Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Unsure about certain lists and cites

Hey there, admin. It's been awhile. After creating some of those articles, I stumbled across a few cites and lists in which Akuma appears.

When you go tho their addresses, you will immediately see the whole list. Those 2 from 4thletter which are divided in parts include best fighting game storylines from one (two of Akuma's roles are among the list) and best fighting game endings (Akuma's 4 different endings are among the list). While I'm not sure about the first 2 lists, I'm sure the other 5 might be able to pass. So, can I add them? I mean, do you agree? :D Thanks. DisturbedAsylum

I must admit, I've never really heard of any of these sources, so it's hard for me to tell. A lot of them look more like non-notable blogs, although "Shortlist" seems to be a hardcopy, paper printed source, so that's a good sign for that one, and Dorkly has a set staff at least. Its up to you: You could start discussions about them at WP:VG/S to get other's opinions. Or you could include them if you feel they're reliable, which is fine unless/until someone challenges you on it, then you'd need a consensus to keep using them. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

to add New Super Luigi U to the main Super Mario series timeline

Hi, regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario&diff=next&oldid=646897630, my concern about not having New Super Luigi U on the main timeline is that it is not a spinoff, so for completionists who are striving to complete the full series, some may go by the timeline and not be aware that to truly complete the Super Mario series of games, one would need to complete New Super Luigi U. Spinoffs have their own separate listing, but this is a unique game which, while certainly it was originally DLC, it is now a standalone game that one would need to complete in order to make the claim of completing the series. Bengadams (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bengadams: Your reasoning is not based on any sources. This is your own personal analysis of what makes a game a Super Mario game. Completionism, along with determining a game's status as standalone or DLC, has nothing to do with classifying what games are in the series and what aren't. There is at least one reliable source that denotes NSLU as a spin-off, not a Super Mario title (1). Unless you can refute this source using another (better) source, NSLU stays out of the series timeline. It does not help that the game's title does not mention Mario, nor is Mario himself present in the game. We deliberately avoid classifications like these because any attempt to do so will make the article more complex. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to respond to this, but what Thomas said is pretty much what I would have said. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is to be written for general audiences, not especially for "gamers" or "completionists". If you aspire to write for completionists, perhaps Gamefaqs is a little more up your alley? As I was getting at in my edit summaries, while I believe New Super Luigi warrants a mention under the heading of New Super Mario Bros U, but it doesn't warrant its own entry, or a spot on the timeline. The game is either 1) DLC for an already existing game or 2) A spin-off - it's not a mainline entry if it doesn't contain the title character, Mario, in name or as a playable character. (Also...I mean, the game's been out for like a year and a half. Do you really think such a glaring omission would happen for so long?) Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Troublemaker

I don't appreciate your trying to label me. Lots of people participate in dramas, as An/I is the most edited page around. Why you singled me out for ridicule is beyond me, but don't worry, I'll stay out of the drama and take the abuse until I can't take it anymore and quit, which is what I think happens to most editors who leave Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you want to maintain the status quo of letting people abuse others, but you are involved in more dramas than I ever will be. The only reason I ever needed my name cleared was because an editor smeared it in retaliation after I opposed their FAC. Now they are on to accusing yet another editor of impropriety ([1], [2]), and you are going to stand by and watch.Rationalobserver (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver - What? I pointed you out because you made a comment in a discussion I was currently taken part in. It's not like I went out of my way to follow you around or something. No, you're not the only one involved in drama at ANI, but what do you want me to do? Go around to each section saying "Editor A, you are a drama-monger. Editor B, you are a drama-monger, Editor C...) And as I said, I'm not necessarily against taking action against Dan56, I just think you and Lapadite are doing a terrible job of presenting a case at ANI. (Him with near-unreadable massive walls-of-text, and you, proposing very strict restrictions on someone you've had serious disputes with in the past.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Also not sure exactly what I'm supposed to getting out of those difs. Someone made a bold edit, and he reverted it. He said he suspects WikiHounding. I don't personally agree, but it's not outside of the realms of possibility if they were already having disputes outside of that article, and then Lapadite all of a sudden just started to edit there. (Looks like Lapadite hadn't edited there at least in the 9 months prior that I checked, according to the article's history. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
He accuses everyone who challenges him, and he's been asked several times to stop. I just wish you hadn't made any efforts to help me clear my name if you're going to just go ahead and swear it again when I stand up for myself and others. Lots of people weigh-in at the drama boards, and you don't single them out, so why single me out? I've been in conflicts with exactly two editors in six months, and I seriously doubt I am any where near the leader board in that regard, so to suggest that I am especially attracted to drama is just as bad as the accusations you helped clear me of, if not worse. That editor has been disruptive in the long-term, and with reoccurring issues. So why won't you do anything about it? Most of us aren't lawyers, so we don't know how to write perfect An/I reports, but several people agree that this particular editor is a problem, including several admins, so it should be no surprise when they continue these same problematic behaviors after this latest thread is closed without action because here are no admins willing to even attempt to rectify the situation or redirect his dysfunctional behavior. I'm done with the IB because it does not work. I'm not the problem here, he is, and when you IB him with another he just moves on to someone else to abuse. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The fact that you feel those difs above are so bad that they warrant action, in my opinion, validates what I was getting at on ANI - that you can't separate your past differences with him enough to make an unbiased attempt to solve the problem. The difs you gave don't even violate 1RR, and its just a passing comment about being hounded, which as I said, I don't subscribe to, but I can I can see how someone could come to that conclusion.
  • The fact that you attempted to impose rather strict on this person, of which you've had many recent problems with, kind of made it look like you like the drama. And I do call others out for drama on the drama boards, but all in all, I don't really comment a ton at ANI unless I see something/someone I have prior knowledge on. Because it usually devolves into non-stop bickering and accusations being thrown about. I like to "get in and get out" there, as to not get dragged down in all that.
  • Look, I've dealt with multiple editors in the past in scenarios like this, where basically the person is rude or abrasive, but not really breaking the standards of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. When its at this level, it takes a long time and a lot of time and effort to get support/consensus to do anything, because there's so many people who believe their content additions outweigh their interpersonal shortcomings. I don't feel its worth pursuing yet. If someone else wants to take up that monumental task, that's fine. Like I said, I don't believe that would go well with you taking that role, considering your past with him, but you may if you really want.
  • I don't have any sympathy for Lapadite's poor ANI dealings, because he's been instructed on how to change and be more effective, (shorten and focus his message so its easier to follow) and yet he so far has refused to do so. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I only showed you those diffs to demonstrate that D56's MO is to accuse anyone who challenges him of impropriety. If Lapadite was hounding him he should have opened an An/I report to complain about it, not used edit summaries to make serious accusations that, per policy, require evidence. I don't see a 1RR as all that restrictive for someone who has been blocked at least 10 times for EW. EW is disruptive even when you don't break 3RR, but you're basically saying that he knows how to "keep it in the pocket", so his long-term problematic behavior patterns are never enough to sanction him on any level. That sounds like gaming the system to me. I think it's odd that you criticize Lapadite for long posts at An/I while adding several comments to the thread yourself. The An/I dichotomy is such that if an editor files a report without enough evidence it's closed without action for lack of evidence, but when they supply lots of evidence you complain that it's too much and the thread should be closed for the exact opposite reasons. We aren't lawyers, so don't expect us to formulate perfect reports at An/I. I count at least three admins who are concerned about D56's problematic behavior patterns, so why won't any of them address the problem? You think its not that destructive, but you have no idea how many editors were driven away from articles or the project as a whole due to D56's antics. JG66 suggested that D56 might be intentionally driving people away from music articles and Lapadite suggested that D56 is intentionally sabotaging progress at articles about music he dislikes, pushing a negative POV. If you continue to do nothing he will continue to disrupt and abuse the system, and God only knows how much damage he'll inflict in the meantime. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Look, I've already given you my stance, emphasis on the "When its at this level, it takes a long time and a lot of time and effort to get support/consensus to do anything, because there's so many people who believe their content additions outweigh their interpersonal shortcomings." part. I've been here before with rude/abrasive editors, and I was on the side arguing to restrict their editing. From that experience, I personally don't believe you have enough of a case yet. You don't seem happy with anything I have to say anyways, so go approach one of these admin who are so against Dan56 and try to work with them, perhaps they'll find this to be a good use of their time. I don't think it is yet. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to ask anyone else about this, and in fact I didn't come here to convince you of anything; I came here to tell you your ridicule was hurtful. No matter, it's a futile effort, and you are doing a great job of reinforcing his negative behavior when you say, "it isn't delving into personal attacks yet, so nothing needs to be done". You are basically coaching him on how to not get blocked while being extremely difficult and disruptive long-term. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I did not intend to be hurtful, I just felt your proposal was a bad idea. And I've done no such coaching or reinforcing; I've actively said I don't approve of his actions. Please don't misunderstand; I generally find rude/abrasive editors to be ridiculous. I'm actively against them. It causes them more problems by rubbing people the wrong way, instead of getting them anywhere. Furthermore, I generally believe its easier to be nice, (communication is generally more clear that way) and if you're having trouble in a disagreement, its generally more efficient to build a strong case against them in an RFC or WikiProject discussion than try to aggressively/rudely take them head on. But I also know that this is just my opinion. The reality is, it's a long, uphill battle to get consensus for action on these things, based on passed precedent, and if I go around blocking people every time I feel their too rude, I imagine I'll probably find myself at WP:RFC/U or wherever it is you go to lose adminship, because there's no precedent for me to go around doing that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
But you didn't just oppose the proposal; you suggested that I was a drama queen who is always getting into disputes, which I'm not. It was basically a personal attack, IMO. You can say you're not coaching him all you want, but your first comment in the thread says, "I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues." Then you added: "I don't like or approve of Dan56's interactions with others, but based on past precedent, it still manages to fall on the side of what we tend to tolerate. It falls more into 'rude' than outright personal attacks or being uncivil." and "The fact that this 'is not about personal attacks' is exactly my point - much of the time, action isn't taken until things have escalated to that point. Like I said, I certainly don't personally like Dan56's actions, and I won't stand in the way of anyone who wants to take administrative action against him, I just don't think anything warranted yet." You've been pretty clear that as long as D56 isn't engaging in outright personal attacks that nothing needs to be done about his issues with WP:BITE, WP:OWN, and WP:EW, which I find ridiculous! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to break this down any further for you. I'm saying, I don't like where we draw the line with civility issues, but I don't enforce it to my opinions, I enforce it to the general precedent for enforcing it. It falls on the wrong side of my standards, but on the right side of Wikipedia's. Until I have "Serge-opedia", I have to adhere to Wikipedia standards. And until there's been new standards set, I have to enforce the current ones.
  • No such personal attacks occurred. I did not call you any sort of name, I only expressed that you didn't seem to be living up to your statement of staying away from trouble, which is where I thought I left you after our first interactions. You were reigniting issues with Dan56, your talk page suggests you've been involved in multiple disputes there, I know I've run in to you at at ANI once or twice too. I wish you'd focus more on content creation, and not arguing at ANI about conduct all the time. Certainly my personal opinion that you have no responsibility to adhere to, but certainly not a personal attack. Sergecross73 msg me 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You keep coming back to civility, but I don't think that policy has been invoked regarding D56. I certainly haven't mention it. The relevant policies here are WP:OWN, WP:BITE, and WP:EW, among others. I wish you'd focus more on content creation, and not arguing at ANI about conduct all the time. I've written more than 7,000 words in two GAs this year, how many have you written? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
According to this tool, I've made less than 90 edits total to An/I in 6 months, or about 15 edits per month. On the other hand, I've made 1,389 edits to article space in that same time. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you've been more prolific than my observations of you at ANI and your talk page lead me to initially believe, but my point was ultimately that it wasn't a great idea to jump into that conversation and propose strict restrictions on someone you've had so many troubles with personally in the past, which I still believe. (I assume you feel the same in some capacity, or you wouldn't have removed the proposal wholesale? I did not remove it, attempt to remove it, or even ask you to remove it.)
  • BITE is essentially "be civil to newbies" - and it's one of the main bullet points at WP:CIV, which is why I keep just mentioned CIV, the wider-scope term. (BITE is "being nice to newbies", CIV is "be nice to everyone".)
  • The few difs I've spot checked so far didn't really show all that strongly of EW/OWN issues, though I admit I've probably not checked many of them because 1) I'm not willing to wade through the garbage pile of wall-of-text info from Lapadite and 2) the one's I spot checked didn't indicate being on to something. Yes, it looks like he's been blocked for it in the past, but it looks like any reports to AN/EWN in recent years were bogus and/or not acted on. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've skimmed through it before, but hadn't realized just how long they had gotten. Still, I see two editors without any self-control, arguing endlessly, drowning out any real outside input or chance for building a consensus. Shame on both of them; they're wasting their own time, and anyone who bothers to participate. They both should want to change; I've seen similar situations where both parties get interaction banned or blocked because they're tired of the endless conflicts. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How about these [3], [4], [5]? Or the fact that D56 has started no less than five RfCs at this talk page in the last 5 weeks. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
In regards to difs 7, 8, 9 - Why is this a problem? Its recommended activity to start up RFC's when there's content disputes. He's a little rigid with his viewpoint, sure, but these seem to be generally much shorter with the arguing, and he doesn't appear to even be winning all of them. In response to version 2.0, I read over all of those with your original difs from yesterday. That's why I was saying "Shame on both of them for their excessive arguing, they're going to scare away any outside input.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think excessive use of RfCs for every little edit that you don't agree with is disruptive, and he basically forces everyone to gain consensus before they can improve an article, which kills WP:BOLD, one of our pillars. I'll just drop it, as nothing will be accomplished by continuing this thread. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree he's quick to jump to RFC's on smaller-than-normal issues, but he's free to do it. It's good use of finding consensus and following WP:BRD (assumeably, I don't know how much reverting happens before the RFC starts.) It's good to be BOLD, but it is only encouraged up until the point in which there are people who are challenging it. Then we discuss. And that's what he's doing. And sometimes, if an article isn't all that active beyond the 2 people in dispute, an RFC is the best way to get more input. I personally turn to relevant WikiProjects, as both of my main areas have relatively active communities, but to each their own, RFC works too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If he's doing them in good-faith it's good, but if he's doing them in an effort to exasperate people and dissuade them from editing articles he's active at it's disruptive. Starting five RfCs at the same talk page in 5 weeks smacks of someone who cannot compromise and collaborate without forcing a "vote". This puts an additional burden on our resources, as so many of his RfCs need to be formally closed by admins, which creates a time-sink when most of these disputes are petty. I.e., he refuses to compromise and collaborate on even the most minute of details, which disrupts Wikipedia. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, that could be argued as well. Much like the other issues, I don't find it necessary to take action, but you're free to find another Admin who would. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Tales update #2

If it's alright with you, I've chosen to do updates like this, as I know you are interested in upping the quality of Tales articles. This could also be of interest to @DragonZero:. I've completed an initial rewrite for Tales of Innocence (a much more enjoyable task than Tempest) and intend to take it to GA at some point in the future. I've also found several sources pertaining to the development of Tales of Destiny 2 and put them into a section on the talk page for someone to use later (sources include details on the anime cutscenes, when it began development, the inspiration behind the next-generation style story, how the sprite models were created). If we can get Innocence and Destiny 2 to GA, the rest of the series should be a breeze by comparison, then we could pride ourselves in transforming the main series into a Good Topic, which will I'm sure be quite the feat. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good, feel free to keep doing this, I do have an interest in bettering the Tales games, even if I haven't been so active with recently. Also, I apologize, I forgot to respond when you pinged me at the talk page for Tempest. Sorry, I'm already not the best at writing story sections, and the fact that Tempest is JP-only isn't helping me any. I'm also very commonly multi-tasking when I edit, and around others, so I have a hard time using videos, like Youtube or whatnot, for my writing. But still, I will try to help with Tales stuff. Just couldn't really help on that one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

ProtoDrake - I see you got Innocence to GA already. Nice work! Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced Edits by Users

Hello! I have a question regarding the correct way to report users have keep adding unsourced material. A while back ago, you gave 2.1 Jibbz two blocks for adding unsourced material. Since the block, he has returned only to keep adding unreferenced material despite multiple severe warnings. Should I take this up with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? Thanks --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'll look into it, and likely block him again. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. He's blocked for a month. Let me know if you catch him again. This is the 4th block over this. If he does it again, it's gonna be an indef block. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for handling this. I'll let you know if this happens again. Have a great day. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Funniest vandalism ever

Diff of Tool (band): True dat. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa Haha, that's pretty funny. It's the kind of thing it's hard to condemn people for, especially since MJK said today that they still haven't even started recording yet... Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
By the time they finally get it recorded, they will be hopelessly out of style -- Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm shocked they still get as much attention as they still do honestly - 9 years since the last album, and they still haven't started recording the next one? Impressive in this "15 minutes of fame" world, but rather depressing to think about... Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this one? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha that's pretty good stuff too. I always enjoy the similar stories where people program auto-replacement programs for words on people phones and make people text crazy things by accident. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Where to go with the publisher/developer category user?

Can't go to ARV, don't think they would handle it. SOCK? User has at least two registered accounts and 3-4 IPs. Could you also fix World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King for me? I do not want to risk 3RR. -- ferret (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I can handle it. Is there anywhere else besides the article that he's causing trouble? I'll give them a final warning to stop doing this. If you would, start a talk page discussion on the main talk page he's causing trouble. If he reverts again despite a final warning and an open discussion, he'll be blocked. Sound good? Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Currently ceased. But I reverted changes to some 20+ pages relating to Activision Blizzard. -- ferret (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Majora's Mask revert

Just want to talk about your revert of my big contribution to the Majora's Mask article. The section doesn't portray anything as fact - it's an interpretation of a work of art, and is thus subjective. All interpretations are shared by many others and are backed up by sources. Of course they are the opinions of the source's writers - the entire Reception section is consisted of opinions. Although a Themes section is uncommon in a video game article, it does exist for other works of art, for example the Blade Runner featured article. That article's Themes section states subjective things like "An aura of paranoia suffuses the film: corporate power looms large; the police seem omnipresent; vehicle and warning lights probe into buildings; and the consequences of huge biomedical power over the individual are explored – especially the consequences for replicants of their implanted memories" - that particular part of the section is completely unsourced. In the Blade Runner section, only a minority of information is sourced from the actors or director of the film - most of it is interpretations taken from opinions of viewers of it. In my contribution, whenever I state opinions, I say "this has been interpreted as". Most of the information in the section is content directly from the game, and just summarised as fitting in with one of the game's themes. Is it really necessary to delete the whole section? Autonova (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Another example of a featured article with an Interpretation section is Las_Meninas#Interpretation. Autonova (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I just didn't think that what you sourced was very well represented. You wrote it "it has been interpreted as" and then used a source, Cracked, that labeled it as "The Crazy Fan Theory". They link to Zelda Informer, which I believe is mostly a fansite, which usually doesn't meet the requirements of a reliable source. And Wikipedia doesn't usually document "Crazy Fan Theories". There were a number of statements that were unsourced, and it kind of read more like a personal essay than a section of an encyclopedia. If you still object, I can start up a discussion at WP:VG if you like. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
By pure coincidence, Game Informer has just published an issue detailing an interview with Eiji Aonuma himself in which he comments on the five emotions grief theory: [6]. I'll include it and find better sources when I have time, then try again in the next few days. Autonova (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, with regard to it reading like an essay rather than an encyclopedia entry, have you read the Themes section on the Blade Runner featured article? That was the main reason I wrote this, and I tried to follow the same style to that. Autonova (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I've responded on the Majoras Mask talk page. I forgot there had been a discussion going there a ways back, and I now see its being discussed again. I've responded there, as to hopefully get a better consensus on what to do here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello, thank you for telling me those things. I will look them over and try to understand them. (P.S. smileguy91, said he was marking articles wrong and accidentally marked Ghost Thief) Metalworker14 (yo) 8:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. As I said here, I don't agree with the nomination, I think he's off base, but if you are just a little more thorough with your articles, you'd be able to eliminate these misunderstanding altogether, you know? Let me know if you need help. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:83.157.24.224

Hello, Sergecross73. As that French IP seems to be in good terms with you (at least, better than with me!), I think you can give me some advice of how to deal with him. He never responds directly to my points, and mentions things I never said, so it's difficult to talk to him because he doesn't seem to understand me. In my opinion he has a big WP:ADVOCACY problem: he wants to prove the superiority of the French automotive industry (especially of the biggest French manufacturer, PSA) and he made clear he thinks companies from other countries (especially Germany) are favoured by Wikipedia.

On the basics, I have no problem with that, but I think that all information should be included with neutrality and following credible sources and Wikipedia guidelines. If the pursuit for more positive tone clashes with basic Wikipedia guidelines, that's a big issue. The Citroën article is a clear example.

Now, he insists in including a former CEO of Renault, Louis Schweitzer, in the "key people" parametre and doing that he uses sources that don't support directly his claims. I tried to explain that to him, but his only answer is to keep adding sources that don't answer to my point. I will leave Mr. Schweitzer for now because is useless to remove it as the IP editor will reinstate him in no time and it's becoming a never-ending edit war. Nevertheless, the problem persists.

As an example to illustrate the causes of my concern for his editing style, while I was first writing here he added this to the lead section of the Renault article. The lead section must be a overview of article contents, and the R-Link (basically, it's simply the Renault name for an infotainment system... ) isn't mentioned in the main body of the article. Besides, the Reuters "source" he uses explicitly says: "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release."

I'm overwhelmed by this. In brief: what should I do? Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Urbanoc - I've had some talks with the IP now, and he's well aware now that any more bad-faith attacks/assumptions/tirades will not be tolerated, and will land him another block, so hopefully that in itself will help streamline the discussions with him some. So, I'd just say, whenever there's a disagreement, take it to the talk page, and if its something that's not getting enough input to come to a consensus, alert a relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT of the discussion, or start up an WP:RFC. (It looks like this approached worked well in finding a consensus here at least.)
  • While I'd consider myself an expert at Wikipedia policy, and will gladly keep helping you with that...I'm really not a car person. I really have very little knowledge of the automotive world. I only really intervened to begin with because the ANI report the IP filed so long ago was so over-the-top dramatic about bias and corporate agendas and whatnot that it intrigued me to look into it, and then I felt I needed to comment when it seem like the accusations were largely unfounded. So anyways, point being, I can help with the Wiki side of things, but it takes a lot of effort to get me caught up just a little bit with the car stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that worked. Of course, that's was only because most of the people involved accepted a compromise, which was made possible by an editor with a bold move and a alternative solution, but was a good thing to reach a general consensus. The IP still isn't convinced, though. But you're right, something like a RfC may be a good idea if things keep going the way they are. At least that way we'll have a version more closer to a consensus and hence more stable. And maybe other bold edit can appear and give a third-way solution. Thanks :). --Urbanoc (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The ip is so oversensitive that he reverted a portion which complimented the Mégane and its UK sales - he just assumed it was insulting. Hard to deal with someone like that. Ip used to communicate with me, but after a couple of occasions where I offered him less than total support he decided that I was part of the Teutonic camarilla, too.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, Urbanoc and Mr.choppers, I'm losing my patience with him again myself. I'm going to give him another final warning. I'll keep an eye on things, but I really don't follow any automotive related articles, so notify me of other occurrences as they arise. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_27&oldid=661211307"