Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 91

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93→Archive 95

Editor's recent discography edits

Hi Sergecross73. I might have started a thread here about HumanxAnthro before but I'm becoming concerned about their discography edits as of late. Specifically now it's Duran Duran discography. Firstly, they split one live album into its own subsection and claimed this was a "WP:COMMONSENSE edit" [1], which I reverted in my cleaning up of the article (they have not since taken issue with this). The other day they split the band's relatively short history of 15 studio albums up, but not for WP:SPLIT-justified size reasons, but because we use different chart sources for different time periods for Australia, Canada and Italy. I have explained that discographies generally deal with and acknowledge this in the adjacent citation all the time, and other editors in the past (like the experienced @Nqr9:) have taken care to make sure the switch in source used for the chart is explained for readers in the citation for the chart at the top of the column and that's been how it's handled.

However, HumanxAnthro believes we should split four albums off in their own section just because the chart for Australia changed, then when Canada's changed after the 1990s, split there, and they have recently taken to adding a different source for Italy's charts so that's been separated too. I reverted this, then today they reverted me manually, claiming that I'm "uninformed" about certain charts (lol) because they think I'm unaware that we're using different sources for Italy and Canada at different times (or that I think the two sources used for Italy's charts are the same?) when I literally acknowledged this in my revert the other day. I have asked them to propose this on the talk page. I have said I would understand if it was for size reasons but readers aren't benefitting from having such short sections with no visibly apparent justification. Can you please tell them to slow down and propose changes on the article talk page (God knows I don't need another debate with them on their user talk page) if and after they are reverted? Thanks. Ss112 07:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro, can you help me understand where you're coming from here? You're relatively experienced, so it doesn't seem like you'd need my usual "it's okay to be bold, but it's generally a good idea to actively participate in discussions if you're making non-standard changes or if you want to push forward with implementing contested changes". Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think my message is getting across clearly. It's not that "different sources" are being used, it's the fact that the country abbreviations for columns ("AUS" "ITA" "CAN") each link to an wiki article about one chart or music industry organization, even when positions that are from a different organization are included under that column, which misleads reader that are not chart nerds into thinking FIMI and M&D are all publishing the same chart. I'm open to not having the country abbreviations linked to a single page and noting which positions are from which chart (FIMI or Musica e Dischi or instance). It's especially important for Italy's positions, because M&D's charts were still going on for a long time even when FIMI's charts are around, and Duran Duran's post-1994 releases have all charted on those as well as FIMI. (I think the M&D charts are still around today if hitparadeitalia.it is any indication, although the website's chart archives go up to 2018). Canada's Nielsen chart was also around in the late 1990s to 2000, the same period RPM's Top Singles chart was going on, which an Canada charts expert has told me on the talk page were different because the Nielsen chart used sales and the RPM chart only radio. I would have not done the splitting if this was not an issue. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't wish to have the same discussion across multiple talk pages, as I've just left an explanation on HumanxAnthro's talk page, but I think a wikilink to the current charts benefits readers more, there's precedent for doing this, and differing chart sources can be explained and linked in the prose of the citation, like the AUS chart on Duran Duran discography has. That's why I've made sure to ping Nqr9, the editor who wrote these sorts of explanatory citations on hundreds of articles, which I find very helpful and a great pre-existing compromise. It functions as both a footnote and an explanation. Ss112 16:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I just don't want readers mislead. Also, I think the Kent and ARIA overall sources should be the only ones in the album columns, since the extra chart inquiries are for singles. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
In my years of adding charts, I've seen very few people express any sort of confusion about the Kent Music Report/ARIA Chart distinction on talk pages or edit summaries. Same with Canada's or any other country's charts. It's quite clear if one clicks on the ARIA Charts page they haven't existed the entire time Duran Duran has, but even if readers don't click through, the citation explains not all the chart positions come from one source. This is why I keep bringing up the citations other editors have taken the time to compile, because they do a good job of explaining. Before I knew, they helped me. I think having a unified citation is beneficial, because otherwise we'd need a separate citation and that would require repeating sources along with the extra single sources. There's not too many that we need to split those either. Ss112 18:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Serge. Please see your email. Ss112 04:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Hi again Serge. I've sent you an email about a user you've previously warned about plagiarising sources doing so again. At the very least it's very close paraphrasing. I haven't looked through their edits enough to know how widespread it is since your warning. I'm honestly not sure they can word things themselves very well. Ss112 09:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Serge, HumanxAnthro is now randomly making personal attacks against me in edit summaries in disagreements I had nothing to do with. Ss112 21:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Serge, I'm becoming very concerned with the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of HumanxAnthro. They've just posted an extended series of mini-rants linking to a bunch of diffs of other users talking about different charts, in a thread about the Finnish chart source they've been using, on Wikipedia talk:Record charts as an excuse to attack all recent posts there they disagree with (like this). (It appears they've also repeated some personal attack against me?) More concerning however is them now essentially claiming consensus forming against them using a Finnish chart source doesn't mean anything because the users disagreeing with them are using "WP:WHOCARES arguments" here. Attention needed? It's just "I will do whatever I want even if another editor disagrees with it". Ss112 03:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'll dig into it tomorrow. Upon first glance, they certainly look like they're struggling to stay CIVIL or calm, at the very least... Sergecross73 msg me 04:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    Are they handling themselves well? No. Are they persuading others? No. Are they keeping cool? No. But unless they start overtly editing against consensus or start blatant name-calling, I'm not sure I can take action yet. Right now, it's more of a "they should want to change of their own accord because what they're doing is very obviously not working" phase. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I called it. Staying away from music charts and "not even thinking about it" didn't last very long. Several editors, including @Lil-unique1: who has now removed it from several articles, expressed a concern with the Italian Musica e dischi chart that they've just added to another article. Ss112 23:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    Final warned. Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    Ss112 and Serge, I'm staying out of charts, but may I ask why you are talking about me without notifying me that you are doing so? You're probably not intending this, but it feels like you're talking about me behind my back like I'm a villain and I'm freaked out. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    See my user page and the the top of my talk page. I invite any/all editors to come to me if they need admin intervention, especially if it's a content area I'm familiar with like music or video games. Most people add entries to the "vandalism" section at the top, but if it's something more nuanced than straight up vandalism/blocking/protection stuff, editors often make a separate section, like this one. It's not like it's anything official like ANI, so it's not like there's a requirement for anyone to be notified. Sergecross73 msg me 03:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    Also, when do you all feel comfortable with me coming back to charts or talking on WP:RECORDCHARTS, cause I don't want to stay away from this forever. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    Don't put this on anybody else. You said you would "stay away from anything chart-related" at ANI. Nobody told you to. Sergecross asked you to stop making contentious chart-related edits, including charts that others have questioned the validity of. Also, nobody has to notify the editor they're talking about—this isn't ANI. I am done having arguments with you, so please don't reply to this trying to start one with me because my patience for anything chart-related involving you is exhausted. Thank you. Ss112 02:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know how to answer that at zero days in. You really haven't even started yet, as I just gave you the final warning yesterday, and here we are talking about it again today. Try actually taking time away from the area first. Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A reason for captions

Hello, you recently asked on Sonic Frontiers why an image caption should include what can be seen by looking - those who can't see. That could be a physical disability, or reading a copy of this on a mirror with busted image links. So, please consider reading the description. Metallic Lord (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As someone who has previously worked in ADA compliance and accessibility, including with several visually-impaired individuals, it's really not necessary. Besides, clarifying the image as "third person combat" in just the description implies the existence of "first person combat" which is inaccurate. Captions should be simple and straightforward. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
As someone else who works in these areas, you are wrong. Metallic Lord (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I know the purpose of captions, that's why I objected to your addition. Perspective is rarely mentioned in them. I won't argue further, since I see that you've been blocked again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The Vesign

Draft:The Vesign is back, the sole contribution of Hiphop80546. Apparently it was created on the same day as CNET and by the same founder. Technically, I don't think it's quite G4 or G5, but it doesn't look like a welcome addition, especially as the cited pages in the NY Times etc. don't seem to exist nor be archived. Certes (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I already blocked and deleted from my own watchlist. It's a G5. -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Ferret. It's certainly a G5 now! I'll leave future cases for you to deal with and only report moles which aren't whacked promptly (some title variants may be only on my watchlist). Certes (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I've looked into the Vesign a bit. It's just some persons tiny, sloppy, start up blog, with hardly any content. I refuse to believe anyone would create an article for it besides its own creator (or someone tied to it) trying to advertise it. So please keep reporting it every time. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
There may be a wider agenda here. Between plugs for Vesign, 2409:4051:4E94:E52B:0:0:7209:4606 removed AfD and UPE tags from PharmEasy (though, to be fair, those tags had been placed by a sock from a rival farm). I'll grab my popcorn. Certes (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia eventually will devolve into rival spam gang wars. -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sign of the Sun draft

Hi! Does the Draft:Sign of the Sun now looks good for an article? I'm only asking because you moved the page to draft. Timur9008 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No, not really. I mean, come on, the "Gameplay" section is a single sentence that says there are 150 levels. That's it. Does that really feel like a coherent overview to you? Sergecross73 msg me 11:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

HimuTheEditor is now Paperpseudonym and restoring edits I reverted months ago

Hey Serge. User:HimuTheEditor claimed they were quitting, but obviously could not stay away and decided to register with a new account, Paperpseudonym (who it also appears approached you on your talk page last month). Although they haven't edited in a week, this is looking like a really transparent attempt to evade notice but yet still make the same edits, ones I reverted and you asked them to stop making, to the same topics. (Himu might think it's a WP:CLEANSTART but that does not apply if you return to the same topic areas making the same sort of edits. Also, claiming they're a "newbie" is clearly untrue.) They are again still fiddling with track listing templates, exchanging lists for commas (which is a hindrance and not beneficial) and claiming the template documentation says things it doesn't. This is just disruptive considering it's an edit I already reverted last year. I had hoped we were done with this chapter but it appears not because Himu couldn't stay away. Would you be able to give them a warning for this? I do not want to get back into having debates over track listings and it boggles my mind this is the main thing a user would edit for. Almost all of their edits are to the code of track listings on anime soundtracks as well as James Bay and Imagine Dragons albums and what should or should not be there according to their interpretation. I think they've shown they will wilfully misinterpret or claim they've read guidelines when they simply disagree with what's present on an article. Ss112 18:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

CU confirmed, also to Orangefeliscatus. Clear pattern of logging out of HimuTheEditor to use other accounts when under scrutiny. -- ferret (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ferret: Oh damn, didn't think they had done that, but should have known. Thanks Ferret. Ss112 19:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, looks like he made Orangefelicsatus after January block, used it in Feb/March, with a few random switches back to Himu. Then they suddenly "retired" on both accounts and Paperpseudonym appears the same day. -- ferret (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for that. I was just about to point out that I agreed that Paper was probably Himu since he was editing Himu's relatively obscure rejected draft article, and you had already confirmed it and more. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Never give advice to editors on Wikipedia unless solicited because it's "patronising"?

Hey Serge. I'm having a discussion with Tbhotch about the images they added yesterday on their talk page. I expected it to be simple, and the response to be like "okay, got it". Not so. No idea why they're so mad at me, but they've just claimed, after I pointed out image use and accessibility policy to them (and said alt= should be present per WP:ALT), that advice should not be given on Wikipedia unless it's asked for, otherwise it's "patronising". Do you think this is worth you stepping in to word things in a better way? Obviously I can't get through. That sort of mentality—the "don't tell me anything because I know everything", or acting like it—is not helpful whatsoever. I understand perhaps being irked, but I can't believe an experienced editor is telling me "don't remind me of policies or changes to guidelines" unless they ask for it. How else do editors learn? Not everybody keeps up with everything. Anyway, I feel like any further responses from me or them will not be helpful, so was wondering if it's worth you chipping in. Thanks. Ss112 19:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll agree that his response is baffling, and not a stance I'd recommend, but he's technically free to have it at this point. I'll chime in if he keeps doing it though. It's one thing to be grumpy about being informed about something. But it's entirely another one to ignore it and keep doing it wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Update on vgm soundtracks streaming

Hey Serge long time no see. I am just wondering this might sound like an interview but how did u come up with the idea for vgm streaming list. Because you put the list at the right place at the right time because it is not incredibly handy considering not every game has their OST on streaming services. So I want to ask how did u convince Wikipedia to approve your article. Also it would also be good to circle back at it to see the progress and if they are any room for improvements. Thanks Serge! NakhlaMan (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you please perma lock Mortal Kombat II

The vandal from Australia is back and keeps changing the date to June 25, 1993. I brought this up last year but nothing was done. User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 82#Long term abuse user:Disturbedasylum. I mean its no different than what user:bambifan101 does to Disney articles. The user is just gonna keep changing the date back Fruitloop11 (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like I asked you for more evidence last year, and you never provided me with any. Same thing right now. I need more context. I have no idea what day this game came out. Are there reliable sources that verify dates? Is there a discussion with a consensus for what the correct date is? And someone is editing against consensus? I'm not even seeing much of a current edit war at the article. I only see 3 edits for this month at the article, none of them appear to be back-and-forth reverts.
I didn't see any evidence of this sort of stuff at a quick glance, so as is, there's really nothing I can take action in here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
oh my goodness. Its obviously the same guy. Cant you or another admin do a wp:CHECK on the IPs that keep changing the date. I mean why do the Disney articles get locked because of user:bambifan101 but this guy can vandalize the MK 2 release date year after year after year?--Fruitloop11 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You need to provide your own evidence. Unless it's blatant vandalism - let's say an IP that renamed "Sega Genesis" to "Sega Poop" five times in a row in a day - I need evidence of what you're proposing and/or that there's a policy being broken. This is not a rare stance of mine - you'd get the same response if you asked another admin or submitted something vague like this to WP:RPP, which you're free to do if you don't like my answer. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Fruitloop11 Hold up. The current "Arcade" release date is what's in question? And it's sourced to a TV show that aired 11 years after the game was released? Here's the show. At timestamp 12:50 (or around there), Mortal Kombat II is mentioned simply as being released in April 1993, no date. Where is the date coming from? -- ferret (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I've since updated the date to simply 1993, and opened a talk page discussion. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

ds

Hello, Serge. I have spent the last month or so in exile, attempting to learn more about the editing process of Wikipedia, specifically what constitutes a constructive, positive edit, and what is not. I have discovered a lot of new tools, methods, and guidelines and regulations, which now allow me a better understanding of this site and its purpose. I have reviewed my past edits on the Nintendo DS article, and I'm genuinely sorry for being so stubborn, rude and arrogant, not only with the content of my edits, but specifically with the summaries provided with them. I'm truly surprised that I wasn't permanently banned, at least from editing. But I'm very grateful that I wasn't, because rather than being punished and ridiculed, I felt you had given me an opportunity to learn and grow, and I wanted to take that step. I now feel I at least have a better understanding than when I started, and I attempted to make a decent edit on the Nintendo DS article, fixing the broken CS1 references I had added, citing WP:MOS and cleaning up the article, and reviewing the talk page for any signs of activity or discussion. By taking all of these steps, I feel that I have genuinely written a better edit, and it is all thanks to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhichUserAmI (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're being honest, that's great. But that said....I have some questions about what you're doing with your talk page... Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I truly am, I appreciate your kindness and I have respect for you not being hasty and rash in your decision-making. However my talk page is coming along nicely at this point, if it were up to me it would have been up for FL or FA class nomination by now. Seriously though, if it's an issue I can revert it WhichUserAmI? message me 04:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@WhichUserAmI Talk pages are for other editors to communicate with you, and the spam content you're placing there makes that very difficult. If you really insist on having all those repeated boxes and images, they would belong on your User page instead. -- ferret (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for maintaining civility, levelheadedness, and respect to others in contentious situations where some may resort to anger, cruelty or disrespectful actions. Your positive presence is very much appreciated! WhichUserAmI? message me 19:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Personnel editor still going after years of warnings

Hi Serge. I've just written to the editor Joshuadejohnson that their separation of musicians from technical personnel into separate second-level headings is not supported per WP:PERSONNEL, but after I took a look through their talk page—at first glance, it appeared to be all disambiguation notices—they have been asked to stop these unexplained edits since 2014. Their catch-all summary of "added links" is not a suitable nor sufficient explanation for what they're doing, and even if they did supply one, they've been asked to stop this separation and WP:OVERLINKING for years. They're still changing the personnel section of hundreds of articles per month with links to very well known instruments like flute and multiple editors—namely Walter Görlitz, but also Binksternet, Geach, SnapSnap—have asked them to stop to little avail (and a couple brief responses) multiple times, including with template warnings (I think I even saw final warning in there somewhere). It clearly bothers a number of experienced editors and Joshuadejohnson has been made aware but no change has occurred—they are still doing the same separation and overlinking every day. Is this clear-cut disruption for a block or a final warning from an admin type deal? As I said to them, this really does need to stop. The more I see that they've done on thousands of articles and been told not to, it's just tantamount to disruption that's unlikely to stop. Ss112 06:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

LTA 米記123

New sock,User:Queen-Divas. MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure it's them? The edits are equally pointless, but usually it seems like they add and remove a link of sorts, not just a space. Regardless, they appear to have stopped of their own accord. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I am very sure,please see Brinkofaw,Y-Point edit.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

219.77.200.0/22.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you link me to things in WP:DIF form? It makes things easier to dig into... Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
[2], [3] vs [4],main account and 218.250.188.0/22,219.77.200.0/22 have many add and delete edit in one minute,also,this two IP ranges have been blocked in zh.wiki.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor has received a final warning for unsourced material, still adding unsourced info

Hi Serge. I've given the editor Bibian48 multiple warnings over the last few months, including a final warning in April, which they did not heed and called an "immature and nonsensical threat". They then made another unsourced round of edits in May 2022 to Doja Cat discography, which I asked them not to do, and made another unsourced edit just now at Lizzo's discography. I don't think a final final warning from an admin is going to do anything. Is it time for a short block? Ss112 20:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor implies I should prove notability for articles they created?

Hi Serge. I had a discussion about the notability of a few of an editor's articles on another editor's talk page, then the editor whose articles they were found the discussion and subsequently accused me of "bullying" and "hounding"...despite the fact they invited themselves to a discussion I never tagged them in. I've had some disagreements with this editor, but the notability of articles they have created is a different matter. They also claimed, in the same message where they hypocritically accused me of hounding, that there is some responsibility ("onus" was the word they used) on me or an editor who doubts notability of a topic to "perform a quick Google search" to...prove notability for topics they've created articles on? I don't know how to get through to editors like this, and they've now forbade me from posting on their talk page after all of my three threads there. (I don't really want to post there, to be fair; in the last disagreement we had there they felt the cringeworthy need to shoehorn in the word "based" for some reason, and then they tried to claim they weren't actually trying to say something they had literally said two messages prior, so this editor really isn't one for sticking by what they've said.) I know WP:BURDEN refers to the burden of verifiability and not notability, but I think WP:N kind of says as much. What are your thoughts on this? Side note: If this fairly new editor (6,000 edits, registered in late 2020 but took a significant break between 2021 and 2022) gets to be more of a problem, I will inform you of it, but this isn't specifically about them but more what they said. Ss112 06:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

They've escalated things to ANI, so that one should probably be played out there, not here. Sorry. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Repeated copyright infringement—whole talk page full of copyvio warnings and files uploaded without licensing

Afí-afeti has a whole talk page full of editors warning them about copying without permission, and files that have been speedily deleted for lacking licensing information (with basically all deleted). I've just found them plagiarising again on Free Mind—they passed off a whole section as their own words, plagiarising directly from two sources without denoting they were quotes. I think this is another case of an editor who doesn't know how to write English very well, like Tim96144, so they just plagiarise. Ss112 10:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Final warned. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Two years of warnings

Krotch Lockman has been warned for two years for making disruptive edits, edits against the MOS, and a couple of months ago by me for adding unsourced information, to which they replied sarcastically. They were given a final warning earlier this month by FlightTime, who had earlier given them advice, which they ignored. Still making unsourced edits. I think enough is enough here... Ss112 10:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree that his past warnings (and reactions to them) are bad, and they've been warned enough, but kind of waiting for a stronger violation to happen before blocking them. The last few have been okay so I'm holding off for now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism pt 29

Serge's 29th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Hey Serge. Would you be able to protect Crash (Charli XCX album) and Love. Angel. Music. Baby.? An IP editor that @Binksternet: says is sockpuppeter User:Andrewbf is repeatedly restoring misinformed edits and making all sorts of the same edits on the range 189.174.12.253/16. Ss112 13:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey Serge. After To the Moon (song) was unprotected, another one of these "Mercedes King" accounts has come out of the work to re-add her name: Bobcelestin, who seemingly tried to start a draft for her a few years ago that went nowhere. I don't know how many accounts this clout-chasing, fake social following-having supposed songwriter who got her name on the American copyright office filing for a British song has, but they're persistent. Could you re-protect the page? Ss112 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi! Do you mind decreasing the protection level of List of video games in development? It has been permanently protected for nearly nine years. These lists will benefit a lot if drive-by IP editors also have access to editing. OceanHok (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Typically we need to ask the protecting admin, SQL. I don't think it should be an issue though. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Ferret: I'm running out the door to work, but it sounds like it may have been a mistake. Feel free to drop the protection if you believe it is appropriate. SQLQuery Me! 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    It strikes me as the type of article that would be a magnet for trouble, so I could hypothetically see how one could give it indef protection status. I don't mind unprotecting if that's what everyone wants, but I think we should keep a close eye on it in case it needs it again. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Pages of similar nature ("years in video games" articles) are surprisingly well-maintained even when IP editors are the main driving force behind it. I will still keep the article watchlisted though, and will request protection again when it is needed. OceanHok (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, that is surprising, considering how much some of the video game generation type articles need protection. But so be it, I believe you. I've dropped the protection. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Denise p 111 (talk · contribs) Every single one of this person's mainspace edits has been reverted, ending now in mass censorship of bad words. Naturally, obviously, they don't care. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 06:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    Doesn't warrant a block at this time, clearly good faith and no further edit since level 3 warning. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. It's a bit irritating, but relatively little damage is actually being done, considering the scope and (lack of) frequency of the edits. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Missileboi (talk · contribs) You can see a list of warnings against disruptive editing on his Talk page, and the only response he's ever had to anyone is when he blanked it. Good news! By decree of his user page, original research is now called clarification, and disruptive editing is nobody's fault. It just happens. That sure does relieve me a lot, because not doing those things sure was a lot of work. About half of his edits have been reverted because they are all WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT, destroying the indentation of infoboxes, WP:OR, and creating junk articles. Just don't talk to him about it because I sure wouldn't want you to suffer being hushed. Officially WP:NOTHERE. — Smuckola(talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    I only want to add small bits of information that are missing. Some may not have any sources cited, but please, I don't want to have my edits reverted for reasons such as, "Stop (destroying the page) with your disruptive editing". Yes, it is natural to do excessive, and sometimes disruptive editing, I understand. But I am not trying to destroy the site in any way. I am writing this as clarification. And also, what do you mean by 'destroying the indentation of infoboxes'? Am I doing something wrong with editing the infoboxes? Missileboi (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    I need you guys to work together. Adding sources on Wikipedia is non-negotiable. It must be done. And you must respond and engage with people when they confront you about these things. But Smuckola, I need you to be a bit calmer in confronting people as well. It seems this editor is, in good-faith, confused about what some of these issues are all about. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Jgd2323 (talk · contribs) Keeps adding himself (extrapolating based on his username) as a 2022 draft pick of the Washington Commanders. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know enough about football to know if these could be construed as good faith but misguided edits, and was going to ask follow up questions, but the account has gone silent in recent days, so it may have taken care of itself too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hasn't yet returned but just for future reference, a year's draft class can easily be verified from a multitude of sources, including Pro Football Reference and NFL.com. There is no Jonas Gonzalez. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • RMc (talk · contribs) The classic is back in the saddle. I'm sure you remember blocking him several times, and then indefinitely for years, for all the rants and essays of original research, and the verbal war against you and i, and the explicit commitment to only doing so, that he just now blanked and resumed. I hadn’t yet reverted the radio station edit because I wanted to give the slightest shred of a shadow of a doubt that the given source had updated itself, and that a broken clock could be right once a day, but I can’t find the number 250 anywhere relevant. — Smuckola(talk) 20:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    The block log shows that I merely blocked him for 3 months, and he just voluntarily took 7 years off after that. The two warnings he's gotten are probably sufficient for now - the edits are unsourced but appear to be made in good faith - but if they don't rectify it soon I can see a block being appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
And let's add a sockpuppet suspect ConcordGrapes (talk · contribs) — Smuckola(talk) 23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like he was indeffed before I even looked into him. Though a comment at ANI indicated that a CU was ran and they're somehow unrelated to RmC. So it appears we don't have the evidence to hold that against RmC at this time. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Warned. I agree, they need to get it together, it's been a number of months now... Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'm also suggest an ultimatum to him that, if he does make an edit that's reverted, he does not revert it back. He engages in edit warring on almost all these bad edits and I see that as more problematic than the edits themselves. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_91&oldid=1101755592"