User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 34

Mt. Helium

The sources identify Mt. Helium/Apex Theory as a progressive metal band. Industrial metal and nu metal are not in any of the sources. --74.32.168.246 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If that's true, then that's fine. I had no stake or interest in that article, I just reverted it because the same IP who made the change was also making innappropriate genre changes elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Gringoladomenega is still evading the block. See this edit history and my report. SLBedit (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Have I been involved in this before? Regardless, I don't feel I should take action when the SPI clerks are saying you need more evidence... Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Only because you blocked the user. SLBedit (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I did? Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. SLBedit (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon Sage

Hello. I'm typing this out because I see that (unfortunately) the pokemon sage wikipedia article still contains many inaccuracies, and (unfortunately) many of my fellow developers who don't understand wikipedia are still posting hostile and unproductive messages in the talk page in an effort to correct the info or have the page deleted.

For context, I previously tried to speak to the author of the page here in an effort to handle this in the way it has to be per wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I think it went to an arbitrator or something, but unfortunately I needed to stop because I had other priorities. From what I recall talking with him and some arbitrator, it was discussed that what we needed to do to correct the inaccuracies was produce a usable source that would clarify that info. IRC, some suggestions provided by him or the arbitrator were that the front page of our wiki be edited to specifically dismiss the inaccuracies present in some of the articles used as sources, since Bulbapedia's article (which, apparently, no longer exists, i'll get back to this later) used bulbapedia's front page as a source (the logic was that if the front page was locked from random edits and only admins could edit it it would be usable), that our fourm admins make a press release to clarify it, or that we somehow contacted the authors of the articles that are used as sources to update their articles or that a new article came out that clarifies.

My understanding, is that all 3 of those things happened: we did get our front page edited, we did produce a press release of source (via a stream where I and a few of the other developers spoke in person and addressed the issue) and another gaming news site did make an article that addressed the inaccuracies came along. I don't have links to any of those things on hand (we overhauled the front page again a few days ago so I don't think that info is present anymore), but reading over the articles talk page I see that other people have brought those up as well: Are those still not sufficient?

Anyways, I think a great deal of us would prefer the article itself be deleted: Is that truly not possible at this point? I understand that Kotaku and the other sites used as sources are considered by wikipedia to be reliable in general, but reading reliable sources and the noticeboard, it seems to me that reputability can be considered in a case by case basis depending on context, that is, that a source, even if it's from a website or publication that is usually considered reliable, can be considered unreptuable in a particular circumstance: if so, then can that not apply here?

I also question if we meet notability requirements: While there are a number of articles about us, I very much doubt that it's substantially more then many other works (official or fanmade or otherwise) that have an equivalent amount of coverage that do not have articles, and, I would guess, have had articles made but have been deleted due to a lack of notability. Could you explain if my thinking here is valid in regards to how wikipedia functions (as in, this is valid logic and I could use it to act on to propose the page be deleted), and if so, how I should proceed on that?

Lastly, I notice that bulbapedia no longer has a main article, but has instead been reduced to a single line on the main pokemon article. Bublapedia was, and still is, a much larger and more complex topic then we are: If it was able to be moved from it's own article to a mere mention on the main pokemon one, could the same not occur for our article? I also know that in the past, wikipedia used to have individual pages for individual pokemon creatures, or listed them more comprehensively then they currently are, so: what's the process for changing how a topic is listed from it having it's own article vs there being 1 article that acts as a list that that topic would be included in vs there just being a section on the overarching subject's page where it's mentioned?

Anyways, I would appreciate a response. I understand that you've been dealing with this subject (as in, pokemon sage) for a while here on wikipedia (in fact, I remember now: There was no arbitrator, I was thinking of this discussion, which I see you were involved with), but unlike many of the other individuals who you have dealt with over this, I understand and can appreciate that wikipedia has a lot of rules, and, even if we disagree with them or they aren't helpful in this situation, they need to be followed unless they get changed, so I would hope that interacting with me would be more pleasant then with them. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell you the same thing I keep telling everyone related to Sage:

1. You can nominate it for deletion, but it's unlikely to be deleted because it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.
2. If you want to change any inaccuracies, then we need a new, reliable, third party source to replace existing ones. See WP:VG/S for sources that would work or not work. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, I already know what other people were told regarding the topic, and to be honest, that's not really the info i'm interested in. The only thing you really answered in (to me) a sufficient amount of detail is that what I was told before regarding a press release and our wiki was erroneous and directed me towards the policies that make it so, which I appreciate, and that you you stated that sage meets notability requirements, which is indeed something I asked, but you only said it does, not how or why it does. I also asked some other questions regarding notability, such as how other topics with just as much coverage are deleted, and how many of them were combined into other pages (see Bulbapedia) and how i'd like to know what the process for that is.

So, if you could answer the remaining specific questions and other things I brought up in a good amount of detail. I would really appreciate it. I understand i'm asking for you to commit a good 20-40 mins typing up a reply, and you've already spent a great amount of time having to deal with other people over this, most of whom were hostile and had no idea what they are doing, but I'm attempting to handle this in a much more constructive and polite manner them then, and moreover, I'm not just asking because I want the page to be improved or deleted, but because I find wikipedia to be a fantastic resource and i'd also like to use this as an opportunity to learn more about how it works, and i'd like to know and have answers just for the sake of having those answers or knowledge.

If you don't have the time to answer what I asked in the amount of detail I want, I am totally understanding of that, but then i'd like to be directed to somebody who does. I figured since you were an admin, and you have dealt with us before, that you would be the best person to askJabberwock xeno (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I really think it's as simple as my first response, but if you require an essay on it, I'm going to need 24-48 hours, as I'm restricted to mobile for a bit over here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If you could, I'd be very thankful. I'm sorry i'm asking for so much, I am just a very detail orientated individual. Ideally, i'd be a paragraph by pargraph (as in, you make a response to everything I stated in one paragraph, then anohter for the second, etc) response to my initial post in this section. If it's helpful to you if I list which points I am most interested in hearing a response to, it's in regards to the process for moving the content of the page to be a section in another article instead of it having it's own page, and regarding contextual reliability, since both the gaming specific page that lists reliable vs somewhat reliable vs non reliable publications and the general reputable sources policy page mention that context is important and a source deemed to be generally reputable may not be considered reputable in a specific instance.

in regards to it taking you a few days: that's not a problem at all. I am fully aware i'm asking a lot from you, so I don't mind you taking all the time you need. I understand you, as an admin, are probably very busy and most likely have real life obligations, so even if it takes you a full week or more, I'd be cool with that. I wouldn't want to be a cause of stress/pressure, and I wouldn't want you rushing your reply to get it done with, either.

Anyways, thank you for taking the time for this. And I apologize for the other people who work on sage who have been a nuisance, a lot of them just don't get wikipedia's rules and how they have to be adhered to. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, here's the long version:

1. Wikipedia is based upon what can be verified by reliable sources. It can be frustrating, but you've got to keep to what the sources say. One of the main points of Wikipedia policy is to keep things written neutral. This is why your group keeps being told to use third party sources, not citing yourself - as first party sources often lead to promotional writing, and Wikipedia is not a means for self-promotion or self-advocation. In fact, for this reason, it strongly recommended that people closely involved with a subject not get involved with the article. I know you guys didn't make or necessarily want the article, but the rules still apply to editing it now all the same.
2. If you've got a reliable, third party source to add to the article, then by all means, present it to me or the article's talk page. A list of commonly acceptable sources can be found at WP:VG/S. I just personally haven't seen it.
3. If you want to attempt to delete the article, then you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Instructions on how can be found at that link. You may want to look up the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions first though, as the proposed deletion nominations when the article was first created, did not have valid reasons.
4. The General Notability Guideline is the standard we use to decide if a topic warrants its own article. (Also to consider would be WP:NOT and WP:BLP, but those would be irrelevant for this situation.) If you read the guideline, its basically requiring there to be multiple, third party reliable sources covering a subject in significant detail. This is why I keep on predicting that a straight up deletion nomination would fail - there are already 5 sources present, and 4 seem to be deemed reliable by current consensus.
5. If you believe that a website does not actually meet the requirements of being a reliable source, then you'd want to start up a discussion about it at the talk page at WP:VG/S and see what the consensus is. Keep in mind that No consensus = no change. To illustrate how to do this, I've provided an example - I asked for people's input on "Dorkly", as I see they've also done an article on Sage.
6. If you want to pursue a merge, you can see how to do that at the merge proposal area. My personal commentary: keep in mind that, this may or may not be the best route if you're looking for less visibility on your project. For example, somewhere like the main Pokemon article, gets far more views than the Sage article currently gets.

In my opinion, I think the easiest route would be to try to get a third party source to correct the content. There's also potential in the merging route: There's no definite, deal-breaking policy that would prevent a merger. It would largely come down to what the consensus of the discussion would dictate. Some may say there's enough content to warrant its own article, while other may feel its better as a small part of a bigger article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, perfect! Thank you so much for explaining it like that, I really appreciate it. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for being understanding and patient as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

harassment on talk page

Can you please block User:Stevietheman for 24 hours? He keeps leaving harassing messages on my talk page in an attempt to try and provoke me, then claims I can't remove them. A statement that goes against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#OWNTALK He is also claiming multiple users are using this IP which isn't true, all edits are mine.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No, he's right, as an IP, you don't have ownership of your own talkpage. On a side note, I find it troubling that it seems you can't tell the difference between real people and fictionalized versions of them. How can you honestly think Sanders was "revived"? This is why people are giving you warnings. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that I haven't "kept" leaving harassing messages. I left one informative message, and it wasn't harassment. Egads. Thanks Sergecross73 for your understanding. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it wasn't even harrassment. And no problem - Ive come to learn when an IP complains about a long term user and demands blocking, it's usually not a legit request. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What happened to remaining neutral during user conflicts? I couldn't find anything that said Ip's aren't aloud to clean their talk pages. If that is the case I would like to see where I missed it, Thank you--76.107.252.227 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked into it first, and just saw your claims were off base. I'm saying that, in general, when a new person storms in and demands blocks against experienced users, it's usually because they don't understand the website or its policy. Just like here. Please stop wasting people's time on this, be less concerned about your talk page, and more concerned about making constructive contributions. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You're technically allowed to clear the IP's talk page (again, not your talk page), but it's generally considered not kosher, because clearing warnings takes the bite out of the reasons the warnings were placed there, to help ensure that un-wiki behaviors don't continue, no matter who is editing from that IP address. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Fire Emblem numeration

I need some clarification on this, given your recent edit on Fire Emblem Fates. The source you restored says it's the twelfth entry in the series, not counting remakes. But footnotes in this Iwata Asks concerning the game (footnotes 1 and 6) calls Awakening the fourteenth and Fates the fifteenth entry in the series respectively. I also know that there are sources (mostly reviews) calling Awakening the thirteenth installment. I would go with Nintendo's statement in the Iwata Asks personally, but what do you think? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ProtoDrake - I hadn't done a ton of research on it, I just noticed a ways back that people kept arguing about it, and the first RS hit was the VentureBeat source, which stated it so literally, and I checked it out and it seemed to go along with Wikipedia's list of FE games, so I went for it. If more sources are numbering it otherwise, I'm fine with going with that, it's just that, up to this point, no one has offered any alternative sources or actual explanation/discussion for their changes. If that sentiment is prevalent, then I'm fine with it, I just thought it to be strange to factor in remakes into a series numbering. I wouldn't expect, for example, to factor in Final Fantasy 3s DS remake to make people say "Final Fantasy 15 is the series sixteenth entry." (Or whatever number you'd be at factoring in all the FF remakes.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Done some looking at another interview where other FE games were mentioned. They appear to include remakes as official entries in the series. This Iwata Asks on Awakening refers to Fire Emblem: Shin Monsho no Nazo as the thirteenth game in the series while also stating that it's a remake of the third Fire Emblem game (footnote 2). --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Weird. Okay, I'm fine with changing it, though I do think it would be good to leave a ref in there, to hopefully discourage future tinkering. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ikes, I've just done some more looking. The Japanese portal site for Fire Emblem only shows thirteen games, including Shin Monsho no Nazo and excluding Fates. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

help

Hello, I'd like to erase this Gothic-punk page that it is not even a stub - 2 lines created in 2009- and merge it to Goth subculture as it is already covered on the latter article. I've been bringing a lot of content to both Gothic rock and Goth Subculture articles these last years. This page Gothic-punk with these 2 lines should be withdrawn and merged to Goth subculture. Strangely, the almost double Gothic punk has been merged to Gothic rock, but "Gothic-punk" wasn't. We should correct this, could you do it please? Thanks. Woovee (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Pokémon Company

Doesn't Nintendo own Creatures Inc. and part of Game Freak? I don't understand how it's a three way partnership.--occono (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Occono - Sorry about that, I was thinking of Game Freak's status, not TPC. Feel free to re-add. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

God god

why did you change "god" into "God" in the sonic colors article? Valehd (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall doing that... Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you must mean this edit from 3 months ago. I reverted it because you can't alter a direct quote. Pretty basic writing stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

it was written wrong. Valehd (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it that you know and can confirm the original writer's intent? Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

well, he said a god not God Valehd (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but he was clearly referring to it being the God if you look at the context. But beyond that, you can't change direct quotes. You just can't. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

he said A god not THE god. if he said " there IS a god and he's a sonic fan, that would be referring to THE god.

Okay, lets look at this another way. How do you think he would word it if he was speaking of the Christian God? "Yes, there is the God, and he's a Sonic fan." That wouldn't make any sense. The context quote clearly shows that its not like he's referring to Zeus or some generic god. And again, even if you were right on all accords, that still doesn't change the fact that you can't alter a direct quote. I can't believe no one has intervened in our arguments over this. Its basic "Writing 101" - you cannot alter direct quotes.

On a separate note, I see that you don't approve of using "Gods" name in vain. That's fine, lots of people feel that way. But its only fine as a personal stance; you can't rewrite other people's writing to comply with that. You do realize this, right? Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Green Couch Project

Hello I am trying to create a wikipedia page for the Green Couch Project.

Hi there. You're free to do this, but I wouldn't recommend creating an article right off the bat. There's a lot to learn in order to write an encyclopedia, let along create a whole article from scratch. That's just my 2 cents though, I can't keep you from doing it. However, to keep your article from being deleted like last time, you may want to create a rough draft first instead. Check out the Articles for Creation program. If you start up an incomplete article there, it won't be deleted for being so incomplete. A volunteer will even come by when you ask them to, and let you know whether or not the article is ready for public viewing. Please think about this, it could be a good way to work on an article slowly as you learn how the website works. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Loyalmoonie and LGBT categories

Looked into it, and this editor seems to be pushing an anti-LGBT agenda. They've done similar stuff over at Sailor Moon, and made "official-looking" warnings to other editors. This quote is bizarre, and is quite telling: "To insert those categories would ultimately give other people (who may not even support the LGBT movement) reading the article the assumption that every person who does enjoy Sailor Moon is a homosexual (and/or supports SSM)". I don't personally watch/read Sailor Moon or know much about it, so I'm not confident enough to re-add the categories, but the reasoning for their removal is flawed regardless, and there is a sourced part in the article about female homosexuality.--IDV^talk 22:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I think we were both researching the same things at the same time, as I just mentioned at the Fates talk page that he was obviously canvassed due to his stance on Sailor Moon. And yeah, I feel the same - I know almost nothing about SM, and the talk page references a lot of arguing and RFCs about it, so I think I want to stay away from that mess if I can. Still, it's good to know about the canvassing and the agenda though. Thank you for your comments, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Smoothest Aashu

Hello Serge,I am trying to create a wikipedia Article for the Singer Musical Artist.

• Hi there. You're free to do this, But I want to my article Show Undelete.
• I come from India, its more English so I do not But You Think me and understant my problem please Dear, Serge
• Am I just want to make an official article One and Only.
• The article is ready for public viewing. Please think about this, it could be a good way to work on an article slowly as you to learn.
• Any help-line number.?
• Smoothest_Aashu This is my lAst Official Article. If You Can Edit My Mistake. Aashuakasinger (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I Want Making My Article Like A Arijit_Singh
• Also- If You can edit my Mistake. And Solve this Case --Aashuakasinger (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the article to the "rough draft space" - the article is not ready for public viewing. Articles need to be written entirely based off of what reliable, third party sources say. I looked for an example, but quite honestly, could not find one. (A list of commonly useable ones can be found at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. So, you can continue to work on your rough draft, but it may not be put into the main article space until:

• It meets the WP:GNG - many third party sources are present, discussing you in significant detail.
• And/or you meet some of the criteria found at WP:MUSICBIO - such as having a single that charts on a respective country's major music charts.

If you attempt to move the article out of the rough draft space without meeting the bullet-points above, then it will be deleted again.

Your article can be found at Draft: Smoothest Aashu. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

GameDesire

Hi SerdeCross73,

You have got in Wikipedia page about other website like GameDesire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamezebo).Why do You delete my article? We have got article about GameDesire in Poland (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameDesire).

Best Regards Kaszna (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kaszna. The article was deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's standard for having an article - the WP:GNG. For a subject to have its own article, it needs to meet that, which, in short, says that there needs to be multiple, third party reliable sources discussing the subject in great detail. Someone nominated it for speedy deletion, I reviewed it, and saw that it did not. The article was entirely unsourced, with three links plopped down at the bottom, which didn't source anything. The three sources either didn't discuss the subject "Game Desire", or mentioned them in a very brief, passing mention. They also didn't seem to meet the standard of being reliable sources even if they had been discussing the subject in detail.

Some tips for writing a Wikipedia article:

• Always makes sure you've got multiple, third party reliable sources.

• 2 is technically "multiple", though I recommend 4-5 to avoid people nominating it for a deletion debate.
• The definition of a reliable source is found here.
• Third party means it can't be the company's website or press release. It must come from an unrelated source.
• For examples of acceptable reliable sources in the world of video games, see WP:VG/S.

• Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written according to what sources say. So, they should be backing up what the content says, not just slapped down at the bottom. See WP:REFB for help on it, and an article like Sonic the Hedgehog 2 as an article that has sources all throughout it, after almost every sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you input your opinion on this lgbt category?

^thats being used in a neutral tone right? im trying to understand neutral tone and canvassing. Anyways, i wanted your input on adding the lgbt category, its being discussed on this talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)#lgbt_category 66.25.246.226 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There's two main ways to avoid canvassing:

1. Word the request for input in a way that doesn't suggest you want them to answer a certain way. Don't lead the reader into taking a stance. I don't think your suggested wording does that, so you're fine.
2. When asking for input, don't target people that are obviously going to side with you. Its not supposed to be a "lets rally up the troops" type thing. I don't usually ask specific people, I usually stick to general interest areas, like WP:WIKIPROJECTS. (For example, in the Fire Emblem Fates RFC, a different editor had notified Wikiproject Video Games.)

So anyways, considering how much we've disagree' over at the Fates discussion, it wouldn't be canvassing for you to ask me for input - I doubt anyone would see it as you trying to garner up support for your argument. However, I'll probably stay out of it. LGBT debates (or anything sexual/political/religious etc related really) isn't really my interest area, my interest in the Fates article is as a Fire Emblem fan. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Rise Against

OK maybe they are not american punk but they are Chicago punk rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg9443 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please formulate your suggestions according to what reliable sources say on the articles talk page. Essentially, "prove it". Sergecross73 msg me 03:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And despite all of that i have some proof that rise against is a Chicago punk rock band and my evidence shows that when you are punk its not like green day with their makeup or politics or video games and you cannot judge a band with their sound of music and albums because you will be end being wrong and a mater of face here's this they are vegans and straight edge which that mean is that they do not do drungs or drink the only one is Barnes they do talk about animail rights and anti buyling and politics thats punk i got people who agree with my statement in Wikipedia i can come up with a vote to prove it ps 2 things that right is they do have alternative and melodic hardcore but 2 thing are wrong they do have punk rock and meoldic hardcore look at give it all and help is on the way and make it stopJg9443 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S rise Against should be like this Rise against is a chicago punk rock band from chicago formed in the summer of 1999 Not rise against is american punk rock band becouse that is were punk rock is popular from and also united kingdom plus they curetly sigh to fat wreak chords were they only acept punk rock so think about that because like i said their is a lot of people who agree on me in wikiJg9443 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it any clearer to you people - none of that matters. What matters is if it's ehat sources say. See the discussion here. It explains how this works. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

can you tell 4thewayne that can he put rise against is a chacago punk rock band that the descsion we madeJg9443 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you even read the things I say to you? I'm not sure I've ever seen you acknowledge my instructions to you. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You're a saint, Serge. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to say, Serge, that I hope you think that I handled myself well in this instance. This is now the second big discussion that I've been apart of for this page, and I hope that I've done well in helping you control the situation. Again, I just wanted to say thanks for your help. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. And yeah, it's fine you closed the discussion. Neither of those 2 were anywhere near a policy based conclusion, and when discussions get that long it greatly reduces the likeliness for others to chime in, so it's not like it was going anywhere. I'll continue to mediate if they return though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My bad

I didn't realize you were still active, so since you were the protecting admin, would you mind handling my Request for unprotection for FIFA 14? TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 19:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, I did that almost 2 years ago? I feel like that may have been an accident to protect it for so long to begin with. It's removed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A request

Hello Serge, My name is katerina, and I've been using wikipedia for a long time now, especialy when I research music, and this is why I'm leaving you this message, because you seem intrested in music too especialy rock, so my request or a suggestion to make our lifes much more easier if possible of course, is to have a page that seperates different genres of music, so that people can find what they are looking for exacly, without the need to search for a specific band or artist. Please respond to my message as soon as possible and thank you. P.S : You are doing a great job, I read a lot of the articles that you edited, and they were amazing.

-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerina love (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Katerina. Thanks for the message and kind words. I tend to work on more obscure bands/albums, so I'm always happy to see someone notices my work.
• So anyways, in regards to your request, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think there's already ways to do this. For example, you could start at List of musical styles. From there, its split into four articles. Lets chose the first, List of styles of music: A–F. From that list, you could pick the genre you wanted to look into. For example, alternative rock. From there, virtually all genre articles have a "list of artists" list. So, if you scroll down to the bottom of alternative rock, you'll see there's List of alternative rock artists, where you could go browse all of the alt rock bands on Wikipedia. Also, you can also look by categories as well. Let's chose Green Day as an example. If you scroll all the way to the very bottom of their article, you'll see categories tagged on to it. Green Day is tagged on things like Category:Alternative rock groups from California and Category:American pop punk musical groups. If you click on those, you can also browse other bands tagged as the same thing.
• Genre is subjective, and a lot of people have very different views on it, so it may not be a perfect system, but overall, I think it would allow you to do what I think you were asking. If not, let me know, and I can look into it further. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WWE WrestleMania 33

WWE WrestleMania 33 does not exist. The creator of this page has completely made it up. This page needs to be deleted.
KC Roosters — Talk 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've looked into it further, and deleted it now. Next time, don't add so many invalid speedy deletion rationales though, that's what threw me off. You cited it being "purely promotional" and "blatant nonsense" (which means, literally incomprehensible) in your first 2 rationales, when it was neither. Even "hoax" is a bit iffy, considering there's going to very likely be one some day. All the info was hoax, but the event itself probably isn't. Anyways, its taken care of now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Article review

Hi there! You recently added on GTANet.com article, that it may not be following general notability guide. I am aware that not every statement has reliable reference. So, if you could assist me, what parts of page should I leave out?Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Basically, what you want to do is write it according to what third party, reliable sources say on the subject. A lot of examples of reliable sources, or non-reliable sources, related to video games, can be found at WP:VG/S. So:

• You want to remove any fansites, as they usually don't meet the requirements of being a reliable source.
• Using "third party sources" means ones covering the subject, but not related to the subject. So, like, if IGN did an article on the website, you write it according to what IGN said on it. Its okay to use first party sources, but only in a limited manner, usually sparingly and only to confirm objective facts. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much on your assistance! I found few sources about the subject in google books. I also found this and this on IGN. Do you think these are good enough to be added? Would they go well as source for claim predicting content of the upcoming GTA titles in the article? I will also try to remove all fansites that don't serve as fact info.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Those IGN sources are fine for sourcing details, yes, so that helps towards the "reference improve" tag. However, it doesn't help with it meeting Wikipedia's standard for a subject having its own article. That requires multiple third party, reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. So for this, you'd need sources that are dedicated to discussing GTANet.com itself - the sources above just give the website a passing mention, while the focus of the article is something else (like the GTA leaked soundtrack.)

(And yes, I realize what I'm asking can be hard to find. That's probably why a lot of fansites don't have their own Wikipedia articles. I don't plan on nominating it for deletion though, I don't usually do that much...but you'll still want to try to do this as a preventative measure, because in its current state, if someone tried to nominate it for deletion, they'd probably succeed.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I will try finding such sources. Thank you for helping me.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for being very helpful! Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That's The Spirit lead content

Hey there. I want to discuss the removal of the this from the lead of That's The Spirit -- it's not a case of reliable sources, more just a case of the sentence fitting in with the lead, especially when there is a lack of content that is there already. Before I removed the sentence, I thought about moving it to the reviews section of the article, but then the article would be repeating itself.

I feel like the "According to Jon Wiederhorn of Rolling Stone" part should be removed from the lead, that would make it look better. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, My name is not dave. Thanks for your input. My thoughts:

• If you're okay with just removing the "According to Rolling Stone" bit, then I fully support that. In fact, that actually how I had originally added it to the article.
• If you want to remove the entire comment about genre from the lead, then I think we should have a discussion on the article talk page. I feel pretty strongly about having it in some capacity - it seems to be a defining aspect of the album, and it's really good content. There's so much arguing about genre on Wikipedia that its really nice (and somewhat rare) for an undeniably reliable source to make such a clear statement about an album's sound.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

All I want is to get rid of the 'according to' part, of which I will proceed to do so. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)