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 Serge. Just wanted to give you an important template that you and other moderators should keep a tab/star on,

I have a feeling that some people may add games that don't fit the criteria for the template, or worse, vandalise the template. Iftekharahmed96 ( talk) 18:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I can help maintain it if you like. The only ones I watch typically are the Nintendo and Sega equivalents. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your choice to be honest, it's a fairly large franchise template hence the recommended watch. But if you're occupied with too many template formats then you don't have to keep tabs on it if you don't want to. Iftekharahmed96 ( talk) 22:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Serg,

Not trying to be a pest so I thought I would shoot you a note to discuss (rather than submit a million edits and get blocked).

I completely agree that the data does not support previous Zelda games as being RPG's, but the data is there to prove this new Zelda as having enough RPG elements to be joint classified. What can I provide to help validate this point?

Thank you!

Bojangles901 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojangles901 ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Bojangles901. As far as approach goes, I would personally start a new discussion on the article's talk page, and have other editors weigh in. As far as your argument goes, you'd want to focus on reliable, third party sources (like your IGN and your Eurogamer type websites) that directly and literally call it a RPG. Kind of like what I was saying in my edit summary, arguments like "well its got this element and this element therefore it's an RPG" violate Wikipedia's original research policy and will likely be disregarded. It's got to be directly stated by sources

On a separate note, please don't keep re-adding it to the article, which I've seen you've re-done again since leaving this comment on my talk page. If you revert too many times in a row, you'll likely get blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Serg. I will abandon re-edits until I build a stronger case. Thank you for the direction!

-Bo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojangles901 ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Serge. You helped get a consensus on the Chantry Island Lighthouse article. We need your guidance again to prevent an imminent WP:EDITWAR. Thank you, Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've given a final warning, and told Imasku that explanations are in order. I'll continue to keep an eye on things. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've stuck my nose in with a compromise edit. -- ferret ( talk) 19:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting damaging edits on the article for M&S Rio! I really appreciate the work you do as an admin. From here, I'll be trying my best as a Nintendo taskforce rep to turn the stub to at least a C-class. I understand that the Mario & Sonic series is pretty stale, but it still deserves an okay article, so that's why I'm renovating it. As you've already been doing, overseeing the task and reverting poor edits wherever you think is necessary would be helpful! Thanks!

The King of Prosecutors ( talk) 05:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate your efforts and intentions to improve that article too - I feel bad, but I've never gotten around to ever improving the article much, I just kept it from getting worse. But it's good you're on it now. I'll keep an eye on it too. Let me know if you have any questions on things. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to work on other things while I work on M&S Rio, because... there's very little about the game to add. I'll still return to it every once in a while and add some shit. The King of Prosecutors ( talk) 09:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I commonly start up projects, or just have intentions to, and then drop them for months at a time. Its only a hobby, so you've got to do what sounds personally interesting in the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

I think you are late on my edits to Rise Against. I stopped after my second edit revert which I still understand could get me blocked, but I knew could so stopped after the second revert. I will add the edit back when I see reliable sources showing that the lead vocalist occasionally puts down the guitar and only sings NellyOriginPMOD ( talk) 14:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know you stopped at your second revert, and I didn't suggest otherwise. I hope you also read my entire message, where I said we don't usually write things like "lead guitarist, occasionally rhythm guitarist" by band member roles. Not only is it awkward, but it kind of goes without saying. Every guitarist is going to fall back and play rhythm on occasion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As for my other pages that I edit, the Sandbox pages commonly don't have any reliable source as for they are bands, albums, or people I know very much about that aren't truly known. NellyOriginPMOD ( talk) 21:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My concern was that another editor (Walter Gorlitz) was also criticizing your lack of sources, and reverting you elsewhere. But it appears you've started to use sources now, so this seems to be taken care of, as long as you keep at it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I will redo my edit on ghost excluding the amount of times that I have stated that Forge is all three Papa Emeritus' thank you for spotting my edit. NellyOriginPMOD ( talk) 02:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of people coming in and making changes to the article, with all the new information coming from the new lawsuit information. You may want to work with others on a talk page on how to handle new additions - situations like this often need to be handled delicately. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, I have commonly been using these on an iPhone so at the same time of editing it is very tough to use the talk pages at the same time as edit the actual page itself. Problems with iPhones, or smartphones in general while editing Wiki pages, is they tend to glitch and nearly delete the entire page. I will try using an actual computer to edit the pages at the same time as using the talk pages. NellyOriginPMOD ( talk) 13:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

One User keeps deleting every bit of content I added to articles about towns near the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the Canadian National Vimy Memorial. All of these towns are near both and the content is significant to them.

Neuville-Saint-Vaast Pas-de-Calais Arras Nord-Pas-de-Calais

Your thoughts? Peter K Burian ( talk) 16:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Peter. Things don't look too out of the ordinary, so it seems like my standard suggestion should work. A note though, I think one of your edits was rejected due to using the Daily Mail, which has been a contentious website on Wikipedia, and I believe currently has a consensus for being unusable. So you may want to adjust your approach accordingly. (This is just something I've observed, I was not involved in said discussions, or even familiar with the Daily Mail.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had no problem with the Daily Mail citation being deleted; I replaced it with a BBC citation in the Canadian National Vimy Memorial article. My major problem is with the Neuville-Saint-Vaast article. He deleted every word (two reverts) of useful content from a Stub that desperately needs content; I added a note to the Talk page there. Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, he restored much of the content I had added to Neuville-Saint-Vaast after I wrote about his Reverts in the Talk page for the article AND for the France portal. Thanks again for your suggestions, Serge. Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Glad it worked out. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You cited a "policy and discussion" based reason for removing the content from the article and redirecting it to the main page despite the fact discussion itself is over three years old and was not strongly for merging/redirecting the article anyway. Also when you initially redirected the page it seemed to be purely due it not being improved in a long period of time yet there is no deadline on Wikipedia. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 16:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sakura Cartelet - Let me review my argument in greater detail. I'm talking about this discussion. There were 5 participants in the redirect discussion.

• 3 participants (Odie, New Age Retro Hippie, and Blake) cited policy based concerns - lack of notability, third party sourcing, and generally poorly written, strictly in-universe plot summary stuff. All valid reasons to redirect an article.
• The other two failed to cite any policy. Digipen cited no reason whatsoever. Hvalle cited "other stuff exists", that "hardcore fans would want to read this" (not valid), and that it was too long to merge into the article, which was countered with the argument that it needed to be trimmed before merging. (Something that was eventually covered/rectified in an appropriate manner, considering the article, months later, [ improved to a GA status in April 2015.
• Determining consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE - stances are weighed based on their validity. Digipen would be discounted, and Hvalle's argument was well countered, so we're looking at a 3 to 1 or 3 to 0 scenario here.
• You, on the other hand, decided to undo this action without any discussion, recreating a terribly written article that contains zero third party sources. I'm all for being bold, but the fact of the matter is, you ignored the prior consensus AND recreated a horribly written and sourced article. That is why I reverted you, and suggested that you either start up a new discussion, where you actually create a case as to why its notable and needs its own article, and/or work on a example in draft space first. Because the article's current shape is unacceptable for the mainspace.
• Yes, my original redirect back in 2015 cited a lack of improvement, but it was meant to refer to both the tags, and said discussions. After months/years of waiting, neither the tags nor the notability discussions brought any improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion started on this page. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 16:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I have a query. Somebody provided an edit in which they deleted the owner section of a company infobox because their justification was that it's "legally impossible to have one company as owner and a different company as parent". Naturally, I followed suit at first because I thought it made sense. Now I was wondering, is that correct? I only mention this because the standard company template provides both a section for the owner of a company and the parent. Iftekharahmed96 ( talk) 12:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What companies/edits are we talking about? Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Read Template:Infobox company. The owner field is essentially only for privately held independent companies, to denote investor or individual ownership. It is not used by subsidiaries and divisions (They use the parent field), nor is it used for publicly traded companies. There are several editors who incorrectly use these fields on a regular basis, and what they tend to do is put the subsidiary's reporting division as parent, and the legal owner as owner. That's incorrect. Example here: [1]. I've had to revert this editor so many times despite numerous warnings that I've lost count. -- ferret ( talk) 12:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Ferret, I read what it said on the page itself and I finally understand. I suppose the next best thing to do is to try and re-iterate this fact to as many editors as possible seeing as this mis-interpretation of the owner field is so widespread. Iftekharahmed96 ( talk) 16:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Serge or ferret,

I have never seen an editor do this. One person felt the Talk section of United Express Flight 3411 incident was too long. So he just deleted a lot of discussions, entire topics, with the rationale Removed talk spam. Is this OK to do? People spent time discussing issues and their views have been deleted.

First deletion: 00:37, 14 April 2017‎ Last of the series of deletions: 00:55, 14 April 2017‎

I could understand merging topics. Because the discussion of the same issue - title of the article - did crop up in several threads. But did he not delete other User's notes about their views? There are so many individual deletions that it's hard to tell. Maybe someone with more experience can better analyze the net effect of the deletions. And whether they were suitable. Peter K Burian ( talk) 02:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Generally, no, unless the content is blatant vandalism, disruptive, or abuse of talk pages, editors should not be removing other people's talk page comments, especially intermittently like that. Adraeus, you seem to be a long time editor, so I'm puzzled as to why you'd do this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the general set that Adraeus removed. From what I can tell, no direct content or discussion was removed, only Peter's repeated posting to "SEE OTHER SECTION". I think I would agree with Adraeus here. Peter, you don't need to repeatedly post in multiple sections of the same talk page trying to bring attention to another section on the same page. -- ferret ( talk) 13:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, ferret Q: What would you suggest in a situation where exactly the same issue is being debated: a new title for the article, in this case. It was being discussed in four different threads. In order to try to get everyone to cast their vote in the same, single thread, I posted notes letting them know which thread they should access to do so.

If my note about that was all that was deleted, no problem, but there was at least one fewer thread after the deleting was finished.

00:08, 14 April 2017‎ Peter K Burian : 25 threads
00:55, 14 April 2017‎ Adraeus : now there were only 24 threads. Something had been deleted, not just my comment. 
Peter K Burian (
talk) 18:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@ ferret There were 24 threads in the Talk section and now there are only 11. A user "archived" most of the discussions... what does that mean? Where are the other discussions?

05:43, 14 April 2017‎ Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,598 bytes) (-26,381)‎ . . (Archiving 15 discussion(s) to Talk:United Express Flight 3411 incident/Archive 1) (bot) (undo) Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit busy today, but WP:ARCHIVE should answer your questions on that at least. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Serge, I'm going to start focusing on getting Sonic the Hedgehog CD to GA status. Could you look over it and see where some big problems are? ~ TheJoebro64 ( talk) 13:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) @ TheJoebro64: Most of the gameplay, music and legacy sections are unsourced, and the reception section only talks about scores, not about what the reviewers actually thought of the game.-- IDV ^talk 13:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I probably won't be around much in the next day or two, so those are some pretty good starting points. I'll assist on and off like I did with Sonic 06 though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to discuss what you think of the fan theories and what you think of Bubsy in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.230.66 ( talk) 22:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I find the rumors humorous. I enjoyed Sonic and Bubsy quite a bit back in the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive days. But that aside, Wikipedia isn't the place for crazy fan theories, so it really doesn't belong in any articles... Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Just wanted to trick some people lol. Did you outta curiosity like Bubsy 3d or see JonTron's video on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.230.66 ( talk) 23:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

As an Admin here, I feel compelled to tell you to not use Wikipedia for tricks. But yes, 'Bubsy 3D was...interesting to play. But not all that fun, for the obvious reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 04:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Serge.

Another editor and I often debate edits on various articles in the relevant Talk pages. Sometimes, he decides to scold me for edits I have made to an article and does so at User talk:Peter K Burian

Is there any obligation for me to retain such items on my own Talk page? Or is it ok if I delete them? I have already told the other editor to debate edits on the article's Talk page, not on my own Talk page. What is the actual protocol in this regard? Thanks, Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You can delete anything you want from your own talk page, except a few specific cases, see WP:OWNTALK. Removal of warnings is considered acknowledging, just fyi, though I don't think that's an issue for you. Note you can remove however you want, obviously you can't refactor other editor's comments. -- ferret ( talk) 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks as usual for your prompt, incisive comments. Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A bit more detail. User:Peter K Burian changed the content of a comment I left on his talk page, specifically the section heading. I asked that he change it back and he refused. I realize this is a trivial issue. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I got pulled away, so it took me a while to write my response, and in the mean time, this looks to be resolved, but my comments on it are below:

Some thoughts on this:

• You are in control of your talk page. You are free to remove comments and ask editors not to discuss on your talk page, and generally that should be okay. (There are some exceptions - you still shouldn't be altering other comments on your talk page to make it look like they said something they didn't - such a move would likely be criticized. Also, if an Admin was giving you valid warnings, I'm not sure you'd be successful in asking them to stop - if an editor kept violating policy, I'd keep notifying them of it, personally. But generally, you'd be good.)
• As we touched on previously, most experienced editors prefer WP:ARCHIVING talk page messages rather that deleting them outright - so they can more easily be referenced in the future, if need be. I'm an advocate of that - you can see my rather large archive in the upper-right part of my talk page. But that being said, you don't have to do that if you don't want to. Even I don't do it all the time - I do delete purely disruptive comments with no worth - they can still be looked up in the page history if need be.
• WP:USERTALK outlines all the details of user talk pages, if you want to look into it more. Or you can ask me further questions if you have any. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Serge. I will blank that thread entirely. btw, I did not touch a word of the comments he wrote. I did revise the heading. The heading he posted in my Talk page was Peacock.

The heading after my amendment: Peacock (Burian Comment: In my view this is not a peacock but a red herring)

Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you have a moment to look at Talk:West Montrose, Ontario? User:Peter K Burian archived nearly the entire talk page, including ongoing discussions from yesterday. He stated here that you explained the archiving procedures to him, but I think he confused archiving his own talk page with archiving an article talk page. I asked him on his talk page to revert his edit and got a confusing response. Thank you again. Magnolia677 ( talk) 16:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about archiving is on Serge's Talk page: 2. Is it acceptable to delete large sections of a Talk page? The discussion was about an article where another Editor archived a great deal of the Talk section United Express Flight 3411 incident.

And (four minutes after he posted on my Talk page) I did ask Magnolia677 exactly which threads he wanted me to revert. I got no immediate reply. So, I did revert one thread, with a recent post, to the article's Talk page.

I don't know how this reply to Magnolia677was "confusing": I am happy to return any to the primary talk page if there is an indication that further discussion will occur in that thread. Which one(s) do you mean?

In any event, this discussion is now moot because ferret reverted most of the threads to the article's Talk page. (I did not know that a thread should be at least 30 days old to be archived.) Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) So, looking things over, I think this has been worked out? Yeah, you can archive your talk page however you like, but you want to make sure anything remotely recent in article talk pages are not archived, in case people want to add on to it. You also may not want to archive anything that is an on-going issue. (Like, for example, if editors keep on re-adding a common misconception or unverified rumor to an article, and there's a consensus to not add that information. Probably wouldn't want to send that discussion off to the archives.) As Ferret mentioned, many go by a 30 days old rule. That sort of thing is fine. I honestly don't really mess with it at all, unless its the talk page for an article I'm completely rewriting, and there's just tons of year-old sections of off-topic discussion that seem to prevent anyone from seeing the more current issues I'm bringing up. (Like going from this to this, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation; Ferret also discussed it in the article's Talk page. Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Peter, archiving is explained at H:ARC, and its purpose "should be to remove stale discussions, not to stifle discussion". You explained that your reason for archiving the talk page was because readers would be "totally confused". Go look at the West Montrose talk page. Do you think perhaps you have contributed to that confusion? Your talk page is filled with warnings and advice from other editors; please talk a moment to read some of those messages, because they were probably left by editors who have the same concerns I do. We're all here to improve the project, but that will only happen if we work together and adhere to the same guidelines. And for the tenth time, would you please indent your edits on talk page discussions. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 17:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to continue a debate on an Admin's Talk page? I do not intend to debate generalities with you Magnolia677. User:Sergecross73 and (to a lesser extent) User:Ferret were extensively involved in an article that I was editing, Chantry Island Lighthouse, and I believe they agree that I always worked to improve the article. I will let my reputation stand on specific examples such as that one. Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm easy going - I don't mind if you continue discussing on my talk page or not. As per usual, you both make some valid points. Could Peter's edits be interpreted as "discussion stifling"? Maybe. But I don't believe any ill-will was there - it appears to have been a good-faith mistake. And I do believe Peter is trying to positively improve Wikipedia. Peter, Magnolia does make some good points about some of the finer points of talk page discussions though. You may want to try to work a bit on some of the things like the levels of indentation and how to format that correctly. (See WP:INDENT.) Additionally, no offense or anything, but as far as social norms go on Wikipedia, you may overdo it a bit with the bolding and italics. You may notice discussions go smoother if you work on these things. Try to emulate how Ferret and I tend to respond to discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Serge. I love the Bold and Italic feature, admittedly, but will cut back on using them. I do try to emulate your approach when I am asked to provide Feedback service RfC on an article where I am not involved in the edits. It is not as easy for me when I am involved. Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Just keep at it. Wikipedia does have a bit of learning curve when you're making the move from casual to frequent contributor. It does help greatly that you do always take mine and Ferret's advice to heart. Half the problem others have is, they refuse the advice, stubborn on continuing to do it there way. That usually leads to them burning out because they just keep fighting the same recurring battles. So it's good that you keep taking it to heart. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Because you have been involved in related discussions, I am noting that I have recently nominated the article K.T. Reeder for deletion. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I was contemplating nominating it myself. Much appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for your comment at the AfD. Just for transparency, I notified both the IP used to start that article and the user mentioned. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these edits: here, here, here, here and make a new page protection on this page if you could, please? Thank you very much and your welcome in advance. I will report any future vandalism if I come across them. Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 20:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your links don't work. The IP has already been blocked though. -- ferret ( talk) 20:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to create a protection on that page since admins usually watch over those pages, I was just trying to help out with numerous IPs trying to mess some pages up. I thought creating a protection helps that. Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 20:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes but protection should be a last resort. We block a single IP instead of protecting, because protection stops any helpful IP edits as well. -- ferret ( talk) 20:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I get that now. And that last part is true. I probably shouldn't have asked for that then, but I typically didn't get that until you posted something along that, so I'm sorry for not listening to that. Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No, its fine, it can be a subjective call, but much of the time, if its one IP causing the issues, we block instead, to allow access for good-faith edits from other editors through IPs. However, if it appears that the same person is block evading and/orediting from multiple IP addresses, then we move into page protection. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Sometimes I just forget these simple steps, so that's why I keep wondering why these keep happening on occasions when no admin is immediately reverting some edits made by random IPs. But that's understandable. I'll try to remember this stuff. Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 20:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. ( discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

This was a promotional game created by Sega to help promote Sonic '06. Could we add this to the main page for the game under "release"? ~ TheJoebro64 ( talk) 20:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I'm pretty well-versed in everything Sonic, but I've never heard of this. Do we have any better sourcing than this? Commonly, the gauge of whether or not something warrants mentioning comes down to whether or not third party reliable sources ever mentioned it, even in passing. Do you know if they did? Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't found anything yet, but I'm going to try and look my hardest to see if it was. ~ TheJoebro64 ( talk) 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll search too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I've found: in the early to mid-2000s, Sega began creating Sonic browser games in Adobe Flash as a means to promote their releases. They made games based on Sonic Heroes, Sonic Mega Collection Plus, Shadow the Hedgehog, Sonic '06, and Sonic Rush Adventure. Apparently they were only available on the promotional websites for each game, and people uploaded the SWF files on other sites after the originals were shut down.

Unfortunately, I didn't find much on third party sources for this... ~ TheJoebro64 ( talk) 20:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

As a Sonic fan, I find this fascinating - there's not many Sonic games I've never heard of. However, as a Wikipedia Admin, I have a hard time advocating it's inclusion without much in the way of sourcing. I forgot to search for this though, so I can still give it a shot too. Sergecross73 msg me 22:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A 50 point billeted list – that would be, like, a list which is living in barracks or garrisons when not on combat duty? E Eng 00:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Uggggghh what an auto-correct fail. Haha. Sergecross73 msg me 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Spit (album)'s alternate cover image is somewhere else on the page all of a sudden. Can you help me fix it? Statik N ( talk) 16:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm weird. I wonder if some sort of Wikipedia internal issue or something? Or an issue with the template as a whole? Because looking through the page history, every single version of the article I spot checked, even ones from 2016, still have that same error going on. That shouldn't be the case if it was just a recent error made in the formatting. I can't spot check a version where it was showing correctly... Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Extra album cover was updated today, however am not seeing this error on other articles. Previewing the last version of the template on Spit (album) doesn't solve it either. I'm looking into it though. -- ferret ( talk) 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just going to say, I just checked Stupid Dream, the only album article that came to mind that I knew had an alternate cover...and that's not having the same problem. I don't know. Does comparing the two help at all? Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's being caused by the Singles template, which was also updated today. I've notified Jc86035 who is making the changes to both. -- ferret ( talk) 16:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you for the help! Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Statik N: A temporary solution is to put Singles below Extra Album Cover, until the Singles template is fixed or reverted. -- ferret ( talk) 16:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Statik N ( talk) 17:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Template fixed, so I restored the original order. -- ferret ( talk) 17:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Guess who's at it again. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Blocked. If you keep finding them and reporting them to me, I'll keep blocking them. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Will do. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you be interested in looking at this? I'm hoping for this to be my first FA. It doesn't get many looks, the first failed to yield any at all. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forgot about this! The truth is, I'd like to help you in a general sense, but I don't really involve myself in the GA/FA process. So I don't think I'd do a very good review... Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)