching through the page history prior to protecting the pages as well. Conceptually, I agree with you, but I think unless there's a consensus against it somewhere, I don't think its bad enough for me to take action on yet... Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Another tripple-ddd: Fromkopf ( talk · contribs) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 18:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• 185.56.182.100 ( talk · contribs) Date/region vandal in infoboxes. -- ferret ( talk) 17:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• 173.59.65.186 ( talk · contribs) Continues to add "Valve" as a console manufacture to various articles like Console manufacturer despite numerous warnings and reverts. -- ferret ( talk) 20:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Still at it. -- ferret ( talk) 21:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Possibly editing as 66.87.81.180 ( talk · contribs) now, who just made the same edit to Console manufacturer. -- ferret ( talk) 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• 71.172.52.70 ( talk · contribs) over at the 8th gen article looks ready for another block. They're back to reinserting the microconsole content they got blocked for previously now. -- ferret ( talk) 19:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• And still going, with the same Xbox One S additions and back to the microconsole table from the last round. -- ferret ( talk) 21:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• And I gave him so many chances. And told him exactly what he had to do/change. And he refused. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Tripple-dd sock: 777BK ( talk · contribs) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 09:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Another Tripple-dd: UPO22 ( talk · contribs) and 178.190.242.137 ( talk · contribs). -- The1337gamer ( talk) 17:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• All blocked excepted IP, which went stale. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Console manufacturer Day after your last prot expired, the first edit is to again insert Steam/Valve. -- ferret ( talk) 21:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Re-protected. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Triple-dd: 213.33.3.191 ( talk · contribs). -- The1337gamer ( talk) 20:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Orcs Must Die! Unchained couple of IPs vandalizing. -- ferret ( talk) 22:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Tripple-dd: 213.33.3.17 ( talk · contribs). -- The1337gamer ( talk) 16:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Further unconstructive edits / vandalism from User:Go!Sonic4Schools ( talk) at George H. W. Bush. Reverted edits, but clearly not learning from repeated previous warnings and bans. Warning left on talk page douts ( talk) 18:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Douts. Thanks for letting me know. I was going to block him, but then saw that another Admin beat me to it. Looks like he's indefinitely blocked now too (I would have done the same) so hopefully that's the end of that, unless he block evades. Let me know if you ever notice that anywhere. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Tripple-dd: Opo9 ( talk · contribs) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 17:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• So I don't understand this, can someone clear me up? -- Opo9 ( talk) 17:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the last like 20 editors who created a new name and proceeded directly to make ill-conceived edits to Sega-related articles have been the efforts of this terrible editor who has wasted the last year trying to force his garbage edits onto Sega articles. He believes that you fit this profile. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Garbage edits? By what measure? I added "citation needed" remarks on some articles (Dead or Alive 5 being co-developed with an outside company is a bogus claim), added missing games in franchise articles (granted a source was missing), and that would be it? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opo9 ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This edit on Talk:Sega: [1].

• Contesting the use of the name "Sega Games". Something his socks have tried to remove on the article previously: [2]. [3]
• Makes a remark about the HQ picture in article, which he has complained to Dissident about on two most recently blocked IPs: [4], [5].
• Complains about Sega development studios article, which he blanked repeatedly and tried to rewrite as Tripple-dd and various socks.
• His other edits are adding citation needed tags to information he has previously removed on other socks.
• Then there's also the fact that over the past two months, excluding reverts, him and his socks are the only editors making changes to Sega AM2. Furthermore, every new account that has edited that article since Tripple-dd was blocked has been one of his socks.

-- The1337gamer ( talk) 07:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• So what would it take to make or suggest changes to these articles without being suspected of being some sort of sockpuppet account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opo9 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

How about you just piss off and let editors who haven't been disruptive and permanently blocked deal with the articles in their own time. It's pathetic that for over a year now you have you been attempting to bypass your block and failing. Yet you still have the cheek to ask how you can sockpocket without being caught. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In order to qualify as Disruptive there have to be discussions about the articles itself, with opposition explaining their actions (this not has been in my case, I'm not sure how it has been of other users). So, in conclusion due to previous sockpuppetry of the user, only users with a prior history that is seemingly unrelated to that user can edit these articles. A shame, because it limits the amount of people willing to edit. -- Opo9 ( talk) 09:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Discussions are not necessary for someone/something to be deemed disruptive. That being said, editing against consensus was in fact the type of disruptive editing that Tripple ddd was blocked for, so its rather suspicious that you jumped to that.
2. You also misunderstand the issue with sockpuppetry. They don't have to "come from a different background", they have to be "not be Tripple ddd". Here's something that both you, and suspiciously Tripple ddd, never seem to comprehend: The odds of an unrelated editor creating a brand new account and then instantly moving directly to the same areas Tripple edited to make the same sort of edits are extremely slim. Its a dead give away.
3. There are other signs too, that pop up every time. But I think I've already done plenty in showing you how you've blown your cover once again. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• 185.56.183.227 ( talk · contribs) Date vandal back. Been a while, huh? -- ferret ( talk) 20:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess it's his turn now, in this never ending cycle of block evasion between him, Zachary Atlus and Tripple-ddd. Ugh. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Tripple-dd: Polis128 ( talk · contribs). Delete his sandbox: User:Polis128/sandbox as well. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 17:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Tripple-dd: ZuYuZuYuZ ( talk · contribs). -- The1337gamer ( talk) 17:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This user's situation is akward, he has made unreasonable statements in he past, but the edits are not especially disruptive to warrant constant banhammers. Leave it be. Isn't there a way to make an editor prove that his edits are worthwhile?-- 80.121.54.85 ( talk) 18:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This IP is obviously Tripple-dd. Same geolocation information. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 18:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called WP:STANDARDOFFER, starting today, since you haven't stopped block evading since your initial block. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Tripple-dd: 5CSFRSJ ( talk · contribs) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 17:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• NES Classic Edition needs a semiprot to force IP to discuss on talk page. -- ferret ( talk) 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing I just took it to the talk page. I even added a source. I swear I'm not trying to distupt.-- 73.203.218.13 ( talk) 20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I won't protect the article as long as you stop reverting, keep discussing, and adhere to the WP:CONSENSUS of the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not "vandalism" perse, but the Nintendo EPD and Mario Party Star Rush articles need some sort of protection against an editor who seemingly uses multiple accounts ( Escfrip ( talk · contribs) and Lv121235 ( talk · contribs)) and continues to make edits regarding the developer of the game. He claims that the Australian Classification Board (who claims ND Cube is the dev on twitter) is more of a reliable source than Nintendo themselves (who simply state Nintendo is on their E3 press info and currently on the official webpage for the game). This has gone on for over a week, and I don't believe they have enough of a valid claim to change to developer, as have we ever used a ratings board as a reliable source in the past? ~ Dissident93 ^{( talk)} 17:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I gave Escfrip a final warning on edit warring, and he broke it, so he was blocked for 72 hours. Lv121235 seems to have gone stale, so I haven't done anything. That also explains why I didn't protect the pages yet - Escfrip is blocked, and will be blocked again if he continues to edit war directly after block and Lv121235 is inactive for now. I'll protect it if other editors or socks appear, but right now, a semi-prot wouldn't really do much (wouldn't even affect Escfrip) and I doubt you wanted me to fully-protect everyone involved out of editing the article... Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Eighth generation of video game consoles The IP editor who makes the big table changes is back. Typical "I'll get sources later" and issues with table syntax/formatting. -- ferret ( talk) 22:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ugh, yeah, definitely him. Blocked, protected. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ghost (Swedish band). RFPP has a pretty big backlog. There is an IP who shows up every few days to add different unsourced genres, as well as other repeated unsourced changes lately. -- ferret ( talk) 00:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• No problem. I'm actually familiar with the band, and they do seem to be the type that would inspire genre warring. And it is. Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Niantic, Inc. IP hopper adding hoax about Comcast/NBC buying Niantic. I cannot find any google results that suggest it is true, or even something under consideration. -- ferret ( talk) 15:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at the protection log, it looks like this isn't the first time there's been vandalism issue either, so I protected for a few months. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The only search results for " The Stephen Mulhern Show live" are either from Wikipedia or speedydeletion.wikia.com. I honestly think it's a hoax - why didn't you delete it?-- Laun chba ller 14:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's videos of "The Steven Mulhern Show" on the internet, so I didn't think it was a hoax. You nominated it for G11, but its tone didn't strike me as overly promotional. Also, it had already been declined for speedy deletion once earlier in the week, so usually the next avenue is AFD. It looked pretty hopeless to be kept through there, so I thought I'd save us all some time and just make it a redirect. If you'd like to undo my redirect and send it to AFD though, I won't object or interfere. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me wait to see what happens to Dick vs Dom.-- Laun chba ller 18:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at these diffs from user TheLongTone that basically uses the AfD process for his own amusement, being rude (in my opinion) as well as abusive. [ [6]], [ [7]], [ [8]], [9]. And this is just a very few of the diffs with this kind of behavior. He also nominates articles with very weak and strange rationales. Such as here [ [10]]. If you are going to do a AfD and as he does plenty of drive by noms he could atleast be respectful. Regards,-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning. It still baffles me that such an experienced editor keeps so blatantly making inappropriate comments. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. And I can only agree with you, it is really baffling. Regards,-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sadly I have to contact you again. This time about user MSJapan. Who I have seen uses similar language when not successful with an AfD or when simply nominating. I think that users that are the creators of an AfD should have a certain amount of respect for the process. It is just baffling that they act this way. Just as an example of many, [11], [12]. Ge has even gone so far as to mess around with other peoples !votes at AfDs. To me that is inexcusable for a AfD start-user. [13]-- BabbaQ ( talk) 05:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don think this one is actionable. He doesn't appear to be personally attacking anyone, he just seems to be grumbling about being on the wrong side of a consensus, which technically doesn't violate anything. Editing other's comments isn't allowed, but it'd need to look like there was a continued history of purposely doing it before I could really do anything. I'd warn him, but since it's been a while since that edit, it'd probably do more harm than good at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I will however be on "the lookout" for similar behavior if I am involved in an AfD with him. Cheers.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to have to contact you yet again. I created an article about Gunnila Bernadotte. It was redirected by user Rms125a@hotmail.com on the basis that the user putting it up for deletion/redirect wanted it deleted "because the article was created after her death". She has articles both on Swedish and German wikipedia previous to death. She is part of the royal family by marriage and is established nobility and is a known name in Sweden. Could you please atleast take a look. Regards, BabbaQ ( talk) 17:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone has handled things just fine. You created a new article, with some sources asserting notability. RMS felt there wasn't enough content present, and boldly redirected it. You reverted it, telling him that you challenged his discussion. All of this falls well into WP:BRD. As long as RMS doesn't try to redirect again without a consensus, as is well.

As a side note, many editors are against very short articles that do little other than identify the subject. Right or wrong, you'll probably keep receiving opposition if it remains that short. I'd recommend expanding the article greatly to deter that sort of opposition. (Not an actual rule, but I personally almost always only create articles that can be immediately expanded out of WP:STUB status, and that helps me usually stay out of these sorts of debates. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you recently deleted my page, the discussion was here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_for_the_Galaxy But another editor (NinjaRobotPirate) told me it can be drafted until I add more sources. Can you please restore it and make it a draft until then? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I actually didn't delete the page, I merely !voted to delete it. It looks like it was actually deleted by Czar. I personally don't oppose making it a draft, but its customary to to get the deleting admin to do it. I've tagged him to this conversation, but Wikipedia's system for isn't the best, so if he doesn't say anything here, you may want to leave a message on his talk page about it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Restored and left a message on Sam's page. Please read through the conflict of interest guideline and add sources from the vetted source list before putting it back into mainspace, or it'll just be deleted again. czar 19:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just dropping you a line since you initiated the last SPI on this user, looks like Niemti, Snaaakee!, et al is back? Just an FYI. -- Jtalledo (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, looking through his edits, documenting every time journalist call a fictional female character sexy is definitely a Niemti trait, as is being rude to others in discussions, so I would agree. Usually Niemti just stops editing when his IP edits are identified, but I'll block anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Niemti's current account is PiXXeL777 ( talk · contribs). Noticed it a while ago. I think his contribution history is large enough that I could post significant evidence in SPI if it wasn't already obvious. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, looking through the edits, I see it too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sergecross73. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have recently detected some edits seen below that an anonymous user that is explained within the edits that he has added a bunch of the enemies in the game that are either disruptive against newcomers or some editors on here and I would like you to have a look, if you don't mind. There is one link currently that I have here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paper_Mario:_Color_Splash&oldid=741331570

Thanks for the help in resolving this. Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 20:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like they were re-adding a bunch of junk to the page. I have protected the page. Can you handle the cleaning up of it? Or did you want assistance with that too? Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You recently protected Paper Mario:Color Splash because I was Spamming edits.I'm very sorry about this as i'm new to editing on Wikipedia,and so i apologize for it - it was not intentional and i meant no harm by it,I just wanted to let people know about the types of enemies and characters they'd encounter without spoiling the game for them.I am sorry and the information I was adding wasn't junk but what I thought would help out people that wanted to know more about the enemies,characters,and things they should know before getting the game.I'm sorry for this and truly meant no harm towards this page... - I will never spam again - I was just excited about sharing this information with other people ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.66.175 ( talk) 21:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, and apologize for referring to it as "junk". Junk may not be the right term, but unfortunately, the content isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. The Wikipedia guidelines of WP:GAMECRUFT discourage long lists of minor characters, weapons, or other in-game items. That's really more of the type of thing you'd document at a fan wikia or a website like GameFAQs. Sergecross73 msg me 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I know what you want to do and how you act. You created a section for selecting one genres but blocking votes for oppose by other users. Later, you announce that there is consensus for one genre, which would be a fraud. If you want to discuss and consensus about genres, must be an option against any choice of genres. Users should have options: nu metal, rap rock, rap metal and oppose changes, and even two genres "nu metal and rap rock band" or "nu metal and rap metal band". Please stop using the censor!
Subtropical-man ^talk
_(en-2) 23:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I created a second section because you keep WP:BLUDGEONing the first one with misguided quoting of policy and its bogging down any attempts discuss an actual solution. This way, there's two sections: One for you to rattle on about about how, despite the fact that 10 GA/FA articles managed to come to a solution, you feel you can't, and one where actual solutions can be discussed. Also, you comments were not censored, they were just moved to the relevant section. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I created a second section because you keep WP:BLUDGEONing the first one with misguided quoting of policy and its bogging down any attempts discuss an actual solution. This way, there's two sections: One for you to rattle on about about how, despite the fact that 10 GA/FA articles managed to come to a solution, you feel you can't, and one where actual solutions can be discussed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, this is your manipulation. misguided quoting of policy? No, my quotations are not wrong, simply you do not like it. You blocking other users for voting against your idea.
Subtropical-man ^talk
_(en-2) 00:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, your information was not removed, it was moved, intact. I started a discussion to discuss genre, and you went on and on about a general lecture on policy that weren't specifically answering the actual thing I was talking about. You don't need to repeat your little rant in every section I open up on the talk page. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again, without actually applying it to the situation at hand. If it didn't convince people the first time, why would saying the same thing 8 more times move the discussion forward? Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You do not understand. I know what you want to do and how you act. You created a section for selecting only one genre but blocking votes for two or more genres and for "no genres in first sentence". Later, you announce that there is consensus for one genre, which would be a fraud. By the way, yes - opposes votes is option of "no genres in first sentence", so - place of this section is correct. Again, understand that no need to choose one genre and stop saying the same things (examples) 8 more times. It's boring. I shows the rules, even rules quotes and you show examples some band articles with your idea. I can show 1,000 examples where not used one genre in the first sentence.
Subtropical-man ^talk
_(en-2) 00:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I wanted to set up a separate section without you badgering me with policy you're not applying correctly, nothing more. (At least that's what I think you're trying to accuse me of? Its hard to tell with so many typos.) Regardless, right now, you're making a big deal out of nothing. If you'd slow down a bit, you'd notice that you restored your comment to the incorrect section, and I did not remove it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you are working on improving the nu metal article. Do you want to also help me improve the Results May Vary article. I'm very interested in Limp Bizkit's Results May Vary album. Statik N ( talk) 00:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't say I'm much of a fan, though I do enjoy "Underneath the Gun" at least. I can try to look it over and try to help a bit though... Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I would appreciate some feedback as to how to start a chat or something more on my proposed "Googlecentricism". Can you give me any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemon900 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Let's start with a question. This "Googlecentricism". Where does it come from? Is it an idea you've created yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)