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 @ Sergecross73:, I hope you don't mind an additional question today, but you're one of the few admins I've interacted with (probably for the best). I am finding it challenging working with infrequent editor ( Nouill), who's primary edit style is to delete positive notation (lists of awards/etc) on the articles of companies with the minimal summary of "ads". I agree that promotional material should not be here and often the content could be summarized as prose, removing extraneous information. But the one sided edit style appears (to me) to be tendentious editing. Other editors and I have engaged with Nouill, but it seems their presumption is that positive material must be promotional, and editors who add/include this content likely have a COI. In subsequent discussions on the article talk pages this content has been returned with a NPOV, but not all of these articles are particular active, and dealing with this piece-meal is tedious. Any thoughts on how to engage better with this editor? Dbsseven ( talk) 00:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey again. No problem at all, feel free to ask as much as you want, I'm happy to help. I can't talk this instant, but I'll look into this shortly. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hesitant to bring this to you as I know all editors have their own particular style, and that's fine. Hopeful a fresh (but experienced) set of eyes can give a better perspective. Dbsseven ( talk) 01:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

And if you want to know. I think I am the contributor the most active on companies articles on wp.fr since few years. And I'm regulary accuse to be to kind with the companie on wp.fr ... But wp:fr have lot less problem with promotional content that wp:en. And I'm just a "infrequent editor" with 150 000 edit on wp:fr... -- Nouill ( talk) 02:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I can see both sides here. On one hand, Some of Nouill's removals seem warranted. However, others seem a bit too heavy-handed, and not really over-promotional. Not every listing of an award is a promotional violation. Sometimes it's accurate summation of a subject's reception. And not everyone who adds awards are doing it on promotional/COI grounds. Some people just like adding that sort of thing because they find it interesting, so we need to remember to assume good faith.

Nouilli, when people disagree with your removals, I think you need to be more willing to discuss it on the talk page, with an open mind, to gather a consensus. If you guys can't agree, then a relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT can be contacted for additional input. Or start up an WP:RFC. Or you guys can ask me to mediate a solution too - at least with the recent edits I've spot-checked, I don't have any preconceived notions on these subjects, and could try to help you guys work towards a solution.

Another note - Nouilli - I saw on your user page that English is not your first language. While you seem to be conveying general messages fine, but I'm not sure you're aware of how you present yourself - your words/phrasings kind of come off as aggressive and confrontational. Please take note of this - I think people may be interpreting your stances as more combative than you mean to be. (Or if you do mean that, then you should try to take it easy a bit and try to get along with others a little better. Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but when someone revert me with a comment "Malicious edit" and when I ask to stop that, and when that personn a other time say the same thing. It's for me a little problematic to ask me assume good faith, when I'm very thinking that the article is pretty promotional and the contributor have a link with the company.

And in this conversation, I don't appreciate to be categorized by " tendentious editing".

And I'm not always just delete the listing of award because is promotional content, but because is also often a content with not encyclopedical information, with obscur awards which give not information about the company or about why the company have this award. -- Nouill ( talk) 13:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That scenario in itself, no, is not enough to warrant assuming bad faith. Edit summaries like "It's an ad" and "malicious edit" are both insufficient, so that why you must continue to engage civilly and cooperatively on the talk page when disagreements arise. Civil, good-faith discussions on the talk page when disputes arise are non-negotiable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If it looks promotional, perhaps tag it {{ advert inline}} so other editors can clearly see the content in question. Then the content can be discussed, and a consensus on the encyclopedic value and NPOV language found. (And I meant no offense by tendentious other than the edit style tends to be one particular direction on wp.en.) Dbsseven ( talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire article is going to get deleted anyway due to no sourcing. You people clearly don't care about the article in its entirety. Why go so far to trim an article that's clearly going to get deleted? I don't care how invaluable the sourcing was, all the information on that page was true and true in its absolutest form, I assert. The world should be able to see all of the information that was actually valuable on sites like Deletionpedia after the article is inevitably deleted. By taking off the "bad sourcing", you might as well just delete all of the content on the page, because the rest of it is just unsourced and that's also not allowed here, arguably. Why go so far anyway? What's the point? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 17:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There is an active consensus against using sources like Gamefaqs on Wikipedia. It violates Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines - specifically WP:USERG. These are not professional sources. They can be written and uploaded by anyone who creates a free accounts. That is not an attribute of a reliable source.

Furthermore, "hoping that another website picks up the information" is absolutely not a valid reason to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. Knowingly editing against consensus is considered disruptive editing, and will get you blocked from editing if you don't stop. So please stop. You really need to slow down and take more time to understand how the website works. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Why for a page that is inevitably going to be deleted? Is it because there's like a small chance that someone might find a reason for this article to be notable that everyone else overlooks, then it gets kept? I'm asking these questions undisruptively, as I'm trying to learn new information. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 17:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing you for asking questions, I'm criticizing how you keep on re-adding it to the article despite me telling you that it's not appropriate.

You're coming at this at the wrong angle though. I don't need a reason or explanation as to why I'm enforcing the rules. You need a valid reason for restoring the information. "I want another website to pick up the info" is not a valid reason. If you want your writing on other websites, go write it there yourself or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I was going to just let it go, but it's been nagging at my brain, so against my better judgement, I'll bite: How does it make more sense in either content or chronology for a 1996 commentary to go after commentaries from 2005 and 2008?-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 17:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It was a passing comment from a month ago, so I'm trying to remember. I'll concede that "chronological" was incorrect, not sure if I read a number wrong or what there. But my main thought was that I thought it was kind of awkward change to the paragraph conceptually/flow-wise, to take a paragraph largely saying "Xtreme's release would have helped Sega" and "its lack of release hurt Sega" to now opening up with the contrary statement of "its release would have hurt Sega". It's a valid statement from a reliable source, but I don't think this was a primary or prominent sentiment from sources, now or then, so I don't think it makes sense to list so far up in the forefront of the paragraph. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the prevailing opinion is that Xtreme's release would have made no significant difference in either direction. There's a reason why these claims that Sonic Xtreme was a make-it-or-break-it release appear only ten years after the fact, while contemporary coverage on Xtreme amounts to little more than passing mentions which treat the game as an afterthought to Virtua Fighter 2, Sega Rally, Nights, and even Fighting Vipers. It's the usual distortion of the press: An absence of drama is never reported, and if there is no drama to report, dramatic speculation is substituted. In other words, the headline "Very Few People Care that Sonic Xtreme Was Cancelled" won't attract readers; "Gaming History Would Have Been Changed If Sonic Xtreme Was Released" will.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 18:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting take...but that has not been my experience in reading on the subject... Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You've missed my point. The reason you haven't read the non-news that Sonic Xtreme's cancellation didn't make any significant difference isn't because it's not true; it's because no one ever reports non-news. Take a moment to consider how many news articles you've seen reporting the absence of a conspiracy.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 15:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand, I just don't agree. I've read a lot about the game over the years, and even back in the day, both the press and Sega put an enormous amount of importance on the game. Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why haven't you been adding those sources to articles then? :( I see only three contemporary refs in the Sonic Xtreme article; two were added by me, and the third was added by Red Phoenix.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 00:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The sentiment is covered just fine with the current wording and sources. No ones questioned the notion before. There's no reason to refspam non-contentious points like "cancellation of company's flagship franchise was a bad thing for company". Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it has been questioned before. Check the Sega Saturn article's history and you'll find more than one occasion where someone toned down this modern theory and was reverted. Besides, do you really need a claim to be contentious before you'll source it with something better than ten-years-after-the-fact online articles? If there's one thing my WP researches have taught me, it's that retro articles do not provide an accurate picture of the 1990s gaming scene. Also, the franchise wasn't cancelled; as noted in the article, Sonic Xtreme was simply replaced with Sonic 3D Blast.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 00:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if something is non-contentious, sourced, and lines up with my understanding of the subject, I don't particularly work on adding more refs. I similarly don't add every single article I read that a journalist liked Ocarina of Time, or that Wii Sports helped sell the Wii, as a source either. And as long as the accounts aren't objectively contradictory, I don't particularly care if the sources are 2 months or 2 decades old, as long as it's an RS. And thanks for missing the point on my example above in favor of nitpicking on the wording - I really needed that clarification that Sega hadn't actually cancelled the Sonic series in 1996. Yes, they cancelled a major entry in the franchise favor of a last-gen port farmed out to Travellers Tales. Still obviously very bad for the company in the same way. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that you're taking this so personally. I consider the differences between the facts as reported by contemporary sources and the facts as reported by retrospective sources to be crucially important, and had assumed no experienced Wikipedia editor would disagree. If I decide to pursue this issue any further, I will do so at the WikiProject talk page. Bye for now.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 02:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

We're not talking about "facts" though, we're talking about journalist's opinions on the effects of an event. And I'm not taking things personally - it's just irritating that you're still complaining about all this. Most Wikipedia arguments I get into are over major things like source reliability, subject notability, and enforcing policy through adiminstrative action. You're over there making a big deal about how I moved your content, unaltered, down a little farther in a paragraph, and that I hadnt added more sources to content already sufficiently sourced (in a GA I neither nominated nor passed, for that matter.) I don't even know what "pursuing this further" would even look like. Are you going to consult WP:VG over how many sentences down you include your content in the paragraph. There isn't any actual content dispute present or specific additions being proposed in all of this, you're just talking in hypotheticals. I didn't revert you or keep you from doing anything. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I was told that you might have the solution to a problem I am encountering. The file upload wizard does not seem to work for me. I click on it but it just changes the bottom where it says when it was last modified and who modified it for a second then goes back to the original screen. This is a problem because I find many missing album/single covers on the Wikipedia. I know you can’t upload those to Wikimedia because I have gotten many copyright strikes for it. I would greatly appreciate your help DatBoy101 ( talk) 18:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Like Ferret, I don't usually upload files either, so I don't know either. As he suggested, maybe the help desk or WP:VILLAGEPUMP could help? Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok I’ll try those DatBoy101 ( talk) 23:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sergecross73. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the involvement at ANI. I'm a bit concerned about this series of talk page edits though: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Josh_Dun&curid=43205573&diff=814106308&oldid=813162802 Am I too sensitive just now? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. As I tell others I work with, free to report things to my vandalism section at the top of my talk page, if you wish to stay out of the murky waters of ANI proper. As far as your dif goes, yeah, it is a little concerning...but as long as he's just musing and asking for better sources on the talk page, at least it's an improvement, and technically following my warning. Definitely let me know if he outright goes against it though and starts adding unsourced unsourced name/BLP stuff in the mainspace. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please fix "Cite error: The named reference Hawkins2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)" at Nothing More. Thanks! -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I accidentally erased its original usage in my big rewrite of the page yesterday. I've fixed it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Hi Serge, I've spotted a likely Elmodivot/Kellymoat sock: 73.79.235.214 ( talk · contribs). They're using an IP address, so I don't believe checkuser may be requested. Same drill as all the others, reversions on music articles including TSwift. Editor interact tool with Kellymoat: [1]. Is there enough for a duck block? Cjhard ( talk) 02:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) @ Cjhard: That might not be Elmodivot. From my memory of Elmodivot's pattern, they tend to edit war over their disagreements, which I do not see from this IP. Furthermore, in two of their edits, they look like they're removing unconstructive edits. However, I am willing to hear if Serge has something to say. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is particularly suspicious: [2] the IP removes the same content Kellmoat had: [3], citing the page's history. That's a suspicious first edit. Cjhard ( talk) 05:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, I wrote a response to this yesterday, but I just noticed today that it's not here - looks like it didn't get saved or something. Not sure what happened. Regardless, what I had said yesterday, was that I found the IP suspicious. I could chalk it all up to coincidence if the IP was just on Taylor Swift articles, but the fact that the common subject area included Taylor Swift songs and " Black Betty" - and that most of the IPs edits overlapped with Kellymoat - that that's too much of a coincidence to ignore, as those 2 topics are rather different. I gave the IP address a short block - because blocking policy doesn't allow indefinite blocks on IP addresses, because they're sometimes redistributed to other people. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you find a source for the Super Sonic gameplay? This is embarrassing, but... I can't do any sources because... I have Amazon FreeTime on this device. There. I said it. Please, can you keep this a secret and find a Super Sonic source? 172.1.94.255 ( talk) 17:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what Amazon Free Time is, or why having it would need to be a secret, or why you'd publicly announce a secret on my talk page, but regardless, someone else already did this for you, before you even asked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right. That was weird. I just want Wikipedia to be as informative as it can be. I can't do citations because the free time thing blocks me from going to most sites. So could you put that there, please? 2602:30A:C015:EFF0:382B:1E39:2D86:519E ( talk) 17:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait. Just found the section on Super Sonic. Never mind. 2602:30A:C015:EFF0:382B:1E39:2D86:519E ( talk) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you delete this template? Masem made a general Game Award template just now, and I feel like instead of having two tiny templates, the one I created could just be merged into the general one Masem did. ~ Dissident93 ^{( talk)} 22:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean, I'd support it, but it's looks like since this was requested, a discussion opened up at WP:VG, so I should probably hold off. Sergecross73 msg me 05:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I already moved the info to the main navbox, and would still support this despite the newer discussion being held. But I guess it doesn't hurt to wait. ~ Dissident93 ^{( talk)} 21:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read my edit summaries before asking me to do the thing my summaries said I had done.

JFN was clearly intended for overly long titles or numerous titles, such as Japanese light novels. It's obviously a very recent thing, because I don't remember this being a thought in the last decade and a half. It is applied extremely discriminatorily, and the argument for just about any application of it is endlessly debatable. The entire content of JFN is endlessly debatable.

There needs to be more clarification on what it actually does and why it should be done, before you start edit warring with people who are thoroughly convinced that your desired implementation is a very bad idea for very good reasons. Despatche ( talk) 03:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I did read your edit summaries - nothing you said was a valid counterpoint to JFN, or indicated that you understood it at all. I'm very aware of what JFN is, and how it works. Your edit introduced a long string of jargon unreadable to majority of most English readers. It's better to present that sort of thing as a footnote. If you need more clarification, go ask WT:VG. Also, please note that 1 revert is not classified as edit warring. Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Goodness. Okay, apparently you're the arbiter on how English works and are reading something into JFN that isn't there, cool. You guys need to understand that these policies don't actually read like you think they read, no matter how long you've used them. Calling the original title of a work "jargon" tells me everything I need to know about your stake in this. Get your act together. Despatche ( talk) 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? The guy with like 10+ failed/rejected requested move requests is telling me to get my act together? Yikes. The problem is that, years have passed, and you still don't have even a basic understanding of Wikipedia naming conventions. Complain about me all you like, but your current approach will continually get your edits undone, and you'll probably end up blocked again. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There is this new account on Wikipedia called Guitarman98. I have a big feeling he is Strangeguy91. He makes the same edits as Strangeguy91 on the same pages. Statik N ( talk) 01:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Statik N: Behavioral evidence enough for me even being unfamiliar with this sockmaster, blocked. Please check if any clean up is required. -- ferret ( talk) 01:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

Happy Holidays to you too, Salv. Rest assured, no hard feelings with me (can't imagine that part was directed to me anyways.) I hope you can get the Arbcom stuff sorted out satisfactorily so you can move on and continue contributing to the project. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I caught the slight mistake on the edit I made to the Nintendo 3DS page. I meant to say "Nintendo Switch at $299", and I have corrected it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techmaster12 ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sergecross73: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thank you. Same to you! Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

He's now editing the Sixteen Stone page as an IP with the same edits he always does. I won't be surprised if he creates another account. Statik N ( talk) 22:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Statik N: 2601:19A:4500:E7E:0:0:0:0/64 range blocked for 3 months. -- ferret ( talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Serge, first of all, greetings of the season and cheers for you and your family this Christmas. Hope you are doing well. If you might recall, at my Rfa early this year, you and other established editors had provided significant feedback on the areas where you felt I could improve. Over the past year, I've stepped back and have worked on the areas that were pointed out during the Rfa. I just wanted to request for some of your time (whenever you might be free; there's no hurry) to review my contributions at your convenience and to provide further feedback if necessary. Your inputs would be invaluable. Once again, happy holidays and wishes for a wonderful new year. Warmly, Lourdes 08:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I can try to do this sometime, though my wiki time will be limited in these next couple weeks, so it may not be right away. If you happen to want to do an RFA run before that or something, you don't need to wait up for me - I won't oppose you or anything. I know RFA is a nerve-wrecking process, so I don't make it a habit of opposing people. It's hard enough without me chiming in. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Serge. I'll wait for your feedback nevertheless. If in the meanwhile I find a suitable window to push in my Rfa, I'll leave a note for you. Have a great new year, Lourdes 09:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So I was reading the grunge article and some of the stuff in there makes no sense. I was reading some stuff in the article because I love to read pages in Wikipedia and there is some bizarre things on there. First of all, I seen that some users tried to change it and then change it back again. Statik N keeps making a lot of editing and some of the stuff that he puts makes no sense. In the article it states that, Although the bands Bush and Candlebox have been categorized as grunge, both bands have been largely categorized as post-grunge, too. This statement is included on the post-grunge section of the grunge article and it seems to me that the user is a huge fan of a specific band. I don't think that the bands Bush and Candlebox should have been categorized as grunge and then post-grunge on a post-grunge section of a grunge article. To your average reader, this literally makes no sense. It's like saying, the person is hard to understand but the person is also largely easy to understand. It just makes no sense. In the post-grunge section of the article, it also states, Bands described as grunge like Bush and Candlebox also have been largely categorized as post-grunge. These two bands became popular after 1992. Again, isn't this the same thing as the other statement. Also, another statement states, Tim Grierson of About.com described bands such as Bush and Candlebox, writing: Perhaps not surprisingly, because these bands seemed to be merely ripping off a trendy sound, critics dismissed them as bandwagon-jumpers. Tellingly, these bands were labeled almost pejoratively as “post-grunge,” suggesting that rather than being a musical movement in their own right, they were just a calculated, cynical response to a legitimate stylistic shift in rock music. If Tim is describing Bush as post-grunge then why is it that they are grunge but also post-grunge too? It doesn't make sense. The section also talks about other post-grunge bands but for some weird reason, a band like Bush could be describe as grunge and also post-grunge too when the section is talking about post-grunge. I think you should check the grunge article to see if you could make any changes. ( Mikeis1996 ( talk) 06:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC) )

There's nothing wrong with a band being described as more than one genre, especially when you're looking at two extremely similar genre like grunge and post grunge. Now, these are the sorts of arguments that have gotten you blocked 4 times from 4 separate admin in the past. I don't recommend pursuing this... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay but if this was coming out of my personal view then I would had gotten blocked. There is some kind of bias here. I recommend you to read the post-grunge section of the article. As for the grunge and post-grunge being extremely similar genres, I agree but Statik N doesn't agree. That is why he keeps mentioning Bush being grunge and then being post-grunge two times. I understand that a band could be multiple genres but if we are talking about a specific section of a genre then why is this specific band keep being mentioned as grunge and post-grunge too about two times. It literally makes no sense. ( Mikeis1996 ( talk) 18:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC) )

I still don't see the issue. They call their earlier work grunge, and they their later work post-grunge. It's supported by the source. There's no big contradiction here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that the band is on the post-grunge section of the grunge article and they are being mentioned as grunge and also post-grunge two times. They are not even calling their later work as post-grunge. It just says that Bush has been described as grunge but also post-grunge too. It says this about two times. This kind of statements gets annoying. They are talking about the band and they are being mentioned as grunge and post-grunge two times. Also, the user added the same sources for Bush and Candlebox being grunge two times in two different statements that are actually the same( Mikeis1996 ( talk) 19:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC) )

I have a big feeling that Mikeis1996 is Strangeguy91. He makes extremely similar edits to Strangeguy91 and says that same things as Strangeguy91. Statik N ( talk) 00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Same arguments, same signature. Account became active again after long inactivity when we began blocking IP ranges. I've updated the range block to a hard block, which prevents the user from editing with already established accounts. -- ferret ( talk) 00:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

Hey Serge, I need your help on something. I recently moved the discography back to [Cash Cash]] 's main article as I've seen on many pages for various reasons. It was too far removed from the page and wasn't being updated frequently due to being disconnected from the main article making researchers have to dig to get important disco information...problem is I don't know how to delete the old page. I successfully transferred all the data and sources correctly but the old separate disco page still exists and needs to be deleted...Can you help me remove the old page so there's not a duplicate? The page to be removed is: /info/en/?search=Cash_Cash_discography

Thanks for your time! Hope all is well and Happy New Year!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. While I do have the ability to delete articles, I felt it was better to WP:REDIRECT it, which will effectively do the same thing, removing the article but helping people find the info if they happen to search for " Cash Cash discography".

Side note: Just so you know, while there doesn't seem to be a hard rule on when a separate discography article for a musician/band should exist, the general guidance is when the discography is "relatively large" and "has lots of chart positions to display". So there's a possibility you could get some pushback on this down the line. I don't object, but I also don't know if I could defend it against a passionate opposer either, if that makes sense. Just an FYI. Sergecross73 msg me

Thanks Serge, Appreciate the help and info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)