Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103→Archive 105

Battleground mentality – single-purpose account

Hi Serge. I just noticed a discussion (well, more a wall of text) from one editor named African pride479 who appears to primarily be a single-purpose account arguing about the South African singer Tyla's racial identity. They appear to have registered to Wikipedia with a blatant agenda and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and are accusing the two editors who have replied in the thread at Talk:Tyla (singer)#Tyla ancestry fact checking thread. of having a bias to remove her African identity(?). Some choice quotes from their talk page screeds:

  • "As a real african with proficient reading comprehension skills"
  • "You guys are literally trying to white wash her [...] Its giving anti-African/Anti-black"
  • "I hope Wikipedia edit history and threads are permanent, Because i'm eventually going to have to make a youtube video on what happened over here after I come off Hiatus and start my channel back up again. What a BATTLE this was."
  • "Between the two of us, i'm probably the only real african descent person here, and I can prove it."
  • "I will eventually get psyop status and i'm going to start protecting the identity of these African/black decent women on this site, where this trend of attempting to distance them from their black/african ancestry is prevalent."

I thought this needed admin attention. Ss112 21:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've left them a talk page message. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
"Battleground mentality" would make for a great t-shirt. Panini! • 🥪 15:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

When a source is broken, where do I look to find it?

Hey there! I'm doing a re-write of Kristian Bush. Ref 7, which is at the end of "1991–2001: Billy Pilgrim", seems to have a lot of detailed information, but the original link is broken. Simply looking it up yields no results, so where could I search to find the origin of this source if it's still out there? Panini! • 🥪 16:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This [1], [2]? or do you mean the source of the Biography? Timur9008 (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank @Timur9008! It was the Wayback Machine that I was looking for. Panini! • 🥪 21:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you (talk page watcher) for fielding this one! Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"Formatting is not respecting current MOS"

Hey Serge. Could you take a look at this edit, leaving aside my removal of the extra covers (which has apparently been discussed before and which I left alone upon my revert), and see if you think I did anything "not respecting (the) current MOS"? I've left a talk page message for this user, but I'm almost certain they don't know the current MOS. As I said, "all tables require captions now per MOS:TABLECAPTION and should have scope="col" to delineate what is a column header (MOS:DTT). Third-level headings should follow second-level headings (and semicolons should not be used to bold headings) per WP:PSEUDOHEAD and removing links to common terms is per WP:OVERLINKING". I also linked to the RfC in 2020 that established all tables should have captions and pointed out it is part of WP:ACCESS. Ss112 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's all correct to my knowledge. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

New Pjesnik21 sock

Hey Serge, also @Ferret:: looks like Pjesnik21/Jovarca1000000 is back on the range 95.156.155.223/16 (it might need to be adjusted)

Special:Contributions/95.156.144.0/20 is probably where we'd start but I'm concerned about the collateral. @NinjaRobotPirate and Drmies: 2O? I believe I see at least two editors running in this range when reviewing the contributions. One looks like Pjesnik21, editing music. Another appears to be editing science articles. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
From skimming over the edits, I think it depends on how much of a hardass you are. Special:Diff/1182330170 has an unsourced award, and Special:Diff/1171740690 removed every template from the top of the article, including the shortdesc. If the rest of the edits are constructive, I still wouldn't have a big issue asking one single editor to go through WP:ACC to continue editing. On busy IP ranges, I sometimes do an anon-only block that leaves account creation enabled. That doesn't stop sock puppetry, but it makes it easier to keep track of socks and block them as they pop up. People don't have to worry about CIDR, for example. I might also layer partial hard blocks on the same range to stop editing of certain articles if they're persistently targeted. That way, other people can edit, but the sock has some difficulty going to their favorite articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Ferret and NinjaRobotPirate: Well, they're still continuing to edit every few days (adding unsourced info to articles today), so some kind of block for them would be much appreciated. Ss112 09:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@Ss112 I've blocked this first range. I can tell you, it won't be the last, so keep an eye out. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

" Each entry should be tied to the genre by a reliable source directly"

according to your style comment, then many of the other references would also need to be removed, e.g., Kiss. Carloscastenada1 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Carloscastenada1 - Then go fix the other errors. Noticing other errors doesn't validate you adding further errors. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 04:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

?

Does this make any sense to you? As in, I know it's nonsense, but I want to know if it's true nonsense. Like, there's literally no reason these words should be in a sentence together since they have absolutely no correlation and zero connection. Panini! • 🥪 05:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I come across these sorts of nonsense edits from IPs sometimes and I have no idea what they mean or why they happen. I've never been able to understand any sort of rhyme or reason to their message or why they're placed where they are. If you or anyone else knows, I'd love to hear it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Date format

You have closed Nintendo discussion page without sufficient reasons. Also, what do you think led to the consensus to keep this in place? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and they don't have a good reason. If discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If this doesn't change you will need to change the rule itself for MOS:NUM. It should never have been changed at first glance, so I think restoring the prior that stood for 11 years is desirable over allowing a meaningless change contrary to guidelines to say seek consensus, to be considered the current date format. If it is not changed, it will only encourage people to try and support through meaningless changes under a vague edit summary without consensus on the article's talk page (and changers will hope it does not reverted, as the meaningless edit can just change a whole date format). If you don't change it, the wiki has a serious rules flaw. WP:EDITCON does not prevent MOS:DATERET. I don't feel any participation in messing with these rules. It should be written as "date format consensus is unclear, so we use the first major contributor date format per MOS:NUM". WAccount1234567890 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. Uninvolved admin often review a discussion, read over the merits of the arguments proposed to come to a consensus, and then close the discussion. Which is what I did. Please take a step back and remember the context of what you're arguing about here. It's an argument about which date format to use. Two widely used and widely understood formats. Literally nothing is at stake here. Both are valid, but one has uncontentiously held stable for the past seven years. Please drop this and spend your time arguing about something more constructive. Sergecross73 msg me 05:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to say that it is widely used and widely understood. Your argument seems to be that mdy should not be used in anything except American articles. If that's the case, then it's up to you to make the rules. And your reasons do not over the rules. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea how any of that is your take away from my close. Sergecross73 msg me 11:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you have thoroughly read the reasons for the change in Nintendo's discussion. You still don't answer my main questions. The most influential of my key questions is that MOS:NUM states that style used by the first major contributor should be used without explicit consensus (and there is no mention of WP:EDITCON preventing the MOS:NUM), and opponents haven't even posted a good reason to keep it. You still seem to think Wikipedia is a democracy, but it isn't. There is no good reason for us not to follow this rule. You are ignoring the rules without good reason. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. I've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years. Youve got like 30 edits to your name. Why would you think you know better on how disputes are handled on Wikipedia? What grounds exactly are all of these lectures about Wikipedia not being a democracy coming from? At no point did I cite "Democracy" as a reason for my close.
On Wikipedia, decisions are made by consensus building (WP:CONSENSUS). Discussions are held, and outside of landslide outcomes, uninvolved Admin review discussions and come to a conclusion on how to discussions. Not by vote, but by weighing the merits of the policy-based arguments.
I reviewed the discussion, and I was more persuaded by the arguments that cited a seven year EDITCON. We're talking about a very high traffic, mainstream article. If the date was truly an issue, it would not have gone seven years undiscussed. Further more, there was not a consensus to change the date in the discussion. When there is not a consensus to change, we default to the status to not making the proposed change. (WP:NOCONSENSUS). There is no misconduct here, just a standard close of a pretty basic content dispute.
I have no idea what would possess someone to sign up for a website to to spend all their time obsessing over date formatting, but it's time to move on. Too much time has already been wasted on this minor dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The WP:EDITCON does not justify violating the MOS:DATERET because there is no good reason to violate the MOS:DATERET. You'd think evidence of a lot of edits would mean they know the rules better than the users, but that's not always true. The article has evolved using predominantly the mdy date format (since early January 2005, and here's first major contribution), and the user's edit appears to have violate MOS:DATERET. I mentioned this on talk page, but I think you don't read it thoroughly, so I explained it to you. The user, who edited the mdy date format without a strong consensus discussion in the article, also provides strong evidence that the edit 7 years ago violated the MOS:DATERET rule, and that the MOS:DATERET rule violation should be reverted. But you continue to ignore the existence of the MOS:DATERET and other rules, and while the WP:EDITCON does not explicitly state that this justifies breaking these rules, you seem to be claiming that it would be so without good reason. You continue to ignore the rules I have outlined without good reason. Even if the WP:EDITCON is currently applied, edits that do not comply with the rules should be reverted unless the reason can be explained. Furthermore, the MOS:NUM clearly states that if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Once again, you seem to keep ignoring the MOS:NUM for no good reason. Opponents have not given a good reason to keep this format, but people who want mdy have given good reasons. If you ignore a rule because you don't like it, there's no reason for the rule to exist. To reiterate, there is no good reason for us not to follow these rules, and you are ignoring the rules without good reason. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
You still haven't addressed my question. I understand people get passionate and heated over important subjects like religion, politics, social issues. Or even just every day factual details. But you're not even upset about wrong dates, you're upset about how the same dates are written out. Why? There is, very literally, nothing at stake here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
There is evidence on the article's talk page that Nintendo and Japan primarily use mdy. There is also no reason in this article to use format that break the rules. In these situations, it is recommended to use an appropriate mdy written by the first major contributor based on MOS:DATERET. And according to this your opinion, there is no reason for MOS:RETAIN rule to exist. To reiterate, The MOS:NUM states that if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. I think it exists to avoid endless style wars. This is similar to what happens when American companies that use mdy do not use mdy in their articles. So, please change this date format to mdy. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be struggling with this, so let me be very clear: The answer is no. You need to drop the stick, or a disruption block is potentially in your future. -- ferret (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no basis for what you are saying. This change is supported in rules. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
As myself, ferret, and at least three volunteers from the TEAHOUSE have told you, it's time to drop this. Again and again you've failed to address why this matters. The closest you've come to addressing it is was saying "I think it exists to avoid endless style wars." - but again, that can't be your motivation here because there was literally no edit warring over it for seven years straight. If you waste any more if the community's time in this, I'm blocking your account. Find something more constructive to do. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I've already explained why it's important. You're violating the rules without a good reason and you haven't given a good reason to retain this form. Your logic of 7 years of change without explicit consensus is not supported in MOS:NUM. Also, keep in mind that there is no good reason to want to stop, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. You are wasting time by not following the rules without a good reason. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Did you think I missed it the first 10 times you said that? That's not what what I was asking. You would think that, after saying that so many times, you would realize that it's not a sufficient answer to my question. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for my actions today. I should have listen and respected to your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatChemist25 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. Sergecross73 msg me 03:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

User reverting with strange acronym

Hi Serge. Not really that serious of a matter but @Isaidnoway: and I had a disagreement yesterday (my time), and they're well within their rights to do so, but reverted my talk page messages, after answering me, with the edit summary "cbbw". I asked what cbbw means, and they, unhelpfully but probably predictably, reverted me again with "cbbw". I don't know why this editor is reverting me with some acronym whose meaning is known only to them. Not sure if it's some nonsense, but I can't get an answer out of them on their talk page so I thought I might try here. Edit: I might have cracked the code: "Can't be bothered with"? Isaidnoway, please LMK. You might have coined a new acronym that the Internet has not heretofore used. Ss112 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a weird one. I wouldn't have know what that means either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Strange edits

Just wondering if it's occurred to you that the "new" user you're mentoring isn't really all that new and is trolling to performative levels. WP:AGF can only be stretched so far... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It has, and I'm torn on how to handle it. He's on extremely thin ice either way. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

PlayStation Vita

Please suggest me improvements to the article because my peer review of the article left no answers and my talk page's section on the article is useless and you are the number one editor of the article. My goal is to get it successfully promoted to GA status or even FA if the improvements are big enough. Equalwidth (C) 06:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's pretty uncommon to ask for a peer review for an article that you've barely edited. Not sure if that's why you're not getting any feedback there. As far as the article goes, it's pretty well developed. A lot of editors wrote and maintained it in the early 2010s, and then I gave it a heavy rewrite and expansion in the mid-2010s. It's not perfect by any means, but there's probably not any glaring oversights.
One suggestion that comes to mind - I think I was burned out by the time I got around to the PlayStation Vita#Applications section. That part could probably be expanded and/or reworked. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The grammar did look horrible over there but I have fixed the issue with the latest edit to the article. Equalwidth (C) 04:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm once again confused by your actions. You, in your disappointment that no one's giving you a peer review, ask me for ideas. I recommend rewriting and expanding a section, and you respond by subbing a couple words in and out, changing almost nothing? And this, according to you, fixed "horrible" grammar? And this was the sort of thing you were hoping to get out of a peer review...? Sergecross73 msg me 05:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Steam Deck RfC

On Talk:List_of_best-selling_game_consoles#RfC:_Is_the_Valve_Steam_Deck_an_improvement_to_this_list? you wrote "Such a thing would need to be decided on its own article first, not on this list". How would we go about moving this RfC to that page? I don't feel confident doing that myself without possibly violating Wikipedia rules/guidelines and you seem a lot more knowledgeable about that. Would we also copy/move the whole preceding discussion from Talk:List_of_best-selling_game_consoles to Talk:Steam_Deck ? Your help is greatly appreciated. Terr-E (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That was just my personal opinion, and so far no one else seems bothered by it, so maybe it's fine as is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth; It seems totally valid to me that the discussion whether the Steam Deck is "enough" of a console is the basis for several other articles, such as this list itself, Handheld_game_console, List_of_handheld_game_consoles and as such that the RfC might indeed be more central to the discussion in the Talk:Steam_Deck page. If it would come to it, i would support moving it there, but for now i will leave it to you. If you think it's fine then it's fine. Terr-E (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't put much meaning into the handheld/list of handhelds articles say. Both are very under-maintained by experienced editors. The "list of" article was in shambles prior to my massive rewrite effort back in 2021. (I didn't remove Steam Deck because the list doesn't appear to discriminate between handheld console or handheld PC - there's all sorts of PCs on that list. I wasn't trying to get into all that, I was just trying to clean it up.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Cover artwork-fixated editor

Hi Serge. After years of warnings from a multitude of editors and automated messages that their images either lack licensing or have been nominated for deletion (see the history), the user H9v9n9 still sees fit to edit images of products from websites to crop out everything but the actual front cover, which I've been told by experienced editors in years past is not an acceptable thing to do as it is pointless to show the original unedited image as a "source" if you're going to just make a new image from it yourself (not sure if you yourself have much experience in this area and may have heard the same thing or think the same thing). I'm not sure if this is in one of our image guidelines but it seems to be a practice if not policy.

This editor is simply fixated on cover artworks and it seems to be the main thing they do on Wikipedia—finding images to replace or tinker with. Do you think this is worth having a word to them over? I've left them a message but I'm not sure my word will change anything, and I'm almost certain this user has done this exact thing (cropping and refactoring images from websites, citing a source that shows a different image) in years past, has been warned for, and they're still doing it. They have routinely blanked their talk page, including a summary in Mandarin, the translation of which seems to imply that editors are "obsessed" with them(?). Ss112 11:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

He's hasn't been very actively lately, so let's wait and see how acts when he returns... Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

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, MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is "John de Lancie" .

Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!

-- EpicTiger87 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Email notification

Hello, Sergecross73. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ss112 15:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vectorman

Template:Vectorman has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 13:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

timed blocks

This is a great example of the usefulness of indefs. People can't just wait them out. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, yeah, I know, I went back and forth a lot on how long it should be. It's probably inevitable, but I landed on "one last shot after a week passes". Not exactly filled with confidence from their comments over the course of the week though... Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Ayup. I understand the reluctance to indef, but it seems like in the case of someone who is basically well-intentioned but just isn't getting it or isn't listening, being forced to convince someone you actually do now get it can actually be helpful to the editor. A week just feels like serving time, and many admins are reluctant to lift it early. An indef usually isn't intended to be permanent and can be lifted five minutes later if the person can convince someone they now are listening, get it, know how to avoid the problem in future, and are willing to do so. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I get it. I do that with editors often too. But I didn't think it'd work with him. Their talk page used to say they were bad at source hunting. After a series of awful AFD noms closed as keep, I warned them that AFD noms weren't the place for them unless he could do a BEFORE search. So, after a couple hours, he notified me that he was magically good at source hunting now (come on.) I assumed he'd do the same if I indeffed him.
So, the plan was to give him a week to see if he could re-align himself into a more constructive approach. And if it's still an issue, apply an CIR block with more of a STANDARDOFFER approach to unblocking.
I plan on keeping a close eye on him, but let me know if you see anything blockable and I'll take action. (And apologize to you for not just applying an indef while I'm at it.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Not at all! I'm always interested to hear other people's thinking about blocks of any kind. Valereee (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I do appreciate your input too. Some have told I'm a bit soft on blocking in the past. Maybe I am...but I also feel like it's kept me out of any real trouble with the community these last 11 years... Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
And I just block them when they sock anyway. -- ferret (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that sounds about right haha. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Dressed in Black (Ben Vaughn album)

Hi, Serge, hope you're well. I was going to create an article for the above. It looks like this particular word combination is blocked due to some old shenanigans (which also affected the BV page), and can only be resolved by an admin. There was also a redirect--Dressed in Black (album)--that went to the above specifically, but now redirects to Dressed in Black as a disambig. Not sure what the best path forward is, but there are dozens of reliable sources for this (mostly on paper, which, working in an academic library, I use first). I was just going to remove the redirect, but thought I'd post here first. Sorry if this is confusing. Thanks for any advice. Caro7200 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm well, and I hope you are too! Happy to help here. I know you're experienced editor who isn't here for any paid editor/promotional type shenanigans. If you put together a decent draft, I'll push it through for you, and/or vouch for you. (Not 100% familiar with the particular lock that is on that article, but I'm confident that between the two of us we can get it pushed through.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Great, thank you, I appreciate it. I've moved on to some W-artist albums, but may circle back though to the Vs, if I have the energy. Have a good weekend. Caro7200 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
No worries, I get it, I too very much follow my own whims on the projects I work on too, moving from one thing to the next. Just find me if/when you need me and we'll take it from there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_101&oldid=1192113983"